# Slavery in the Bible



## steadfast7

If slavery is not explicitly condemned in the Bible, on what basis and authority do we sola scriptura people have to condemn it in our day?


----------



## Fly Caster

"Slavery," for most people, immediately brings to mind an oppressive, brutal image straight from _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, and with it a lot of emotional baggage. Slavery itself cannot be condemned as sinful from scripture. Many evils that have historically been attendant with it can and should be, including many evils from our own history.


----------



## MMasztal

I'll give it a shot.

As Tim noted, you would have to define slavery more precisely. For example, is not anyone holding a mortgage in essence a slave to the bank? That is, until the mortgage is paid in full, the bank rightly holds title to the domicile.

As far as chattel slavery goes, I'd cite that man is created in God's image which would preclude one person owning another.


----------



## steadfast7

Let's start with the broad concept that people could be bought, sold and owned as property, to be used as a labour force. This is seen in biblical practice, but why not today?


----------



## Zenas

This is a sensitive topic because, as Fly Caster mentions, the topic carries a lot of emotional baggage. I have found it to be true that any mention of slavery brings to mind the ethnically fueled slavery of Africans by the English, other European nations, and subsequent colonies turned nations. 

Westerners have a myopic view of slavery, only able to see the institution founded on ethnic prejudice, and either totally unable or unwilling to divorce the practice from that understanding. As a result, any mention of slavery as not being inherently wrong will earn one the title of "racist", when ethnicity has nothing to do with the moral determination of the practice. The Southern Law and Poverty Center is a good example of this practice.

The inability or unwillingness to understand the topic in a neutral manner is at best ignorance, and at worst dishonesty. In doing so, they overstate the relevance of ethnicity to the practice of slavery in a drastic fashion and overplay the ramifications of slavery based on such criteria; a practice which I can only tell occurred for about 400 years at the most. I am not aware of any other topic where occurences over such a relatively short period of time have served to obscure the enormity of the topic's history.


----------



## Fly Caster

steadfast7 said:


> Let's start with the broad concept that people could be bought, sold and owned as property, to be used as a labour force. This is seen in biblical practice, but why not today?



A broader definition of slavery can certainly include current practices (such as the mortgage example)-- this gets more to the point. But "slavery," even as defined here, cannot be condemned as sinful. Only certain attendant evils may be (the practice of man-stealing, separation of families, brutality, failure to provide proper sustenance and medical care, denial of judicial justice, etc).


----------



## steadfast7

Certainly, we're looking at the issue post Civil War, post-holocaust, post Roots miniseries on TV, which makes it hard to be free from the emotional baggage. But biblically, it was merely an economic issue. But people were sold and purchased as property nonetheless.


----------



## Wayne

The Rev. Alexander McLeod was among the earliest American Presbyterians in opposing slavery. In 1802 he refused to serve a congregation where there were slaveholders. His stand prompted the Reformed Presbyterians to excommunicate unrepentant slaveholders. Upon receiving word of the Synod's decision, the RP congregation in South Carolina freed their slaves, with their obedience costing them about $500,000 in today's money (and this was probably a small congregation of just 4-6 families).

McLeod's treatise against slavery is online at _The Practice of Holding Men in Perpetual Slavery Condemned_. This same work is sometimes titled _Negro Slavery Unjustifiable_.


----------



## Zenas

As an after-thought, does anyone believe the treatment of the subject of slavery in American would be different today if:

1. Slaves were not viewed and/or treated as inferior or subhuman; and 

2. African-Americans who were not slaves were recognized and treated by the law and their peers as entirely equal?

I feel that this may diverge from the topic, but I am unsure of where to put it or if it really warrants a topic of its own.


----------



## Karnes

My quick 

Genesis 1
26Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Dominion over creation, but no mention of men.

Slavery is a result of sin.

Genesis 3
15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;

Which is fully manifested in Genesis 4 between Cain and Abel.



Matthew 22:39 
39And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.


----------



## Fly Caster

Wayne said:


> The Rev. Alexander McLeod was among the earliest American Presbyterians in opposing slavery. In 1802 he refused to serve a congregation where there were slaveholders. His stand prompted the Reformed Presbyterians to excommunicate unrepentant slaveholders. Upon receiving word of the Synod's decision, the RP congregation in South Carolina freed their slaves, with their obedience costing them about $500,000 in today's money (and this was probably a small congregation of just 4-6 families).
> 
> McLeod's treatise against slavery is online at _The Practice of Holding Men in Perpetual Slavery Condemned_. This same work is sometimes titled _Negro Slavery Unjustifiable_.



Obviously, it is extremely difficult to defend certain aspects of Southern slavery, but was excommunication justifiable? Slaveholders appear to have been members in good standing in the Apostolic Church. I'll look over the link at a later time, but I'm curious to see what, in McLeod's mind, was different. My first thought is that it would have been far better for slaveholders to be encouraged to train and prepare slaves to live as free men, with a goal toward them earning their freedom, and admonished to treat them with the respect due to one created in God's image in the mean-time.


----------



## au5t1n

Two kinds of slavery in the Bible still exist in America: the enslavement of certain criminals and of prisoners of war. We just call it "prison" now. The Hebrews didn't have large steel buildings to cage their kidnappers and war prisoners in. They enslaved them instead, which amounts to exactly the same thing without the metal walls.


----------



## steadfast7

Zenas said:


> As an after-thought, does anyone believe the treatment of the subject of slavery in American would be different today if:
> 
> 1. Slaves were not viewed and/or treated as inferior or subhuman; and
> 
> 2. African-Americans who were not slaves were recognized and treated by the law and their peers as entirely equal?
> 
> I feel that this may diverge from the topic, but I am unsure of where to put it or if it really warrants a topic of its own.



this probably makes all the difference in the world in my opinion.


----------



## Jack K

"I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say." (Philemon 21)

The letter to Philemon is probably our best New Testament case study. Slavery was an accepted part of that culture, and Paul acknowledges Philemon's right to do as he wishes with Onesimus. Paul doesn't set down a rule. He appeals to the gospel so that Philemon will act out of willing joy rather than compulsion. The question, "What is allowed?" is less powerful than, "What might I do for the sake of the gospel?"

So I'd say the question of why we condemn slavery, when it's not expressly condemned in the Bible, is not the best way to ask the question. Rather, we ask how far we can go to radically reflect the gospel in our dealings with those who are on a lower rung of the ladder than we are. When we start to dream of the possibilities, any form of slavery becomes unthinkable.


----------



## steadfast7

The slaveowners of old may not have considered themselves dominating or abusing anyone - it was just business. 

It is possible that the present day sensitivity to slavery is biblically unwarranted, but historically understandable?


----------



## Zenas

Historically understandable? Of course. The Anglo-American institution of slavery was premised on the idea that Africans were subhuman when, in fact, they were fashioned in the imago dei like everyone else. In that sense, I believe that it was immoral because they denied that God had made His creation after Himself, despite the clear language otherwise, and used it as a basis to subvert others. I think that the practice, in that sense and context, was immoral. That practice, however, is not the practice of slavery that we see in Scripture.


----------



## Fly Caster

Jack K said:


> "I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say." (Philemon 21)
> 
> The letter to Philemon is probably our best New Testament case study. Slavery was an accepted part of that culture, and Paul acknowledges Philemon's right to do as he wishes with Onesimus. Paul doesn't set down a rule. He appeals to the gospel so that Philemon will act out of willing joy rather than compulsion. The question, "What is allowed?" is less powerful than, "What might I do for the sake of the gospel?"
> 
> So I'd say the question of why we condemn slavery, when it's not expressly condemned in the Bible, is not the best way to ask the question. Rather, we ask how far we can go to radically reflect the gospel in our dealings with those who are on a lower rung of the ladder than we are. When we start to dream of the possibilities, any form of slavery becomes unthinkable.



I want to avoid any argument that the 'end justifies the means,' but here is a possibility that I would like to dream for a moment to make a point.

Let's dream that you or I live in an earlier era, pre-Civil Wat, when we happen upon a slave sale-- a fresh batch straight from the African mainland. We are Christian plantation owners and we have the means to purchase and support some of the slaves. Any remaining slaves unsold, we know, will be sent to the Caribbean, where in a few short months they will be brutally worked to death.

We have options:

-Allow them to remain unsold and be shipped off to certain death.

-Buy them and immediately set them free, with no knowledge of language, no skills, no poseesions, no means to fend or provide for themselves.

-Buy them and provide for them, giving them work, food, shelter, training, skills, and the gospel, with a view toward their eventual release as responsible and capable citizens.

I agree that we should do everything in light of the Gospel, but which would the Gospel require? I know that all Christian slave-holders did not follow he last option closely, but many acted out of compassion toward their slaves. Can we really call their actions "unthinkable" in any case?


----------



## steadfast7

so comparing the biblical context with ours, we are required to view the contexts as being different, thus slavery means different things. I'd have to research more into this, but many would argue that there wasn't much different. Remember that the ancient Hebrews and Christians had a similar understanding of man created in God's image, yet sanctioned slavery.

Fly's post is interesting. I was just thinking about what people in our age would think of us considering your 3rd option. Seems the world think slavery is horrific in any sense, for any reason.


----------



## Wayne

Fly Caster said:


> Obviously, it is extremely difficult to defend certain aspects of Southern slavery, but was excommunication justifiable? Slaveholders appear to have been members in good standing in the Apostolic Church. I'll look over the link at a later time, but I'm curious to see what, in McLeod's mind, was different. My first thought is that it would have been far better for slaveholders to be encouraged to train and prepare slaves to live as free men, with a goal toward them earning their freedom, and admonished to treat them with the respect due to one created in God's image in the mean-time.



McLeod's treatise is based on Exodus 21:16, as a starting point. The RP Synod, meeting in the Fall of 1800, noted:

"A call was made on Mr. McLeod to the pastoral charge of the united congregations of the city of New York and Coldenham. Mr. McLeod demurred to the call, on the ground that there were slaveholders among the subscribers to the call. The subject of slaveholding being now before the Presbytery, it was enacted that no slaveholder should be allowed the communion of the Church."
[Minutes & Digest, 1888, p. 3]

For more on McLeod's life and particularly the events surrounding this decision, see the Memoir written by his son [scroll down a bit to see those links. Chapter 4 focuses on this period in his life.]

Meanwhile your concluding thought is, I think, essentially identical with some antebellum attitudes. The problem was that in actual practice, no one ever _got there_--no one in practice achieved culmination of that goal. There were some free blacks here and there, but there were no plantations "graduating" free citizens. McLeod in his time and culture came to the conclusion that the best thing would be repatriation and he was part of the American Colonization Society whose work eventually led to the establishment of Liberia, 1821-22.

Edit: I would add that it is _impossible _to defend any aspect of ethnic slavery. One part of the story that is rarely considered is the complicity between European trading companies and Muslim jihadists intent on the expansion of Islam. Evil was compounded on top of malevolent evil.


----------



## Andres

austinww said:


> Two kinds of slavery in the Bible still exist in America: the enslavement of certain criminals and of prisoners of war. We just call it "prison" now. The Hebrews didn't have large steel buildings to cage their kidnappers and war prisoners in. They enslaved them instead, which amounts to exactly the same thing without the metal walls.



I take issue with the equation of innocent people who were forced into slavery and those convicted criminals who made the choice to break the law. 

As for the question of whether the scriptures condemn the practice of slavery, perhaps a better question to ask might be, do the scriptures condone slavery? Here is some information I found helpful:



> Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"
> 
> Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 12 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?
> 
> The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
> 
> The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
> 
> In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).
> 
> Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.


Source: Got Questions.org


----------



## Pergamum

I Timothy 1:



> 8Now we know that(R) the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the(S) law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, *enslavers*,* liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to(T) sound[c] doctrine, 11in accordance with(U) the gospel of the glory of(V) the blessed God(W) with which I have been entrusted. *


----------



## SemperEruditio




----------



## steadfast7

Pergamum said:


> I Timothy 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8Now we know that(R) the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the(S) law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, *enslavers*,* liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to(T) sound[c] doctrine, 11in accordance with(U) the gospel of the glory of(V) the blessed God(W) with which I have been entrusted. *
Click to expand...

*

Interesting verse. I hadn't considered it before. The NASB, KJV, and literal versions, however, translate as kidnappers or men-stealers. 

exegetical insights from anyone?*


----------



## SemperEruditio

steadfast7 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Timothy 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8Now we know that(R) the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the(S) law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, *enslavers*,* liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to(T) sound[c] doctrine, 11in accordance with(U) the gospel of the glory of(V) the blessed God(W) with which I have been entrusted. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Interesting verse. I hadn't considered it before. The NASB, KJV, and literal versions, however, translate as kidnappers or men-stealers.
> 
> exegetical insights from anyone?*
Click to expand...

*

What's the difference between enslavers, kidnappers, or men-stealers?

menstealers
1 
G405: ἀνδραποδιστής / andrapodistēs

Enhanced Strong's Lexicon:
405 ἀνδραποδιστής [andrapodistes /an·drap·od·is·tace/] n m. From a derivative of a compound of 435 and 4228; GK 435; AV translates as “manstealer” once. 1 a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer. 1a of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery. 1b of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them.*


----------



## Pergamum

If whore-mongering is a sin, then things associated with whore-mongering, such as owning a prn business would fit. If man-stealing is a sin, then making your profit off of stolen men and women would be a sin.


----------



## steadfast7

SemperEruditio said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Timothy 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting verse. I hadn't considered it before. The NASB, KJV, and literal versions, however, translate as kidnappers or men-stealers.
> 
> exegetical insights from anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the difference between enslavers, kidnappers, or men-stealers?
> 
> menstealers
> 1
> G405: ἀνδραποδιστής / andrapodistēs
> 
> Enhanced Strong's Lexicon:
> 405 ἀνδραποδιστής [andrapodistes /an·drap·od·is·tace/] n m. From a derivative of a compound of 435 and 4228; GK 435; AV translates as “manstealer” once. 1 a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer. 1a of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery. 1b of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them.
Click to expand...


So, would stealing, or unjust oppression be what Paul had in his mind? We know that harshly treating a human in this way is wrong. Surely, it's different from the practice of slavery in Paul's day. He would not have condemned Philemon as falling in this category.


----------



## Pergamum

> Under the Roman law the slave was not considered a man, but a chattel without any civil rights whatever, completely at the mercy of his master.



From: Philemon - Introduction - People's New Testament Bible Commentary



Also: 


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Philemon. I know it is Catholic, but it can be a helpful link.



Also, I suggest Noll's book:


Amazon.com: The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (9780807830123): Mark A. Noll: Books


----------



## Montanablue

Pergie, I'm think about reading Noll's book over my Christmas holiday. You think its a good treatment of the subject?


----------



## Pergamum

Montanablue said:


> Pergie, I'm think about reading Noll's book over my Christmas holiday. You think its a good treatment of the subject?



Yes, I generally like Noll.

If you haven;t bought it, I can just mail you my copy next week and save you a buck or two.


----------



## Montanablue

Pergamum said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pergie, I'm think about reading Noll's book over my Christmas holiday. You think its a good treatment of the subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I generally like Noll.
> 
> If you haven;t bought it, I can just mail you my copy next week and save you a buck or two.
Click to expand...


Actually, my father likes to buy me books for Christmas, and he's been pestering me to add to the list I usually present to him at about this time! So, he'll be delighted to get it for me (and will probably read it himself before he wraps it - I encourage this). Very kind offer though - thanks.


----------



## Gloria

Fly Caster said:


> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rev. Alexander McLeod was among the earliest American Presbyterians in opposing slavery. In 1802 he refused to serve a congregation where there were slaveholders. His stand prompted the Reformed Presbyterians to excommunicate unrepentant slaveholders. Upon receiving word of the Synod's decision, the RP congregation in South Carolina freed their slaves, with their obedience costing them about $500,000 in today's money (and this was probably a small congregation of just 4-6 families).
> 
> McLeod's treatise against slavery is online at _The Practice of Holding Men in Perpetual Slavery Condemned_. This same work is sometimes titled _Negro Slavery Unjustifiable_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, it is extremely difficult to defend certain aspects of Southern slavery, but was excommunication justifiable? Slaveholders appear to have been members in good standing in the Apostolic Church. I'll look over the link at a later time, but I'm curious to see what, in McLeod's mind, was different. My first thought is that it would have been far better for slaveholders to be encouraged to train and prepare slaves to live as free men, with a goal toward them *earning their freedom*, and admonished to treat them with the respect due to one created in God's image in the mean-time.
Click to expand...


?


----------



## Fly Caster

Gloria said:


> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rev. Alexander McLeod was among the earliest American Presbyterians in opposing slavery. In 1802 he refused to serve a congregation where there were slaveholders. His stand prompted the Reformed Presbyterians to excommunicate unrepentant slaveholders. Upon receiving word of the Synod's decision, the RP congregation in South Carolina freed their slaves, with their obedience costing them about $500,000 in today's money (and this was probably a small congregation of just 4-6 families).
> 
> McLeod's treatise against slavery is online at _The Practice of Holding Men in Perpetual Slavery Condemned_. This same work is sometimes titled _Negro Slavery Unjustifiable_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, it is extremely difficult to defend certain aspects of Southern slavery, but was excommunication justifiable? Slaveholders appear to have been members in good standing in the Apostolic Church. I'll look over the link at a later time, but I'm curious to see what, in McLeod's mind, was different. My first thought is that it would have been far better for slaveholders to be encouraged to train and prepare slaves to live as free men, with a goal toward them *earning their freedom*, and admonished to treat them with the respect due to one created in God's image in the mean-time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


My point is that Christian charity would require more than merely purchasing their "freedom" and then turning them out into a strange culture without capacity or means to fend for themselves, but it woud also require more than placing them in permanent bondage. Just as a parent rules over a helpless, defenseless child. It isn't to be forever, but it is until a time of training and education is completed, with the goal of a child being able to take care of himself as a responsible adult. The slaveholder would have a right to earn a 'profit' from the work of the slave, just as a parent has a right to 'profit' from the work of a child.

I don't suggest that we should go capture savages and enslave then today, but I can't condemn Christian people for doing then what they did with what was placed upon them. I believe that many Southerners had the best interest of their slaves at heart. They weren't always consistent, but most of our secular histories only record their worst inconsistencies, and not the other aspects.


----------



## au5t1n

Andres said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two kinds of slavery in the Bible still exist in America: the enslavement of certain criminals and of prisoners of war. We just call it "prison" now. The Hebrews didn't have large steel buildings to cage their kidnappers and war prisoners in. They enslaved them instead, which amounts to exactly the same thing without the metal walls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take issue with the equation of innocent people who were forced into slavery and those convicted criminals who made the choice to break the law.
Click to expand...


I did not equate them. There are multiple practices in the Bible that are called "slavery." I can think of three at least. The two I listed above are the only ones we still have, and as you pointed out, they do not involve the enslavement of innocent people. They involve the enslavement of certain criminals and war prisoners.

The post was just pointing out that not everything in the Bible that is called "slavery" is gone. We still have two forms of it, just in a different way.


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> I Timothy 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8Now we know that(R) the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the(S) law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, *enslavers*,* liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to(T) sound[c] doctrine, 11in accordance with(U) the gospel of the glory of(V) the blessed God(W) with which I have been entrusted. *
Click to expand...

*

That was the old testament...*


----------



## The Author of my Faith

I guess my theology is simple. Slavery is wrong.

Have a great day!


----------



## Pergamum

Fly Caster said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, it is extremely difficult to defend certain aspects of Southern slavery, but was excommunication justifiable? Slaveholders appear to have been members in good standing in the Apostolic Church. I'll look over the link at a later time, but I'm curious to see what, in McLeod's mind, was different. My first thought is that it would have been far better for slaveholders to be encouraged to train and prepare slaves to live as free men, with a goal toward them *earning their freedom*, and admonished to treat them with the respect due to one created in God's image in the mean-time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that Christian charity would require more than merely purchasing their "freedom" and then turning them out into a strange culture without capacity or means to fend for themselves, but it woud also require more than placing them in permanent bondage. Just as a parent rules over a helpless, defenseless child. It isn't to be forever, but it is until a time of training and education is completed, with the goal of a child being able to take care of himself as a responsible adult. The slaveholder would have a right to earn a 'profit' from the work of the slave, just as a parent has a right to 'profit' from the work of a child.
> 
> I don't suggest that we should go *capture savages* and enslave then today, but I can't condemn Christian people for doing then what they did with what was placed upon them. I believe that many Southerners had the best interest of their slaves at heart. They weren't always consistent, but most of our secular histories only record their worst inconsistencies, and not the other aspects.
Click to expand...


I find your use of the term "savage" to be a curious one. 

Though technologically advanced, those who steal or buy other men are much more savage by far.


----------



## Frank Brito.

Of course we still have slavery going on!

If I commit murder, I will be held captive in a prison, won't I?

The point is that "slavery" is a very broad term... Don't think that when you read "slave" or "slavery", you should understand always the same thing...


----------



## steadfast7

I think we, in our day, condemn slavery due to the very negative examples of it in our recent history and the massive political incorrectness of saying something to the effect of "slavery is ok." 

Probably what needs to be appreciated is what slavery meant in the biblical world. It did not always have this negative and oppressive connotation. Paul's favourite title for himself was _doulos _(slave). For some, it may have been considered as a form of employment for the extremely impoverished, much like what child labour may be for the poor in third world countries today. In an ideal world, it would not exist, but the economic situation needs to be understood and appreciated before judging it according to western standards.


----------



## MMasztal




----------



## Frank Brito.

steadfast7 said:


> I think we, in our day, condemn slavery due to the very negative examples of it in our recent history and the massive political incorrectness of saying something to the effect of "slavery is ok."
> 
> Probably what needs to be appreciated is what slavery meant in the biblical world. It did not always have this negative and oppressive connotation. Paul's favourite title for himself was _doulos _(slave). For some, it may have been considered as a form of employment for the extremely impoverished, much like what child labour may be for the poor in third world countries today. In an ideal world, it would not exist, but the economic situation needs to be understood and appreciated before judging it according to western standards.



Recent black slavery was mainly based on the sin of manstealing, which is forbidden by the Law of Moses under death penalty:

Exodus 21:16 *"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.*

That is what black slavery was about in our country and it was hateful to God in every way.


----------



## steadfast7

Frank Brito. said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we, in our day, condemn slavery due to the very negative examples of it in our recent history and the massive political incorrectness of saying something to the effect of "slavery is ok."
> 
> Probably what needs to be appreciated is what slavery meant in the biblical world. It did not always have this negative and oppressive connotation. Paul's favourite title for himself was _doulos _(slave). For some, it may have been considered as a form of employment for the extremely impoverished, much like what child labour may be for the poor in third world countries today. In an ideal world, it would not exist, but the economic situation needs to be understood and appreciated before judging it according to western standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recent black slavery was mainly based on the sin of manstealing, which is forbidden by the Law of Moses under death penalty:
> 
> Exodus 21:16 *"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.*
> 
> That is what black slavery was about in our country and it was hateful to God in every way.
Click to expand...


Amen. This, and every kind of similar act, is a clear violation of God's law.

Back to the OP, with how much confidence can we say that the bible speaks against _all _kinds of slavery?


----------



## Frank Brito.

*I don't suggest that we should go capture savages and enslave then today, but I can't condemn Christian people for doing then what they did with what was placed upon them.*

The role of a Christian is to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them".Ephesians 5.11

-----Added 11/20/2009 at 03:56:34 EST-----

*Back to the OP, with how much confidence can we say that the bible speaks against all kinds of slavery? *

Neither the Bible nor the American Constitution is against all kinds of slavery. The only social system that is theoretically against all kinds of slavery is anarchy.

As I have already stated, in any situation where I am deprived of liberty, I can classify it as "slavery".


----------



## Knoxienne

The Bible regulates slavery and nowhere condemns it in and of itself. It isn't rocket science unless one has been so programmed with humanistic, utopian, socialistic, Rousseauian doctrine from people who want to be holier than God that he just can't see anything else. Even the New Testament is clear that slavery isn't evil in and of itself. Paul himself gives instructions for the relationship between slaves and masters. As vocal and tell it like it is as Paul is, certainly he would have said it were a sin if it was. Of course, Paul understood the OT, unlike so many today. 

True, there is pagan slavery, just like there's pagan marriage, pagan child-rearing, pagan pedagogy, pagan war theories, etc. We don't call something evil just because it's attended with many evils. 

The question isn't whether we will serve. It is who we will serve.

And as long as there are savages, I'm perfectly fine using the term and often. It's a pleasure to use politically incorrect terms.


----------



## Southern Twang

Knoxienne said:


> And as long as there are savages, I'm perfectly fine using the term and often. It's a pleasure to use politically incorrect terms.



Well said Toni! I got a good chuckle from the last part. Nothing more I like than being politically incorrect.


----------



## Kevin

Pergamum said:


> If whore-mongering is a sin, then things associated with whore-mongering, such as owning a prn business would fit. If man-stealing is a sin, then making your profit off of stolen men and women would be a sin.




Thus you would say; that if no theft was involved, then there would be no sin?


----------



## Pergamum

Kevin said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If whore-mongering is a sin, then things associated with whore-mongering, such as owning a prn business would fit. If man-stealing is a sin, then making your profit off of stolen men and women would be a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus you would say; that if no theft was involved, then there would be no sin?
Click to expand...


Indentured servanthood seems to be permissible. Southern slavery no.


----------



## Montanablue

Pergamum said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If whore-mongering is a sin, then things associated with whore-mongering, such as owning a prn business would fit. If man-stealing is a sin, then making your profit off of stolen men and women would be a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus you would say; that if no theft was involved, then there would be no sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indentured servanthood seems to be permissible. Southern slavery no.
Click to expand...


Right. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong (because I haven't studied this in detail), but the slavery that is represented in the Bible always seemed a great deal more like indentured servanthood to me. I have no qualms about saying that southern slavery and the slavery that we practice today _is_ sin. But what is going on in the Bible seems quite different.


----------



## Mushroom

I can say this with all honesty, if there were a master who would take care of me and my family in exchange for honest labor, I would certainly consider allowing him to drive an awl through my earlobe. Couldn't be worse than the slavery to debt that I am under now.


----------



## Kevin

Montanablue said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus you would say; that if no theft was involved, then there would be no sin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indentured servanthood seems to be permissible. Southern slavery no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong (because I haven't studied this in detail), but the slavery that is represented in the Bible always seemed a great deal more like indentured servanthood to me. I have no qualms about saying that southern slavery and the slavery that we practice today _is_ sin. But what is going on in the Bible seems quite different.
Click to expand...


For Israelites, yes. But those captured in war, or bought from another land, or born to slave parents could be held for life.


----------



## Pergamum

Kevin said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indentured servanthood seems to be permissible. Southern slavery no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong (because I haven't studied this in detail), but the slavery that is represented in the Bible always seemed a great deal more like indentured servanthood to me. I have no qualms about saying that southern slavery and the slavery that we practice today _is_ sin. But what is going on in the Bible seems quite different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Israelites, yes. But those captured in war, or bought from another land, or born to slave parents could be held for life.
Click to expand...


But the ability to kill men, women and children also only pertained to Israelites for a time, and no longer applies. So, trying to prove other forms of slavery based on OT Israelite practice is tenous at best.


Here's an interesting read on Irish Slavery and the sale of the Irish that were captured in war: Irish Slavery


----------



## regener8ed

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Slavery IS sinful.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Is God a sinner?



Lev 25:39 And if thy brother [that dwelleth] by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: 
Lev 25:40 [But] as an hired servant, [and] as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, [and] shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 
Lev 25:41 And [then] shall he depart from thee, [both] he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 
Lev 25:42 For they [are] my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. 
Lev 25:43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God. 
Lev 25:44 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. 
Lev 25:45 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. 
Lev 25:46 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.


----------



## Kevin

Pergy, I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was only replying to a question about the nature of slavery in the OT.

It was indentured for Israelites & full-on lifetime slavery for everyone else.

You can work out the "general equity" of that yourself by means of "good & necessary" consequences.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 12:26:37 EST-----



regener8ed said:


> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Slavery IS sinful.



Jon I would rather not, all other things being equal, have a great number of things "done to me", that I may properly "do unto others". The key is the nature of the relationship between myself & that particular "other". I.e employer/employee, parent/child, judge/accused, indigent person/taxpayer, cop/robber, etc.

That verse is not in my opinion applicable to this question.


----------



## Thomas2007

steadfast7 said:


> Let's start with the broad concept that people could be bought, sold and owned as property, to be used as a labour force. This is seen in biblical practice, but why not today?



What do you mean "why not today?" Private slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment in the United States, and was replaced with public slavery. The United States claims ownership of its citizens and it not only sells their labor today, but decades if not centuries into the future, for its deficit spending.


----------



## regener8ed

> Jon I would rather not, all other things being equal, have a great number of things "done to me", that I may properly "do unto others". The key is the nature of the relationship between myself & that particular "other". I.e employer/employee, parent/child, judge/accused, indigent person/taxpayer, cop/robber, etc.
> 
> That verse is not in my opinion applicable to this question.



Would you want to be held as a slave to another sinful human being under any circumstances?


----------



## Pergamum

Papers and Publications SoCal Theologica: Musings from the West Coast


----------



## Kevin

regener8ed said:


> Jon I would rather not, all other things being equal, have a great number of things "done to me", that I may properly "do unto others". The key is the nature of the relationship between myself & that particular "other". I.e employer/employee, parent/child, judge/accused, indigent person/taxpayer, cop/robber, etc.
> 
> That verse is not in my opinion applicable to this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you want to be held as a slave to another sinful human being under any circumstances?
Click to expand...


My "wanting" has nothing to do at all with all sorts of involuntary situations that I face every day. Paying 30% of my income to a govt that claimes the right to "punish" me for non-complience, has been credibly compared to the master/slave relationship by many social scientists & economists.

So a plausible (prima fasca) case can be made that I am in fact being `held as a slve to an other sinful human being`.


----------



## TaylorWest

Seems like this one fits in the 'Moses permitted because of the hardness of your heart' category.

Deuteronomy 23:15 'You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.'


----------



## Peairtach

What do people mean when they say slavery in itself is sinful? 

Is it sinful to own a slave? On what terms? On absolute terms of life and death? A lot of slavery was not of the nature of absolute ownership.

You've got to ask what kind of ownership.

In the case of employment, the employer has ownership of some of your time and labour, and sanctions will follow if you don't comply.

Some in employment have been and are more dictatorially treated than some slaves. Because there are abuses in employment does that make employing people, or seeking employment sinful in itself?

On all terms? What if the person wants to be your slave, says he and his family is treated very well, and believes he would be in a worse position as unemployed or in employment?

Is it sinful to be a slave? Is it sinful to want to be a slave?

Or both?

What is the specific thing that makes slavery per se sinful?

See John Murray's "Principles of Conduct"

It's good it's been abolished because it seems open to abuse, although it's still with us in various forms, and employment is also open to abuse!

Maybe everyone should be self-employed.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Kevin said:


> regener8ed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon I would rather not, all other things being equal, have a great number of things "done to me", that I may properly "do unto others". The key is the nature of the relationship between myself & that particular "other". I.e employer/employee, parent/child, judge/accused, indigent person/taxpayer, cop/robber, etc.
> 
> That verse is not in my opinion applicable to this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you want to be held as a slave to another sinful human being under any circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "wanting" has nothing to do at all with all sorts of involuntary situations that I face every day. Paying 30% of my income to a govt that claimes the right to "punish" me for non-complience, has been credibly compared to the master/slave relationship by many social scientists & economists.
> 
> So a plausible (prima fasca) case can be made that I am in fact being `held as a slve to an other sinful human being`.
Click to expand...


----------

