Ephesians 6:5

5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

According to Ephesians 6, slaves are to obey their masters as they would obey Jesus. Upon reading all of the chapter, we find that it starts with telling children that they should obey their parents, then it moves right along to slaves. Paul suggests that they shouldn’t just appear to obey them to win their favor but to really do what is asked of them in all honesty. The passage is clear that they should fear their masters and that this is part of their obeying them. For some reason, this is suggested as a good thing.

Next, it suggests that masters should also treat their slaves well and that they should not resort to threats. They wouldn’t have to resort to threats if they were good and obedient little slaves, as they would respect and fear them with trembling as they would Jesus. The whole thing is simply a means by which the people in power can tell the slaves that while they are spiritually equal to their masters, they’ve still got to shut up and obey everything commanded of them.

I’ve got news for you. The slave masters are not gods. They are merely wicked men exploiting their fellow human beings. If God were just, he would have scorned slavery in all its forms and severely punished anyone who claimed to own another. Instead, he told us we could own slaves, that we could beat them, and that while we should be nice to them, they are commanded to obey us. What kind of all-loving god would do such a thing? It’s easy really, one who is imaginary whose doctrine was invented by men in power who wished to maintain that power.

Titus 2:9-10

9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

As it turns out, there are several passages in the New Testament that command slaves to be obedient. This passage from Titus 2 is very simple and straightforward. Servants are to obey their master in all things without talking back. This passage gives no exceptions, such as when the master demands the slave do something immoral. Even if one might say that the slave doesn’t have to obey immoral commands or commands that would have them commit a crime, this does not cover commands which are humiliating to the servant. The very fact that one human owns another is dehumanizing enough. If the master were to command the slave to behave like an animal or otherwise do something that would dehumanize them, they must obey and not talk back. One may say that the last verse in this passage is the exception needed to prevent them from doing evil acts, but indeed it is a prescription for slaves not to steal and to show themselves to be trustworthy.

Slavery is evil and must not exist, ever, for any reason. Anyone who tells slaves that they should be obedient is supporting slavery, and he or she is evil. It doesn’t matter what era the person comes from. It doesn’t matter if their society permits slavery. They are setting up practices and laws that prevent slaves from obtaining their freedom through revolution. Additionally, this passage doesn’t just apply to slaves. If you are under employment, you could be considered a servant. Indeed, would you say that you would always obey the commands of your manager? If your CEO asked you to get on all fours, bark like a dog, lick his hand, and then piss outside, would you? That is extreme, but what if they simply asked you to lie? What if they asked you to overlook something shady? What if they asked you to perform sexual favors?

Exodus 21:20-21

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

In Exodus 21, the words for he is his money are often read as for he is is property in other translations. Some have suggested the the term smite implies that they were struck only once in the wrong place, while the term beat implies that they were struck several times.

They suggest that the law is to protect the slaves from masters who would strike them and accidentally kill them and is supposed to discourage people from beating their slaves. When you read through the various translations of the verse, you find that the term beat is used most often, followed by strike and smite. What you’re doing however, is arguing semantics over something that has been translated from a completely different language. What we are looking for is not the specific language used but the meaning of the language used.

It appears obvious that the author of the passage intended it to mean beat, as is evidenced by the various translations coming to the same conclusion. Whether hit once or several times, this passage still protects masters who would beat their slaves as long as they got up before two days. Additionally, it is possible to cause damage to certain blood vessels that will cause a person to appear fine until put under sufficient strain to cause the vessel to rupture and kill him or her. This means that this law could protect a master who beat his slave, caused such damage, yet had the slave die three days later while trying to lift something heavy. That being said, it is clear that the author of the Book of Exodus is suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to not only own slaves but also beat them within an inch of their life, as long as they can get up and walk within one or two days.

Modern morality understands that such actions are assault and are immoral, no matter what the circumstances are. Not only did Biblical law allow the owning of slaves, but it also put laws in place to protect evil and abusive masters. Anyone with a heart can tell that this is simply unacceptable.

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

In Leviticus 25, God says that it is perfectly acceptable to buy, own, and inherit slaves as long as they are not children of Israel. While it can be argued that these were different times and that slavery wasn’t very bad back then, the authors of the King James Bible did indeed know that there were bad enough conditions to warrant such rules as “Don’t beat your slaves so hard that they die within a few days.”

It has also been suggested that the slavery mentioned in the King James Bible is not permanent slavery but voluntary indentured servitude. It is even true to say that most Biblical law refers to this form of slavery. However, the indentured servitude of the King James Bible specifically refers to the Israelite slaves. When an Israelite is owned as a slave, they are slaves for six years and are let free in the seventh. Additionally, they often enter into slavery on their own, often due to poverty. However, while the Israelite slaves were afforded the privilege of freedom after six years, this same right was not extended to slaves who are not Israelites.

While it may be true that most of the references to slavery address the voluntary form of slavery, this passage does not. This is referring to the permanent form of slavery characterized by people who aren’t from Israel. This is made obvious when it says that you may own slaves from the heathen about you, not Israelites, and is further exemplified by the statement They shall be your bondmen for ever.

It has been mentioned that the three verses immediately following this passage suggest that your slaves may become rich and be redeemed. Upon reading it in context with all of Leviticus 25, we see that the verses are speaking of non-Israelites who are not slaves becoming rich while a fellow Israelite becomes poor and then sells himself to the non-Israelite. It is suggested that the Israelite slave should be purchased by Israelites so that they can be set free after a certain number of years. In no way do these verses suggest that slaves can become rich while owned by their masters, nor that the non-Israelite slaves will ever be set free.

Even if you still maintain that the form of slavery practiced at the time was not very bad, no matter what the conditions of their servitude were, slaves were still slaves. Modern morality understands human freedom to be of very high value and that it is absolutely immoral for one human being to own another. However, this concept was apparently absent from the mind of God, as he inspired this one.

Upon reading the entire chapter, it appears as if the passage is intended to be the literal word of God as it is spoken to Moses. God additionally suggests that he purchased the Israelites by freeing them from Egypt, in Leviticus 25:55. Apparently, God freed his people only to place them in another pair of shackles.