Don’t be a Slavery-Supporting Bible Interpreter

The Bible can be used to support anything. But how could people possibly use it to support kidnapping Africans at gunpoint, putting them on ships in repulsive conditions, selling them in the marketplace, and enslaving them for life?

This is one of the most disturbing things in the history of Bible interpretation: Americans prior to the Civil War used the Bible to defend race-based slavery in the U.S.

What were they thinking?

So far, here is what I have found.

1. They read the Bible on a surface level without historical understanding. In so doing, they equated New World slavery with Roman slavery. They assumed that because the New Testament mentions slaves, it refers to the same type of slavery they saw in early America. But to properly understand Scripture, knowledge of the historical background is required. Allow me to highlight three differences between Roman slavery and American slavery.

First, New World slavery was fueled by the particular racist idea that Africans are racially inferior to everyone else. By contrast, in the first-century Roman world, slavery was primarily based on whoever Rome conquered. After noting that Rome conquered Germany, Gaul, Spain, Greece, Egypt, etc., John G. Fee (1816-1901) asks, “What was the complexion of these nations?” Then he answers, “most were as white or whiter than the Romans themselves.” So Roman slaves were as white or whiter than their masters. Thus, people who use the Bible to support slavery should use it to defend slavery “without distinction of color as was the slavery of the biblical times” (Noll, 836). Of course, since the New World interpreters were white, that was not an argument they could accept or even consider.

Second, manumission occurred frequently in the Roman world, whereas it was extremely rare in the New World. In fact, there was even a label for slaves who had been freed in the Roman Empire—freedmen. Moreover, freedman were given the full rights of Roman citizens, including the right to inherit the master’s estate.

Third, Roman slave owners were answerable to the law for their mistreatment of slaves. (See this post.) Consequently, though treatment of slaves varied according to the disposition of the master, in general “urban slaves were more like ‘servants’ or ‘courtiers’: “The situation of slaves in a large Roman household might be compared to the situation of servants in a large eighteenth- or nineteenth-century British household” (Quoted by Miller).

In sum, Roman slaves had greater dignity and more opportunities for freedom than New World slaves. As a result, some in the Roman Empire voluntarily chose to become slaves.

2. They missed the main point of Scripture. First, humans were created to rule not to be enslaved. From the first chapter of the Bible we see God creating humans to rule over other things not each other. “I see, in the earliest days of the world, God bless man and give him dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over ever living things that moveth upon the earth, and every herb bearing seed, and every tree (Gen 1:28-29); I do not read that he is to have dominion over other beings” (Cochin, 300).

Second, Christ announced his mission with these words:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Lk 4:18-19)

Did Christ come to enslave or emancipate?

Third, Christ commanded us to do to others what we want others to do to us (Matt 7:12) then he continued, “this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” He also said the greatest commandment is to love God and “‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (22:37-40). Does enslaving someone based on their race correspond in any way to these divine teachings, which summarize all of Scripture? Is enslaving someone an expression of neighborly love? Augustin Cochin (1876-1916) offers this blistering challenge: “I defy the most unfeeling planter to go, immediately after hearing these words, to the slave-market to buy slaves, and I defy the most resolute critic to maintain, after having read them, that the Gospel does not condemn slavery” (311).

Fourth, Paul taught equality of all in Christ. He writes,

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 4:26-28)

Throughout the history of the world slavery was accepted. It appears that Aristotle’s teaching was unquestioned: “The slave is the property of the master, without limit or restriction; not to belong to one’s self, but fully to another” (Cochin, 285). But “the era of emancipation of the slaves commenced on the day when it was recognized that, in the sight of God, there is neither bond nor free; and this principle was laid down by Christianity” (344). I have argued elsewhere that the abolition movement was originally a Christian movement. In fact, I don’t think slavery would have been abolished throughout the world without Christianity. It is Christ who has broken the chains of slavery.

Fifth, while the New Testament instructs slaves to obey their masters, it challenges masters to be just. Again, keep in mind that this was not race-based slavery and understand that “in the early ages, Christianity had no public power” (328). The apostles did not live in a democracy. They were persecuted by the Roman authorities; they had no power to call for the end of a Roman institution. Rather they sought to mitigate the harshness of the slave-master relationship. Consider these words:

• • • “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Col 4:1).
    • “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” (Eph 6:9)

Cochin concludes that these teachings “do not detach the slave from being a slave, they detach the master from being a master” (326).

3. They were disconnected from the history of the Church. No one in the history of the church argued that kidnapping people in foreign lands, then selling them in the marketplace to be life-long slaves with no rights and no opportunities for social advancement, where they would be treated as less than full human beings, was acceptable. Paul actually condemns “slave traders” along with “liars and perjurers” (1 Tim 1:10). This corresponds with Exodus 21:16: “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death.”

Additionally, the history of the church shows movement toward equality for all and manumission for slaves. Cochin mentions three examples. First, “thirty-seven councils . . . rendered decisions in favor of slaves. Masters who maltreated their slaves were condemned (305), those who killed them were excommunicated (511). The right of asylum in churches was sanctioned (549). Bishops and priests who maltreated their slaves were severely punished (666) . . . Manumission of slaves was protected and encouraged (411). Slaves freed by the Church were protected (549). . . It forbade one Christian to hold another in slavery (922)” (331). Second, the Church preaches equality through its sacraments of baptism and communion given to all. Finally, the Church had a history of freeing slaves. St. Alexander (109-119) freed 1250 slaves at their baptism, St. Gregory the Great, who was pope from 590-604, ransomed and taught youth who were being sold in a market and these youth went out to evangelize England, St. Melanie freed several thousand slaves, and St. Cantius freed 37 slaves. The Church was moving toward equality and manumission, but New World slavery was a horrific move in the opposite direction.

4. They were governed by material interests. Mark Noll says, “From the outside, it was clear that American material interests exerted a strong influence on American theological conclusions” (Kindle 2059).

5. They were racist. There’s no other way to say it. Reading the Bible does not necessarily remove our flaws. We can even interpret Scripture in a way that justifies our flaws. The view that Africans were inferior was the key idea driving the slave-supporters’ interpretation of Scripture. How else could they have missed the idea that kidnapping people in their home country and selling them in a foreign land was wrong? They did not think the people they bought and enslaved were fully human. If they really believed in the Africans’ full humanity, they would have acknowledged their equality before God—by creation in God’s image, redemption in Christ, and final judgment. The source of American slavery was racism and this led to a racist interpretation of Scripture.

Each of these errors stands as a warning to us who seek to accurately interpret Scripture. We are not immune to falling into any of these pitfalls.