Slavery is objectionable. I get that.
I don’t want to imply slavery is a perfect, all-inclusive way of describing the Christian’s relationship with God. Sounds small to me. And if you don’t think of yourself as a slave, this might not change your mind – and I’m not necessarily here to do that.
What I’d like to do is open you to a different perspective, a perspective that often goes overlooked. To help flesh that out, here are my responses to eight common objections to slavery and how it relates to Christian life.
Objections:
- Slaves have no choice
- Slaves are blind followers
- Slavery implies cruelty
- Slavery has a bad reputation
- Slaves earn their livelihood
- Slavery doesn’t apply to Christians
- Slaves aren’t invested
- God doesn’t call us slaves
[Note: This is a long read for a post (1,700+ words), so you might consider breaking it into sections, skimming it, or giving up on it altogether. 
Just a warning.]
Objection 1: Slaves have no choice
“Slaves have no freedom – they’re taken against their will.”
Yes, they do have choice – they can disobey. Of course their master would probably take away their food rations or whip them or lock their thumbs in stocks, but they can choose that outcome.
Yes, I realize this is a snarky answer. It’s a crucial distinction, though, because we usually assume away those lousy options. Slaves always have a choice, but the consequences of disobedience are too terrible to consider.
That’s right on with the gospel. You and I can do what we want, but we won’t like the consequences. It’s not like God wants to punish us – in fact, He’s trying not to. But He’ll always let us choose, even if it squashes our souls.
A more sophisticated question might ask if forcing anyone to make such a decision is right. But that doesn’t conflict with Christianity because we already accept that everyone must make a decision to either obey or disobey God.
Our options are open, just like a slave’s – but just like the slave, we don’t want to consider the disobedient side.
Objection 2: Slaves are blind followers
“Slaves don’t know what they’re doing – they follow because they have to.”
If you get past the part about slaves always having a choice, this one stops making sense as well.
Slaves are aware of their choice to obey. They know or at least have a good idea of the consequences of not following. I’d guess slaves follow even closer than those who have nothing at risk. They might not always understand the overall plan of the master, but they certainly know the details of what they’re supposed to do.
As Christians who’ve heard the gospel message, we’re in the same position. We’re not blind followers. You and I know where sin leads – but we also know where Christ leads. We might not understand everything, but we pay close attention.
Objection 3: Slavery implies cruelty
“When we think of slavery, we think of cruelty, poor conditions, and excessive labor.”
As difficult as it is to swallow, what’s so bad about cruelty?
This objection starts with false assumptions. We assume cruelty, poor conditions, and excessive labor are morally wrong. But in slavery, why’s it wrong? If the master owns the slave, then the master can do whatever he wants with his property.
You and I object because we don’t go far enough in understanding that slaves are property (and as a result, have no rights of their own), and we are God’s property.
The common secular argument against slavery usually cites some intrinsic human value or right.
I don’t believe in human rights, and I don’t believe in intrinsic human value. Just like anything else, humans are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. The only value we have is the value God places on us and pays for us.
And God did pay for us, even after creating us, so we belong to Him. We might object to humans owning other humans, but that doesn’t apply to God. God does own humans. Since we’re God’s property, He can do what He wants with us.
Thankfully for us, God loves and wants what’s best for us, but He has every right to do anything He wants. There’s nothing wrong with a craftsman using his chisel however he wants, even if it means destroying it.
This knowledge is what leads you and I to such intense thankfulness… because we recognize that God really could lock our thumbs in the stocks, or worse, but instead He blesses us.
Objection 4: Slavery has a bad reputation
“I understand what you’re saying, Marshall, but is this the best image to present for Christianity, considering the reputation?”
Christianity has a bad reputation too, but that’s no reason to gloss over it, right?
Would I introduce slavery to someone who’s on the fence about Christ? Well, perhaps not. Perhaps it’s too intense at first (but so is starting with Jesus dying and coming back to life).
Then again, perhaps I would. I do here. Part of the challenge in explaining anything to an unsaved person is keeping it simple and practical. I think slavery fits both those, and I don’t think it’s necessarily something to shy away from explaining, even to someone without much Christian background.
If slavery’s that much of a turn off, so is believing that Jesus is Lord (they go together).
Objection 5: Slaves earn their livelihood
“A slave earns his right to life by the work he performs, but we don’t have to earn salvation.”
That’s only partly accurate (the salvation part is entirely accurate). Sure, a slave might receive better treatment for obeying, but I don’t think it’s direct compensation.
Slaves don’t earn wages. Slaves don’t strike bargains. I have a hard time thinking of slaves as receiving compensation for their labor. Isn’t that what separates slaves from servants or the surfs of the Middle Ages?
Instead of compensation, slaves are treated better or worse depending on how much their master likes them, but that speaks more to the master’s character than to the slave’s work.
I find that comparison much closer to how God chooses to bless us, based on His character, not our labor.
Objection 6: Slavery doesn’t apply to Christians
“Galatians 4:7 says, “Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”
This is certainly one of the trickiest objections. I struggled (and still struggle) with it too. Of course, I can only agree what what the Bible says in that passage.
At the same time (same book even), we read…
“For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.” -Galatians 1:10
And the word “bondservant” here is the same word as in Galatians 4:7 where it’s translated as “slave.” In fact, as you know, it’s not just in Galatians:
“Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ…” -Romans 1:1
“Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ…” -Philippians 1:1
“Epaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ…” -Colossians 4:12
“James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ…” -James 1:1
And on and on.
So going off the Scripture, it seems to me that slave and child both apply at the same time depending on the specific perspectives. And I love that. I love that we’re children and disciples and friends and slaves of Jesus Christ.
Objection 7: Slaves aren’t invested
“A slave does not have a vested interest in his master’s business while a son does in his Father’s business.”
Without a closer relationship, how can you and I care about the work God calls us to do? Aren’t we just doing it out of duty instead of out of a desire to further glorify God?
This comes back to our motives. Why are we serving God? Why are we choosing to submit to Him?
The only way slaves can be invested in their master’s projects is if they care for their master. And that’s the beauty of God’s work through our lives. He isn’t a tyrant. He isn’t a domineering slave driver. He’s a caring master who wants what’s best for us.
Perhaps the father/child metaphor does work better here. But somehow realizing how feeble I am as a slave makes God’s blessings that much sweeter and drives me to love Him back.
Remember: we’re only thankful for what we know we don’t deserve.
Objection 8: God doesn’t call us slaves
“The word ‘slave’ is debasing, while Christ called us friends and made it possible for us to be sons and daughters of God.”
This is almost the same as Objection 6. But the question here is, if God doesn’t call us slaves, should we?
Consider this: a king or president or anyone in authority might ask us to call him “Jon” instead of “Lord High Jon the Majestic,” and we’d feel honored. But does that negate the authority?
I think the same applies to God. God, in His love for us, doesn’t order us around the way we would imagine a slave driver to order around his slaves. But that doesn’t necessarily abolish the master/slave relationship.
As I said in the comments before, I don’t think it’s either/or – I think it’s both (or all). I bring up the slave side because it’s the perspective that’s ignored, even though the Bible and the disciples and Jesus support it as well.
“And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.” -Mark 10:44
Serving Suggestions:
(1) What do you think? Did these hit on some of your biggest doubts about slavery?
(2) Update me. What else would you like me to explore about slavery? If you add suggestions in the comments, I might bump them up into the post here. I’m still trying to wrap my head around slavery as much as anyone, so I’d love to get your response.
*****
[Thanks to Patricia, Bernard, and Stuart who commented on the other post and those who emailed me suggestions on this. I'm always interested in your thoughts and how I can make this site better. Thank you for helping.]
Objection 6: Slaves aren’t invested
“A slave does not have a vested interest in his master’s business while a son does in his Father’s business.”
Twitter Updates
I think I saw 8 posts in one. It’s tomorrow so I will read this when I awake. Look forward to this.
Yeah, I thought about breaking it into a series, but who wants to read a series about this for that long? :>)
Plus, I figured I’d add to this as more things come up. Let me know your thoughts once you do skim through it some more.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Hey, Marshall, just lettin ya know I have read this, raised my eyebrows a few times, and respectfully disagree with some of your points.
There’s also a possible objection raised because of a modern connotation associated with sex slaves that could be something someone willingly submits to or is forced to submit to in an entirely different context.
I really do think there’s a chunk of this that is highly problematic. I think the key statement that makes all these other points really useless to discuss comes in #3, where you say “I don’t believe in human rights, and I don’t believe in intrinsic human value.”
That’s a mouthful, and once I read that, none of the other arguments mean anything at all to me, because there is just no way on earth that I could ever agree with that statement.
Our foundations are far apart in this regard. I believe that man is created in the image of God, different from animals for a reason (logical thought and the existence of the soul), and is a special part of God’s creation. I believe that life itself is a gift from God and is to be regarded as worthwhile and exceedingly valuable. Some of your statements regarding cruelty and ownership are exceptionally troublesome, because I fear they represent a detachment from the mantra of loving our neighbor as ourselves that God Himself has commanded. I refuse to be convinced that one human owning another fits with that divine insistence.
Thus, justifying slavery to God by saying that the earthly conditions of slavery are justifiable due to human rights not existing, rather blows me away on this fine, beautiful Thursday morning.
It’s definitely an interesting POV and it makes me think, but it troubles me fairly extensively that using slavery as an analogy of the Christian life results in a discourse that basically justifies human slavery. I really hope that’s not what you’ve intended, but that’s at least how this reads “to me”.
Have a great day!
Yes, thank you for bringing that point up, Bernard.
I almost didn’t include the statement about intrinsic human value because it totally opens another can. I did a followup about rights today that starts into that discussion a little more.
To get at the heart of the matter, though, my question for you is this: what does “intrinsic value” mean? More specifically, what does “intrinsic” mean? (I think that’s where we differ most.)
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Hi everyone,
I wasn’t clear on that third point, so I apologize for that. I don’t think slavery to God is justified because slavery to humans is justified. I’m not arguing here that humans can or should own other humans.
I updated the post slightly to hopefully help with that distinction. It used to say, “The master owns the slave, so the master can do whatever he wants with his property.” I meant that more hypothetically, so I changed it: “If the master owns the slave, then the master can do whatever he wants with his property.”
Also, I added parts here: “And God did pay for us, even after creating us, so we belong to Him. We might object to humans owning other humans, but that doesn’t apply to God. God does own humans. Since we’re God’s property, He can do what He wants with us.”
I’m sure that’s still pretty shaky for a lot of you, but I hope it helps a little.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
[Thanks, Bernard, for the pointer.]
I will just put a
to encourage you.
God Bless
Thanks for your encouragement, bro.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
To me, intrinsic carries the connotation of demanding a certain price even if no one wants to buy it. In other words, free market prices and the laws of supply and demand don’t apply. Having more human beings around to fulfill the need doesn’t decrease their “price”, neither does having fewer human beings increase their intrinsic value.
I’m pretty sure this question is absolutely unsolvable.
hahaha You might be right there.
Thanks for the response. I think we at least agree on a couple points.
I like the way you put that about “intrinsic.” Intrinsic value is a value that’s in the thing regardless of anything else, so we agree there. Woohoo!
And I certainly think God places a value on human life and wants us to respect that, which is why I don’t believe in, say, slaughtering innocent people. I think we agree there too. Woohoo #2!
But I also think that apart from God, we have no value. Are we “woohooing” here too? This might be where our paths separate.
I don’t think humans have intrinsic value because I think human value is directly tied to the value God places on human life.
For me, that’s not intrinsic – because if God somehow stopped valuing us this way, that “intrinsic” value would be shot. I think it’s pointless to argue human value apart from God, which is why without God, Ethics have such big problems for me.
When God first created Adam and Eve, perhaps they did have intrinsic value… back when God “saw that it was good” (even then, that seems conditional on what God values). But now that sin’s involved, I don’t think that intrinsic value is possible.
That’s where I’m coming from with my statement about not believing in intrinsic value. In other words, I think what we really mean by “intrinsic” is “God given” or “God defined,” not something independent of God.
Hopefully, that makes a leettle more sense. As you said, it still might be inconceivable to reconcile,
but I hope you can at least see how I got here, see the path to wackoness…
-Marshall Jones Jr.
I still want to go through this post. Maybe I’ll make more time this weekend. I have all the time in the world. Sorry for my neglectfulness.
No worries, David. I’ll be here, and I’m not in a hurry.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
erm Wow!
I can’t say I agree with most of what you’ve typed. Forget the #3 human rights slip
, it’s just I can’t get past your “I’m sticking to this use of the slave word” approach.
That said I do applaud you for sticking to your guns but some of your points are tenuous at best!
Let me just say this in counter-debate:
Yes, God permitted slaves and / or the institution of slavery but He didn’t allow for the mis-treatment of them.
Additionally when you were a slave in the OT it was for a period of six years and after that you were to be released with enough to prevent you needing to re-sell yourself into slavery again. Note that there is a choice there to sell yourself into slavery.
Lastly, the bondservant bit kicks in after this. You’ve served your 6yrs. You’ve been released but you decide you want to remain – at this point your ear is nailed to a doorpost. This is a willing and free choice made after having already served a period of slavery (I’d love to emphasise the ‘served’ bit there) but then it is for life.
For me, my objections really boil down to this.
Slave – no choice
Servant = free will choice
Bondservant = free will choice to remain as a slave.
Yep, I definitely agree with the bondservant part. That’s exactly where all this comes from. I love the explanation in the OT about it.
As I said somewhere up there, though, “bondservant” in the New Testament translates as “slave,” not as the Old Testament version of bondservant that you described. That’s where I wanted to make the distinction… which is coming in the next post about this.
Once a bondservant gets his ear pierced, he’s in… he can’t leave after that. This isn’t a promotion for a “once saved, always saved” position as much as it is for committing deeply and thoroughly to God.
I like “slave” because it means I don’t have to make the decisions. I just obey, I just follow, and I just fall into the relationship with God.
Admittedly, I went with “slave” because it’s provocative. Every Christian says “servant,” but few believe it. I think in general we’ve lost touch with what “servant” really means, at least lost touch with the commitment it implies. So that’s why I bring all this up.
As a question, though, would it have made much difference if I’d started with “bondslave” instead of just “slave”? In other words, is it the “bond” (the lack of choice) part that really causes the biggest issue? (I had planned to write about that in the fourth post, but I wonder if perhaps I should have started that way.)
I appreciate you sharing and responding, Stuart. Your thoughts, especially in this last comment, are fantastic. And I totally understand where you’re coming from.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Marshall – but being provocative with other christians isn’t becessarily a good thing to do. Myself, I enjoy a good debate but others just see it as argument and due to lack of education get offended rather thandebate their point.
But, back to the point …
In the OT bondservant is ‘doulos’ which literally tanslates to slave as you state. However i’s meaning was always associated with bondservant and never just as slave.
Modernising that to teh NT we have ‘ebed’ in hebrew which translates as servant (not slave) and again implies / means bondservant.
This is the core of the issue for me. My reading of the translations from the original is not as you see it. And Bernard’s comment below mine hits the nail – it’s the use of slave without the bond. The bond implies willingness, whereas slave never does.
You say you like slave because you don’t have to make a choice. But where were we ever commanded to be slaves in our commitment to and love of God? Demands to obey, yes, but never a “you must” in the NT. And after all without dragging up a law or not argument we are now under grace.
I think your articles are excellent but let’s just replace the slave with servant and I’m with you. It’s not offensive, it’s not demeaning, it’s not demanding but it is willing, it is expectant, it is free will choice. So yes, saying slave as opposed to bondslave would have made a difference – I ‘d still prefer the bondSERVANT phrase though
And the one thing that sets us apart from other religions and animals is the free will choice we get to make.
You’re right about the argumentative/provocative part – I lean on the wrong side, methinks. Ignoring that…
I actually got a little confused on the different words too, so I tried looking them up again.
Ebed: Hebrew = Old Testament. It’s used all over the place, ranging from the Israelite slaves in Egypt to the bondservant reference in Leviticus (or even softer, like when a friend is indicating he’s submitted to another friend).
Doulos: Greek = New Testament. Again, seems to go either way.
So from a word for word translation, I don’t think this is going to help much. The meaning seems to shift depending on context. I’m way over my head in this, though.
I started into this primarily because of the reference in Romans 6, which we’ll hit on this week.
But here’s where I think I went wrong: according to the translation, it could literally go either way, slave or servant (or bondservant, bondslave, bondsman, etc.)… but in English and particularly in our culture today, the words (might) have different connotations.
I think I’ve already pushed the “slave” thing pretty far. I think I should have gone straight into the next post instead of pushing it further with this post, though the discussion’s been worth it.
I personally still like how “slave” holds up in a general sense, but I see a lot of the problems with it too.
Perhaps most deal killing of all, it’s really hard to get others on board with it. The divisiveness of the topic might be enough reason in itself to tread lightly.
And I’m not accusing you or anyone else of being divisive here – as I’ve said, I really appreciate the feedback… it’s why I love blogging so much. But I see the potential for division.
I’m going to try to update some of these posts to give a better definition of what I mean by slave/servant/etc. Hopefully that will help this flow together better and keep the original spirit of the series going.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
I think it’s the lack of the “bond” that makes this more “offensive”, if offensive is really the right word. I just see the perception of “slave” as incorrect more than being offended by it.
Pretty soon you’re going to have to confront the serious issue of works salvation that results from a perspective of slavery. Why on earth would someone have a slave if that slave doesn’t have to do anything?
And you’ve still not properly dealt with item #1
You maintain that because a slave CAN choose to disobey that he has a choice. However, that’s not the “choice” that is really at issue. The pertinent “choice” is the decision to be a slave or not. I do not know of ANY modern cultural situation where a true slave chooses slavery. The absence of any other possible direction eliminates the possibility of a true choice. You’ve answered the question about choosing slavery with a response that is pertinent only to obedience, not to the condition of being a slave.
I’ll be glad to shut up, I’m not meaning to be disagreeable or overly argumentative. You’ve obviously thought this through a lot, and I’m responding off the cuff, so my thoughts are not anywhere near as developed as yours.
No, I definitely continue to appreciate the responses, off the cuff or not. I don’t mean to get into an argument either, though I know I can come off that way. I’d really like to flesh this out.
I’ll have to give your comment here some more thought before I respond more.
I like where you’re going with your point about Objection #1. But do you think we have a choice between serving God and not serving God? More specifically, isn’t that just a choice between either choosing to serve God or choosing to receive the consequences of not serving God?
-Marshall Jones Jr.
If we only choose to serve God in order to avoid the consequences of not serving Him, that doesn’t seem to me to point toward a relationship of love. The first and greatest commandment is to LOVE the Lord our God with everything that we are. That seems exceedingly contrary to only serving Him to avoid the consequences of choosing to not serve Him.
Agree totally with that. We don’t serve God primarily because of the consequences we’ll receive. I’m not necessarily saying that’s the reason we choose God – just that we don’t have that other option.
Let me ask it a different way: do we have an option to NOT be under God’s authority without consequence?
For example…
-Option 1: obey God and be blessed, etc.
-Option 2: disobey God and receive the consequences of disobedience
-Option 3: disobey God and avoid the consequences of disobedience
Apart from salvation, I don’t think Option 3 exists.
We’re still playing by God’s rules no matter what we choose, just like a slave is still under the master’s authority whether the slave wants to be a slave or not. “Every knee shall bow – every tongue confess…”
That’s why I think the choice, in a way at least, is a choice of obedience/disobedience, not slave/not slave. Whether you agree or not, does it make a little more sense how I got to that conclusion?
-Marshall Jones Jr.