The Bible DOESN’T Support Slavery Reparations
This is the third of four posts on slavery reparations and the Bible. Read the first post here.
In the previous two posts, I discussed the history of slavery, the definition of reparations, and how American slavery is viewed from a biblical worldview. Here, I will summarize and analyze biblical arguments for slavery reparations.
Biblical Arguments
There are a number of passages and arguments from the Bible that have been offered in support of slavery reparations. Outlined and analyzed here is a sample (three examples) of some of the most common or compelling.
Luke 19
Summary
To begin, one passage often referenced, as by Princeton Theological Seminary professor Keri Day, is Luke 19 [1]. Day points out how Zacchaeus, after his encounter with Jesus, realized a necessity to repay those from whom he had stolen during his work as a tax collector for the Roman Empire. Jesus, Day observes, affirms this act of material restitution. In Christianity Today, president and CEO Timothy Dalrymple makes similar use of Luke 19 and writes, "Zacchaeus had not personally designed the unjust system of Roman taxation. But he had not denounced it either; he had participated in it and profited from it. So Zacchaeus did not merely repent of his ways; he made restitution" [2]. So then, Zacchaeus’s restitution is considered to be a model for slavery reparations.
Analysis
In response, there are at least six reasons, carefully outlined by podcast host Darrell B. Harrison, why the account of Zacchaeus in Luke 19 is not applicable to the issue of slavery reparations [3].
“Zacchaeus was a tax collector, not a slave owner" [4]. This is significant because whatever restitution he owed would have been directly related in kind and proportion to the specific sin he committed as a tax collector (i.e., the sin of overcharging; cf. Luke 3:12-13). By contrast, generations after slavery, most of the specific sins committed are not likewise attributable or measurable.
"Zacchaeus's sin was personal, not proximate . . . or vicarious." His words are recorded: "If I have defrauded anyone..." (Luke 19:8). The emphasis is on his own sin. This is quite distinct from being held responsible for sins not personally committed, on account of some relation to those who did commit them, which is what enacting slavery reparations today would require.
"Zacchaeus's offer of restitution was volitional, and it was the result of conversion, not coercion." This is distinct from any kind of enforceable program or policy, which slavery reparations would necessarily entail.
"The restitution Zacchaeus offered would have come from his own personal possessions, not someone else's, such as the government." This restitution was a personal matter, not a public matter, as proponents of slavery reparations seek for reparations to be.
"The restitution Zacchaeus offered was specific and applicable only to those who had actually been defrauded by him." His promise of four-fold restoration was not to anyone other than those individuals whom he had defrauded. By contrast, no one today (except human traffickers) can parallel Zacchaeus's statement by saying, "If I have enslaved anyone, I will make it right” — or, more appropriately, “If I have mistreated slaves, or possessed kidnapped persons, I will make it right.”
"Only those of whom it could be objectively proven to have been defrauded by Zacchaeus would have qualified to partake of his volitional offer . . ." In the context of slavery, such a qualification is impossible to meet generations after slavery.
These six points soundly disqualify the account of Zacchaeus from being applicable to slavery reparations.
Joshua 7, Daniel 9, and Romans 5
Summary
A second argument that has been used to support reparations [5], though the term "reparations" is not used in the original address, is made by Tim Keller [6]. Keller argues for a concept of corporate responsibility from Joshua 7, Daniel 9, and Romans 5. From Joshua 7, he observes that not only Achan himself but also his entire family is stoned to death for his sin of taking forbidden plunder. Keller concludes from this that there is corporate responsibility within a family. From Daniel 9, he observes that Daniel confesses and repents for sins of his ancestors, which he himself did not commit. Keller concludes from this that there is corporate responsibility within a culture, even across generations. Finally, from Romans 5, Keller notes that all humans are responsible and have been condemned for a sin they did not commit, the sin of Adam and Eve, and can likewise be forgiven by a righteousness they did not do, the righteousness of Jesus Christ. So then, there is even corporate responsibility within the entire human race, and, moreover, that is the basis of the structure of the gospel.
It is easy to see how this argument can be used to support reparations [7]. If there is moral responsibility for others' sins within a family, a culture, and even the human race as a whole, then it is a small thing to consider the sin of slavery from a few generations ago to be the responsibility of the present generation.
Analysis
This argument has a number of problems. First, Keller interprets the execution of Achan's family members in Joshua 7 as being for Achan's sin, as though they were punished despite having no direct involvement. On its own, the passage may lend itself to this interpretation [8], but in the historical context, in which the divinely-inspired law of Moses had already been given, such a reading is precluded, because such an execution was prohibited: “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut 24:16). This unequivocal statement discounts any possibility that the Lord would command Achan’s children to be put to death on account of Achan's sin. But why, then, was his family put to death? Keller says it is because, by virtue of being his family, they had participated in helping him become the kind of person who would commit such a sin [9]. Were that the case, surely Achan's parents would also have been executed, but they were not. A more likely speculation would be that his immediate family members were found to be complicit “due to their common knowledge of the crime” [10]. However, as Duane Garrett has observed, the right focus for interpreting a passage is only what the passage says, not what it does not say or additional information that is not present [11]. So, in short, the passage does not explicitly say why the family was put to death; it is ultimately unknown. What is known, however, is that the Lord would not have commanded that Achan's children be executed for their father’s sin.
Next, Keller determines from the prayer of confession in Daniel 9 that Daniel senses a responsibility for the sins of his ancestors. There are a few things to notice. First, while it is true that Daniel confesses corporate sins (e.g., "we have sinned," v. 5), it does not follow that he himself played no part in those sins. The sins he lists (vv. 5-6,10-11) are not limited to prior generations, and he even acknowledges that they continue (v. 13). Second, while Daniel affirms the corporate identity and responsibility of the nation of Israel, he does not affirm that he and his generation are morally obligated to pay some sort of restitution for past generations' sins. In God's sovereign judgment, and not by Israel’s own active policy, the nation was experiencing the penalty for their disobedience (vv. 11-14), and so, in accordance with Jeremiah 29:12-14, Daniel appeals to God's sovereign mercy, not to any action that he and his generation could take, for their future deliverance (vv. 15-19) [12]. Keller is right to challenge extreme individualism that would deny the existence of any corporate aspect to moral responsibility, but goes too far if he implies that corporate responsibility extends to the sins of past generations that one's own generation is not committing. The passage does not support such a conclusion.
Finally, Keller points to Romans 5 to demonstrate that all humans are responsible for the sin of their ancestors Adam and Eve. Again, this reading of the text fails insofar as it suggests that Adam and Eve's sin is separate from the sins of every human after them, and that subsequent generations are therefore responsible for actions in which they have no part. Paul writes that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom 5:12, emphasis added). So, it is not as though Adam's descendants are paying for his sin despite their own innocence; rather, though he introduced the sin, every one of his descendants (except Jesus Christ; see. Heb 4:15) actively participate in the same sin (i.e., sin in general) [13]. This is not comparable to a situation in which particular sins were committed in the past (sins associated with slavery) but are no longer being committed today; the parallel would only be legitimate if those same sins were continuing to be practiced. So then, the Bible supports a concept of corporate responsibility, but this concept is limited in scope, dependent upon the activities of the generation in question, and therefore does not support an argument for slavery reparations today.
Ezra 1 and 6
Summary
A final biblical argument — arguably the strongest, or at least the most direct — is offered by Thabiti Anyabwile in his article "Reparations Are Biblical" [14]. Anyabwile defines reparations as “material and social repayment made as acknowledgement and restitution by an offending party to an aggrieved party for wrong(s) done in order to repair the injuries, losses and/or disadvantages caused by the wrong.” In response to what he understands to be the main objections Christians make to reparations, he states his case: "If the Lord God himself caused a state head through taxation to require later generations of people who committed no crime to pay monies to their contemporaries who did not suffer the original crime, then it cannot be unjust (quite the opposite!) for state actors to do the same today." Then, he argues that this is exactly what occurred starting in Ezra 1, where it is recorded that, a full two generations after Babylon conquered Israel, the new king Cyrus was stirred up to repatriate and repair Israel, beginning with returning the items taken from the house of the Lord (Ezra 1:1-11). "This," writes Anyabwile, "was the first act of reparation." That reparation continues about 20 years later when, as recorded in Ezra 6, the now-reigning king Darius commands a particular province to pay from the royal revenue the full cost of rebuilding the house of God (Ezra 6:8). In Anyabwile's view, since those paying were not those who committed the original crime of sacking Israel, and since those benefiting from the payment were not those directly injured by the crime but were their descendants, and since the payment was for atrocities committed by earlier generations, all the main objections to reparations for past injustices are defeated, and reparations, though perhaps not biblically required, are biblically permissible.
Analysis
In response, Anyabwile’s exposition of Ezra 1 and 6 has the fatal problem of not meeting the definition of reparations that Anyabwile himself provides. Recall that his definition is “material and social repayment made as acknowledgement and restitution by an offending party to an aggrieved party for wrong(s) done in order to repair the injuries, losses and/or disadvantages caused by the wrong” [15]. Nowhere in the text of either chapter in Ezra do either King Cyrus or King Darius acknowledge past wrongs as such. The motive offered for restoring and repatriating Israel, rather than past wrongs, was present circumstances. For Cyrus, it was a charge presently given him by the Lord to build the Lord’s house (1:2) [16], and for Darius it was the prior decree made by Cyrus, which had not yet been fulfilled (6:2-5). It is acknowledged, in the course of commanding the return of the gold and silver vessels, that Nebuchadnezzar had taken these items from the Jerusalem temple (6:5), but this is not acknowledged as a wrong, only as a statement of fact; there is no apology made. By contrast, the modern call for slavery reparations, as indeed Anyabwile's definition reflects, is a call to redress moral wrongs from history, not merely to redress an undesirable situation in the present. So then, Ezra 1 and 6 — like Luke 19, Joshua 7, Daniel 9, and Romans 5 — do not provide an example or precedent for reparations for a past generation’s sin.
Up next, a biblical analysis of rational, non-biblical arguments for slavery reparations.
NOTES:
[1] Keri Day, "The Christian case for reparations," Daily News, May 10, 2019, https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-christian-case-for-reparations-20190510-zio6dr2t6jbhjbrxmuolmgc4ae-story.html.
[2] Timothy Dalrymple, "Justice Too Long Delayed," Christianity Today, June 10, 2020, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/june-web-only/justice-too-long-delayed.html.
[3] Darrel B. Harrison and Virgil Walker, "Just Thinking Podcast | Slavery Reparations," podcast video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsNCu7SI21E.
[4] Ibid. Note: If Zacchaeus was in fact a slave owner, the text makes no mention of it, and it is not relevant to the account.
[5] Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, "The Christian case for reparations," The Week, June 13, 2014, https://theweek.com/articles/446180/christian-case-reparations.
[6] Tim Keller, "Racism and Corporate Evil: A White Guy's Perspective," address at a book release event, Desiring God, March 28, 2012, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/racism-and-corporate-evil.
[7] Gobry, "The Christian case."
[8] Joshua A. Berman, "The Making of the Sin of Achan (Joshua 7)," Biblical Interpretation 22, no. 2 (2014): 131, http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=f91932dd-fa65-4e75-b7d9-c65e31f87a18%40sdc-v-sessmgr01.
[9] Keller, "Racism and Corporate Evil."
[10] Marten Woudstra, The Book of Joshua (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), 130, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Book_of_Joshua/BfG1svPVYyQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=achan.
[11] Duane Garrett, "Cain & Abel," 27800: Theology of the Old Testament (class lecture, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, April 23, 2020).
[12] Gerald Henry Wilson, "The Prayer of Daniel 9: Reflection on Jeremiah 29," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 15, no. 48 (Oct 1990): 95-96. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=ac24df4e-7d9a-4ef5-8be5-6aebb851807a%40sessionmgr4007.
[13] This much remains true even if one translates the final clause as “in whom all sinned” or “with the result that all sinned,” options that are noted in James W. Haring, “Romans 5:12, Once Again: Is It a Grammatical Comparison?,” Journal of Biblical Literature 137, no. 3 (2018): 739-740, http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=ac24df4e-7d9a-4ef5-8be5-6aebb851807a%40sessionmgr4007.
[14] Thabiti Anyabwile, "Reparations Are Biblical," The Gospel Coalition, October 10, 2019, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/reparations-are-biblical/.
[15] Ibid. (emphases added).
[16] Christopher R. Lortie, "These Are the Days of the Prophets: A Literary Analysis of Ezra 1-6," Tyndale Bulletin 64, no. 2 (2013): 162. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=9a564c83-485e-4d1f-bce4-8b3c58422f82%40sdc-v-sessmgr01.
Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.