I’m finding this a topic that often gets brought up dialoguing with atheists. Which feels a bit odd when you consider how fundamental the Bible was to the whole abolition of slavery; here in the UK at any rate!
First then: the new testament makes it very clear indeed that slavery is evil; look at how in 1 Timothy 1:10 it denounces slave trading as an evil alongside murder (v9). But it’s not just that verse. Galatians 3:28 makes clear that, in the community Jesus’ gospel is creating, the slave/free distinction is and must be abolished; ie, if you are a free man you must treat the slave with love and honour just like yourself. Then concretely, as the NT’s contents became agreed, this topic was so important that one of Paul’s letters recognized for inclusion is mostly about how this should be worked out in practice (Philemon) – and at Paul the church leader’s own expense, as he commits to pay for anything the slave has done wrong (v19). It’s true that Paul didn’t make demolishing the slavery system his top priority; this would have meant fostering a Mediterranean-wide slave revolt, and it’s hard to see how he could have done that while starting the church across the Roman world. (But it was through this that, in the end, slavery was abolished for the first time in history!) But what Paul did was teach about it very clearly indeed. Historically the driving force behind the unprecedented 19th-century abolition of slavery was people shaped by the new testament, and such passages as these were the reason.
It is in the new testament that we see God’s purposes most clearly; and there is in the Bible what we call `progressive revelation` – God didn’t always release His full light on a topic straightaway, even on subjects as massive and crucial as His incarnation and His crucifixion. But what does the old testament say about an `ebed`? First, it’s good to be aware that this Hebrew word `ebed`, sometimes translated `slave`, doesn’t mean what we might expect. The translation `slave` in some versions of parts of Exodus 21 is unfortunate (the AV uses `servant` and `maid`), since elsewhere `ebed` can mean working man, or husbandman, or royal official (ie the king’s servant), or even worshipper; and in Exodus 21 the NIV jumps between servant and slave for the same Hebrew word. This broad range of meaning is not surprising, since when God called Israel they were self-consciously a nation of runaway slaves; so it’s not surprising that, though they did inherit the near-eastern system of labour, it went into a process of transformation. In Exodus it’s striking practically that an `ebed` can expect the authorities’ protection against their boss, and the boss can be seriously punished for their mistreatment of an `ebed`(21:20).
There’s lots we could say about the details in Exodus. But what’s surely most important is that Exodus commands (21:16) that kidnapping, or slave- or servant-trafficking, and even being found in possession/control of such an unfortunate person, are punishable by nothing less than death. Particularly given the fact that Deuteronomy 23:15-16 has the command, unparalleled in any surrounding culture, that a runaway `ebed` should not be handed over; which would have undermined the entire system if it had been equivalent to what we call slavery. In fact in the long term being an `ebed` can be voluntary; Exodus 21 arranges a ceremony for the `ebed` who prefers the arrangement they have and doesn’t want to be free.
The bottom line for me, though, is that here, as elsewhere in the old testament, God is slowly and progressively sorting out the mess of human relationships, sometimes at this stage by doing no more than limit the lengths to which an evil can go. (In the fullness of time Jesus goes beyond that, eg in the sermon on the mount, Matthew 5 – eg 5:38 quoting this same Exodus 21). And so (as in other passages too) we have to read the old in the light of the new testament (eg 1 Tim 1:10 and Gal 3:28 quoted above). And let’s note again, the actual practical effect on people like Wilberforce of what the Bible says about these things, was that they poured out their lives till the whole vile system of slavery (and also of child labour) was abolished; and Jesus’ followers, followers of the Bible, are being motivated by Jesus and the Bible to give their lives still (alongside atheists obviously!) for the same things. That was the actual effect of feeding on what the Bible has to say on these things.
But as we have said, the Hebrew `ebed` system was clearly not what we, recalling particularly the horrors perpetrated across the Atlantic, call slavery. Neither in fact was the Roman system, although it was much worse than the Hebrew system. Even Roman `slavery` was not permanent; there was not a big separation between slave and free; it might even be entered into voluntarily as a means to a special job, or to climbing the social ladder. (See PS.) Under Claudius, the Empire was virtually run by two freed slaves. I gather that Roman slaves could become doctors, actors or civil servants, and were often encouraged to have a side business so as to buy themselves free. Nevertheless, abominable and hideously cruel things could and frequently did happen within the Roman system; and we find Paul telling Philemon to treat his fellow-Christian Onesimus `no longer as a slave but … as a dear brother… both as a man and as a brother in the Lord` (Philemon 16, NIV). This must have transformed the whole situation within the Bible-obeying church.
Tragically, however, the institutional church then allowed itself to lose the centrality of the Bible, until the Reformation. Even so, church Councils in the early part of the last millennium kept denouncing the practice; in 1102 for example, the church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: `Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals….` But we need to ask: who eventually broke slavery, and why?
Melvyn Bragg, author of The Book of Books (not apparently a committed Christian as we understand it), writes, `In every recorded civilisation we have the acceptance of slavery. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, African kings, Indian princes, Chinese war lords… For millennia it seemed a natural and inevitable part of the human condition. But here it was abolished: perhaps the greatest humanising act in history.` Why? (It was immensely costly: compensating the planters for the freed slaves cost a sum up to half the British government’s annual budget!) Bragg says: `The abolition of slavery was driven by the King James Bible… People like William Wilberforce, who had a revelation after reading the Bible and saw it was his mission to have the slave trade abolished, embarked on a passionate Christian mission fuelled by a daily reading of the King James Bible. He finally succeeded, at the cost of his health and his fortune.` It was when the church rediscovered the Bible that, for the first time in history, slavery was doomed.
The Bible and slavery: Bragg notes also the massively significant influence of the Bible on the slaves themselves. Black slaves in their millions in America educated themselves through the King James Bible (taken to them first by English preachers like George Whitefield). Many preached it and became leaders. They read it, read Exodus, saw how Moses had said to the king about the enslaved Jews “Let my people go,” and this became their rallying cry. Bragg notes that this pattern reaches all the way through to Martin Luther King: the people who really moved the non-violent civil rights movement forward in America were the black, Protestant Bible-lovers saying ‘Set my people free’ and quoting from Isaiah. `When Martin Luther King was shot he was alluding to the King James Bible`…
(For further reading on this, see ch.4 of Tim Keller’s brilliant The Reason for God; also Ernest Marshall Howse’s excellent Open University set text on Wilberforce and his (radical and unpopular!) group, titled Saints in Politics: the “Clapham sect” and the growth of freedom. This also chronicles their impact on emancipation throughout the British territories, education of the common people (and particularly in India), the reform of the whole penal and judicial system, and industrial and parliamentary reform.)
PS Regarding the Roman system, I found this interesting by Alice Twain: `A major problem we have today is that our perception of slavery is hugely marked by the colonial slavery in the Americas. Roman slavery was hugely more nuanced. The most common class of slaves were more akin to indentured workers, and usually only spent so many years in slavery. Slaves could own property, businesses, and even other slaves of their own. Some slaves lived quite splendid lives. A common habit was for rich Romans to free all of their slaves when they died, and many other times the slaves themselves bought their freedom…
Rural slaves had fewer advantages, and had an in-between status. It was harder for them to buy themselves out, but they would still be manumitted quite frequently. Slaves in the silver mines or in similar roles belonged to a completely different class: they were either prisoners of war that didn’t surrender or criminals sentenced to slavery in the mines. It was essentially a death sentence. They could not be manumitted and their life was very short.
Slaves were not used on war ships (too dangerous to do so), but could be employed on commercial ships. That was actually a sought after role, as long as you were young and fit, because commercial rowers could do a little trading of their own: with their savings they bought small amounts of goods that they could then sell at the next port. It was often pretty lucrative, and a good enough job for slaves and also free men.
Manumission was made easier because the freed slaves didn’t exactly leave the former owner’s family. They became liberti and clientes of their former owner, still obliged by gratitude to support their former owners. Their children could become citizens, but would still be clientes and vote for the former owner, or for whom the former owner told them to vote.
So, how much free time did slaves have? Far more than a plantation slave in Barbados. They would have time to visit the baths more or less every day. If they worked for the owner’s business they still stopped working at noon like everyone else. If they worked in a business that remained open through the afternoon (like the baths or the tavernae) they would work through the afternoon, true, but so did their owners, and often they had free time in the morning and evening.’
