The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.
[The preceding articles on this subject from Mr. Lee, have given a thorough refutation to all the arguments which some attempt to draw from the Old Testament in favor of slavery, or by which they would endeavor to stigmatize the sacred record as endorsing that heinous sin; with the exception of that founded on Lev. xxv, 44-46. But as his argument on this was given in numbers 24 and 25 of last volume, we conclude not to insert it again, but pass on to his consideration of the New Testament.] The New Testament no refuge for slavery.
It remains to be proved that slavery finds no sanction in the New Testament, and the argument will be finished. It is a strange position which affirms that He who came to preach deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison-doors to them that are bound, and who gave himself a ransom for all, made provision in his system of government for leaving one portion of his people the absolute property and slaves of others, from the dark hour of life's opening sorrows, until they find a refuge in the arms of death and in the darker sleep of the grave! But as strange as this position is, it is attempted to be maintained, and needs to be met and refuted. Let it be understood, the present argument is not to be based upon those scriptures which are supposed to condemn slavery; those have been urged in direct arguments previously advanced. The only point that remains to be examined is, does the New Testament teach in any text or texts, in the use of any words or forms of speech, that slavery is or can be right? As slavery is a positive institution, an arbitrary and unnatural condition, sustained by force on one hand, and involuntary submission on the other, it is not a sufficient justification to say that Christ or his apostles did not condemn it, were that true; it must be proved that they authorized it. We may demand of the slaveholder, who appropriates his fellow beings to his own use as chattels, "by what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?" In reply to this they point us to certain texts, and words, and forms of speech which were used by Christ and his apostles, and tell us that they justify slavery. We will now examine them. It is well known that the words slave, slaveholder, and slavery, are not found in our English translation of the New Testament; and if the thing is found at all, it must be in the original Greek, and not in the translation. The word slave occurs once in the English translation. Rev. xviii, 13: "Slaves and souls of men." Here the word rendered slaves, is soma which literally signifies bodies, and should have been translated "bodies and souls of men." Consideration of the several terms used.
In the Greek language, there are three words which may mean a slave, andrapodon, arguronetos, and doulos. The first of these, andrapodon is derived from aneer, a man, and pous, the foot, and signifies a slave and nothing but a slave. If this word had been used, it would have been decisive for it has no other signification but a slave; but this word is found nowhere in the New Testament. The second word, arguronetos, is derived from arguros, silver, and oneomai to buy, and hence it signifies to buy with silver; or a slave, doubtless, from the fact that slaves were bought with silver. This word is nowhere found in the New Testament. The third word is doulos. This word occurs more than one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament, and may mean a slave, or a free person, who voluntarily serves another, or a public officer, representing the public or civil authority. As the word occurs so frequently, it will be necessary to notice only a few instances in which it is used in its several senses. If the word properly means slave, it would be true to the original to translate it slave, where it occurs. I will first give a few instances in which it cannot mean slave. "On my servants, [doulos] and on my hand-maidens [doulos] I will pour out in those days, of my spirit." Acts ii, 18. Here the word is used to denote christian men and women in general as the servants of God. It would read very strange to translate it slave; upon my non-slaves, and upon my female-slaves will I pour out in those days of my spirit. "And now Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word." Acts iv, 29. Here the word is used to denote the apostles or preachers. It would be no improvement to translation it, grant unto thy slaves, &c. "Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle." Rom. i, 1. Would it improve it to read, Paul the slave of Jesus Christ? "We preach not ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake." 2 Cor. iv, 5. We preach ourselves your slaves for Jesus sake, would not only be without warrant, but it would make it conflict with Paul's declaration, that he was the slave of Jesus Christ. To be the slave of two distinct claimants at the same time is impossible. "James a servant [slave] of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ." James i, 1. "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants, [slaves] of God." 1 Pet. ii, 16. "Simon Peter a servant [slave] and an apostle of Jesus Christ." 2 Pet. i, 1. "Jude the servant [slave] of Jesus." Jude i, 1. "And he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant [slave] John." Rev. i, 1. "Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants [slaves] of our God in their foreheads." Rev. vii, 3. It is not impossible but this text may be urged in justification of the practice of slaveholders' branding their slaves with the name of the owner. Enough has been said to show that the word doulos, does not necessarily mean slave, in the sense of chattel slavery. Indeed it is only in a few instances, out of the one hundred and fifty times in which it is used, that it can be pretended that it means slave. These cases shall be examined. But before reaching that point, the facts amount to almost a moral demonstration, that the inspired penman did not mean to spread a justification of human bondage upon the record. There was a word which appropriately expressed a chattel slave which they have never used, but have always used a word which properly expresses the condition of free persons in the voluntary service of another, whether as a common laborer, a personal attendant, an agent, or a public officer, representing some higher authority, human or divine. Is it not clear then that they did not design to teach the rightful existence of human chattelship? As the writers of the New Testament have not used the word andrapodon which most specifically signifies a slave so have they not used the properly corresponding word, andrapodismos, which is the specific word for slavery. As they use the word doulos, for the man, the servant, which may denote a voluntary servant, one employed for pay; so they use the derivative word doulou to denote the condition, the service, servitude, or bondage, which may also be voluntary. So, when speaking of rightful relations, they have never used the word andrapodistes, which signifies a slaveholder, one who reduces men to slavery, or holds them as slaves, and which corresponds to andrapodon, a slave; but have used the word despotees, which signifies lord, master, or head of a family, without at all implying a chattel slaveholder. The proper word for a slaveholder andrapodistes, occurs but once in the New Testament, 1 Tim. i, 10: where it is translated man-stealers. 130Despotees, the only word used which it can be pretended means slaveholder, occurs in only ten texts in the New Testament, in six of which it is applied to God, or to Jesus Christ, and in four to men as masters. The cases in which it is applied to God or to Jesus Christ, are as follows: “Lord, [Despotees], now lettest thou thy servant, [doulos] depart in peace.” Luke ii, 29. “If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for his master’s [Despotees] use.” 2 Tim. ii, 21. “Denying the Lord [Despotees] that bought them.” 2 Pet. ii, 1. “Denying the only Lord [Despotees] God.” Jude 4. “How long O Lord, [Despotees] holy and true.” The above use of the word shows that it does not signify a slaveholder, and from the examination of the several words concerned, it appears as though the apostles were so guided as to employ none of the words which belong properly to the system of chattel slavery. The four remaining texts in which the word despotees occurs, are the texts which some suppose describe slavery, and these shall all be examined in their place. I have thus far proved that the inspired writers have not used one of the words which unequivocally express chattel slavery, and the fact that there were such words in the language in which they wrote, and that they always avoided them, and used words which properly denote free laborers, is very conclusive evidence that they never designed to endorse the system, if they knew anything about it, and lived and labored among it. Christ in no instance taught or justified slavery.
We are now prepared to enter upon an examination of the texts which it is affirmed justify slavery. “There came to him a centurion, beseeching him and saying, Lord my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof, but speak the word only and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man go, and he goeth; and to another come, and he cometh; and to my servant do this, and he doeth it.” Matt. viii, 6–9. There is certainly no slavery in this text, and I should not have considered it necessary to have introduced it but for the purpose of presenting a specimen of each class. Slavery is not found in the fact that as a Roman officer he had soldiers under him, that he said to one go, and he goeth; and to another come and he cometh. These soldiers were not his slaves. Nor is slavery found in the fact that he had servants, for the word here translated servant never means slave. The word is pais and signifies “a child male or female, and of any age from infancy to manhood, a son or daughter, a boy, youth, girl, maiden.” A few examples will show this. Matt. ii, 16. “Herod sent forth and slew all the children.” Here the same word is translated children. Matt. xvii, 18. “And the child was cured from that very hour.” Here the same word is rendered child. Matt. xxi, 15. “The children crying in the market.” Here the same word is translated children. Luke ii, 43. “The child Jesus tarried behind.” It will not be pretended that the words Jesus ho pais, “the child Jesus,” denotes a slave, and yet the word here rendered child, is the same that is rendered servant where the centurion said, “My servant lieth at home sick.” It was probably the centurion’s child that was sick; at least it would have been just as faithful a translation to have so rendered it. “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom the Lord when he cometh, shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But, and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken: the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. xxiv, 45–51. This is as strong a text in support of the idea of slavery as any thing found in the teachings of our Lord. I will then examine it as a decisive text by which the question may be settled. 1. Here the word rendered servant is doulos, which does not of itself prove the existence of slavery. This has already been proved. If then the text proves the existence of slavery it must be from some other circumstances. 2. If there is any slavery in the case, the ruling servant was a slave in common with the rest, for he is represented as smiting his fellow servants. This furnishes strong presumptive proof that none were slaves. It is unknown to the history of slavery for a chattel slave to be left in sole charge of such an immense estate as is involved in this illustration of our Lord. The management of a plantation or an estate of slaves is never left to one of the slaves, during the long and uncertain absence of the proprietor, as must have been the case if our Lord borrowed his illustration from slavery. 3. The smiting his fellow servants is no proof that they were slaves. It was a wrongful smiting, a wicked smiting, and cannot prove that either party were slaves. A hired overseer would be just as likely to smite hired laborers, as a slave overseer would be to smite slave laborers, there being nothing to justify the smiting. Moreover the smiting in this case is associated with drunkenness, and hence, it is clearly just that kind of assault and battery which a drunken overseer would commit upon those who might be under his direction. 4. The punishment inflicted upon the unfaithful servant proves that he was not a slave. It is clear that he was executed, or cut off, which is in perfect harmony with the customs that prevailed among eastern petty tyrants. But as a general rule, men would not treat an unfaithful slave in such a manner, but would rather sell him upon some cotton or sugar plantation, or send him into the chained gang. 5. If it were admitted that the lord was a slaveholder, and that the servants were slaves, it would be no justification of slavery. It is only an illustration, and does not prove the rightfulness of the facts and circumstances from which it was borrowed. If the fact that our Lord used the conduct of masters and slaves to illustrate his truths, proves that slavery is right, much more must the cited fact that the master cut his slave asunder prove that it is right for slaveholders to cut down their slaves, when they disobey them, or when they do wrong. The two strong points in the parable are, first, the servant was unfaithful and violated his charge; and secondly his lord or master, severely punished him for it. Allow this to have transpired between a slaveowner and a slave; and if its use by our Lord, to illustrate the wicked conduct of sinners and the punishment which God will inflict, proves that slavery was right, it must prove with equal certainty that the punishment inflicted by the master was right. That was capital punishment; he cut him asunder. The truth is, the use our Lord makes of the facts is no endorsement of slavery or of the particular conduct of the master, upon the supposition that there is any slavery in the case. Christ often employed facts and transactions to illustrate the truth, without endorsing such facts and illustrations. A few examples will show this. The parable of the vineyard recorded Matt. xxi, 33–41, is of this class. It does not endorse the act of the proprietor in destroying the husbandmen. The parable of the marriage supper recorded, Matt. xxii, 1–14, is of the same class. It does not prove the rightfulness even of making such a feast, much less does he justify the conduct of the king in dealing so severely with the man who had not on the wedding garment. That man was merely guilty of an impropriety, which could not justify such severe punishment; but our Saviour could use the fact to illustrate a righteous administration without endorsing it. The case of the unjust steward, recorded Luke xvi, 1–9, is entirely conclusive on this point. It cannot be presumed that Christ intended to endorse the conduct of that steward as morally right. Enough has been said, not only to show that the text with which I started contains no justification of slavery, but also to show that no other like text found among our Saviour’s parables and illustrations can be tortured into a support of chattel bondage. We may therefore leave the gospels and turn to the epistles and see if slavery can be found in them.