The Bible As a Political Rhetorical Tool

I wrote my capstone paper on the religious rhetoric used in the 19th century to both defend and repudiate the practice of slavery. The most fascinating thing I've discovered while writing this paper is that we still use the same tools and arguments today as we did back then.

When religion was incorporated into the ceaseless chiding between the North and South, it was the consensus among abolitionists that slavery was a moral evil. Up until the 1830's, however, this was as much detail as they felt was needed to adequately promote the anti-Christianity inherent in slavery. The spirit of the law of Christianity did not coincide with the practice of slavery.

“True religion”, according to abolitionists, gave credence to the idea that slavery should be promptly and utterly abolished on the grounds that Christ urged his followers to “Love thy neighbor as thyself” as in Matthew 22:39. They also stressed the ancient Greek philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." These virtues, though broad, were considered eloquent enough by those Christian citizens who voiced them as the first and last points of reference when questioning the legitimacy of slavery.

"Spirit of the law" arguments soon proved to be inadequate, however. Anti-abolitionists began to use very specific examples from the Bible to justify slave-ownership.

In Genesis 14, Abraham was described to have 318 servants which were sent out with him into the wilderness. Anti-abolitionists point out that God never told Abraham that he was being sinful by owning the slaves, and was never provoked to set them free. Seeing how Abraham was a righteous man, and followed the direction of the Lord, if God had encouraged him to emancipate his slaves, such a passage describing the immense amount of servitude allotted to him would not have been included in the Biblical text.

Abolitionists made the claim that the story of Abraham taking his 318 servants out into the wilderness proved that servitude in his day was nothing at all like the institution of slavery which existed in the United States in the 19th century. Abraham armed all 318 of his servants before he went alone with them out into the wilderness. Abraham didn't take with him multitudes of strong, male family members or friends who could have kept his servants in place had they had the mind to revolt against him. This practice of servitude was nothing like the relationship between the slaveholder and his slaves, who were whipped into submission and not allowed to wander too far from their owner’s land.

Another favorite of anti-abolitionists was Leviticus chapter 25, verses 44 to 46. The verses read, “Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids…of them shall ye buy…and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever.”

Slaveholders claim that the words, “bondmen”, “buy”, “inheritance and possession”, and “forever” are evidence in support of the claim that the Mosaic system sanctioned slavery. One abolitionist pointed out that the word “bondmen” was translated interchangeably with the word “servant” in the King James version of the Bible, and that the word “servant” was often used to describe Christ. Some such examples can be found in Isaiah 42, “Behold my servant (Christ) shall deal prudently” and Isaiah 49, “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant (Christ) justify many”.

Eventually, just as today, the argument was made that the Bible is a weak rhetorical tool altogether. If the Bible could be used to justify slavery, then it could also be used to justify polygamy and to justify death as a punishment for adultery. William Lloyd Garrison, the creator of The Liberator newspaper which was published between 1831 and 1865, described his thoughts on the subject. He said, "The Bible is like a fiddle; you can play any tune on it you please....The Bible does not change, but the interpretations of the Bible are constantly fluctuating. Those interpretations are generally in accordance with popular opinion and the spirit of the interpreters. Men who are warlike,-men who deem it no sin to enslave their fellow-men,-
men who are for retaliating injuries done to them,-men who are fond of a ceremonial religion,-naturally interpret the Bible in accordance with their views; while men of an opposite spirit construe its language in favor of perfect goodness and universal love."

Looking at the Bible through a perspective of modern political issues, we can examine the issues of homosexuality, socialism, and war in a similar light. On the one hand, the Bible does contain the story of Sodom and Gomorrah where cities full of practicing homosexuals were burned. Some might claim that that proves that God does not condone homosexual practices. However, no reasonably minded individual believes that that should be our government's punishment for homosexuals. Also, if we follow every practice in the Bible, does that mean that we have to follow the Mosaic law with rules about how many steps we can take on Sunday? That was also preached by the prophets in the Bible.

Then there are the issues of socialism and/or a controlled market. I've seen political memes such as this being passed around often.



The idea that you have to choose one side or the other is a complete fallacy. Christ did, indeed, preach charity. However, he never went to Caesar and insisted the he make it a law. Christ preached of the practice of free agency.

My point here, is not to prove the validity of my political stance. Rather, it is to say that the Bible can be used to validate both sides of many arguments. I don't think it should be used in any political discussion where people intend to actually get somewhere with their rhetoric.