The morality of Slavery in History and Natural Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

caddy

Puritan Board Senior
Of course this human institution exists because we are sinful men and women. We will continue to treat our fellow man with disdain.

For instance. I received this from a friend concerning the subject:

In Rome, slavery WAS the norm. It was so in Greece before that. They had Democracy and slavery at the same time. Western society is based on those cultures, slavery is part of our history. It used to be considered "ok", and fairly recently in the US. More and more people considered it wrong, and now everyone consideres it wrong. Evolving moral values.


AT THE TIME, the MAINSTREAM moral values said that slavery was ok. Therefore it was enshrined in law. Most people thought it was ok. Those were the mainstream moral values. People who denied these values were the fringe at the time, the agitators, the weirdos. I bet there were many people such as yoursefl in those days who could quote every holy book passage, claimed they were "chosen by God", denounced homosexuals, and owned slaves

Another example: marrying 12-year-olds. It used to be ok when the average lifespan was 30 years. Now it's totally wrong and immoral. Did God change his mind about that too or were all these people sinners?


Even Aristotle and many others claimed that slavery was "natural", but we knew better then and we know better now. They were wrong. It is not natural and it was never "moral". Slavery is about one being using another being merely as a means to its ends. Sinful men have always enslaved men simply because they are sinful. They will continue to do so. America's long battle with it and Nelson Mandela's troubles have helped to bring our collective consciouses where they always should have been, but each man and each generation will fight that battle on their own. Men and women who are enslaved know it is unnatural. They know it and feel it in their souls. Many accept their plight, knowing they can do nothing about it. Those who enslave--at the beginning at least--KNOW they are doing wrong. As time goes on, however, their conscioius' are seered and they begin to think it is "natural." It isn't. They know all better. Each will be judged for "missing the mark."

Does anyone have any other thoughts on this horrible institution as it relates to natural law?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have any other thoughts on this horrible institution as it relates to natural law?
Well, I'll comment. But I don't think this is what you're looking for.

All men are "naturally" slaves to sin. The elect have been bought with a price and given the freedom to become slaves of Christ. Slavery is natural, and all men are slaves.

I know that's not what you're asking though. So, with that aside, Scripture makes it clear that God ordained slavery. It was a means by which a man could pay off debt. It is equally clear that slaves were bought and sold, and if one chose to he could enslave himself to his owner for the rest of his life (Ex 21; Deu 15). In Jeremiah we repeatedly see God commanding the Israelites to serve Babylon. In context it becomes clear that this is a 70 year slavery. Paul tells slaves to serve their masters well, and slave owners to treat their slaves well. Nowhere does he command the slave owners to free their slaves. Some argument may be given in regard to Paul's letter to Philemon (15 For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.), but it is inconclusive.

Nowhere does Scripture denounce slavery itself. The reality is that slavery, in and of itself, is not immoral. It is the reason for the slavery that makes it immoral. Enslavement based on ethnicity, age, sex, religion, geography, and such are instances of the strong or powerful imposing their will over the weak or minority. This is, as you say, "about one being using another being merely as a means to its ends.." However, as punishment for crimes it was once common practice in some cultures to make the guilty party serve their victim for a certain amount of time. Is this any more immoral than locking them up? It has also been common to make the soldiers of a conquered enemy serve as slaves. Should they be executed instead?

Much of the misunderstanding in regard to slavery is in light of the cruelty that has accompanied it in some areas during certain periods of time. But in many cultures the slaves were treated like family members. This is also true of American slavery in some instances. Although the reason for the slavery here could never be vindicated, not all slaves were treated poorly. But that's another topic for another day.

So, I don't know that slavery (outside spiritual) is natural. But the morality of it is based on the reason and the treatment involved, not on the existence of the institution itself. Man's dignity as God's image bearer should never be misplaced, regardless of ethnicity, creed or inherent factors. And please, don't turn my statements into some endorsement of slavery (I've experienced this irresponsible overreaction before). I simply made biblical and historical observations.
 
We certainly have people work off some types of debt and consider it acceptable in our culture. I'm sure everyone has seen people working off certain things by cleaning up trash on the side of the road, etc.
And in my hometown there was a minimum security prison and they would come down and do supervised manual labor in town. We just don't call that slavery anymore because we reserve that word for forced slavery. Paul includes this type of forced slavery under one of his lists of immorality:

"the 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... enslavers" (1Tim 1:9-10)

But it is at least true that we humans' understanding and maturity evolves in regards to understanding the fulness of our sins. And so God accommodates the application of his law in certain senses in regard to our fallen-ness:

"Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt 19:8)

Perhaps the allowance of divorce has some parallels to the allowance of other things in the law that we now consider immoral.
 
Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.

God in the OT regulated some sinful practices, such as divorce and polygamy, but did not condone it. Slavery was one such sin. God regulated it for a time.

While at some times men have voluntarily indentured themselves to pay off debt, or were consigned to manual labor for the conviction of crimes, the black chattel slavery in the US did not fall into those two categories, even though some on this board will try to convince you that the salvery that led to the US Civil War was not sinful. It was, and our nation paid dearly. The cozy picture of slaves and slaveowners living in harmony together in the antebellum south is a fiction.


As it relates to natural law, I suppose someone could argue from reason that since man differs in abilities and intelligence and some nations have "progressed" further than others, that it is not quite unnatural that one nation should rule over another such that the "inferior" nation becomes slaves.



On the bigger issue of evolving moral values: The world does seem to be developing and/or changing in morals. Old sins are exchanged for new sins. Some sins disapear all together. Cannibalism is no longer practiced in the context of whole tribal groups and only occur in bizarre murder cases like Dahmer. Polygamy, slavery, child sacrifice to pagan Gods, religious wars are all on the outs. Now, we manufacture new sins to take their place... and sometimes sins largely disapear altogether. Slavery, for instance has largely disapeared. I don't know if this is because God is moving the world forward and the world is gradually getting better. but I am glad that this phase of history is over.


God certainly did not change his mind on these laws. He did bring the Israelites to greater maturity by specific law injunctions. He did deal with them as children, and so God's revealtion did progress as history progressed (eg, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes clearer and clearer as hisotry advances)...
 
Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.

Oh I know. I am familiar with Dabney. I have read some of his work. He was a good theologian, but still a sinful man like the rest of us.

Appreciate the comments.
 
Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.

God in the OT regulated some sinful practices, such as divorce and polygamy, but did not condone it. Slavery was one such sin. God regulated it for a time.

While at some times men have voluntarily indentured themselves to pay off debt, or were consigned to manual labor for the conviction of crimes, the black chattel slavery in the US did not fall into those two categories, even though some on this board will try to convince you that the salvery that led to the US Civil War was not sinful. It was, and our nation paid dearly. The cozy picture of slaves and slaveowners living in harmony together in the antebellum south is a fiction.


As it relates to natural law, I suppose someone could argue from reason that since man differs in abilities and intelligence and some nations have "progressed" further than others, that it is not quite unnatural that one nation should rule over another such that the "inferior" nation becomes slaves.

I haven't researched statistical inferences of relations between masters and slaves in the U.S, perhaps some were more benevolent than others. I do know slaves were very expensive, so completely abusing or killing a slave would not be a smart business practice, espeically if you needed their work. This is why for the really dangerous jobs slaves weren't even used, they'd just go hire an irish man to do it.

But in any case I don't know... just the very mindset of owning a slave, not because of anything he did (crime, debt, whatever the bible seems to condone on this matter) but because of a percieved racial or national inferiority does not seem to be moral biblically. But then again what about the claim that it was good that the Europeans brought civilization and Christianity to Africa and other what we consider 3rd world nations. Surely the Lord does work all things together for good, even sin, but the means of sin is never condoned on our part as good simply because God used it for a good end. We're all still held accountable, and I'm sure many slave masters have been held accountable. Although its a bit ironic, I take comfort and fear in God's justice. :2cents:
 
Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.

Oh I know. I am familiar with Dabney. I have read some of his work. He was a good theologian, but still a sinful man like the rest of us.
I haven't read Dabney. Can someone give me a synopsis?
 
Watch out Caddy; many folks here read Dadney and - because he is a good theologian - conclude that he was right about slavery. We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.

Oh I know. I am familiar with Dabney. I have read some of his work. He was a good theologian, but still a sinful man like the rest of us.
I haven't read Dabney. Can someone give me a synopsis?

Dabney both defended and critiqued racial slavery.

The error with Dabney is that the bible didn't make the racial distinction that he made. But what Dabney saw that we are all-too embarrassed about is that the Bible didn't start apologizing--like we do--for slavery. Dabney was also put in a hard place because many of the abolitionists were Christ-hating Unitarians. But Dabney was prescient enough to see that the infidel rhetoric of the Unitarians would harden the minds of Southern Christians, which sadly happened.
 
I can see a Biblical justification for indentured servitude, called "slavery" in some translations of Leviticus; also God allowed for real slavery of other nations conquered in war, which, compared to the Hareem(sp?) seems merciful. This was the common practice in Greece and Rome, these were captured people who weren't put to death, and they could eventually earn or buy their freedom and even citizenship.

I don't think the Bible justifies racial slavery as we knew it in the United States. The 13th Ammendment appears to allow for "chain gangs".
 
We have many here who would try to justify this horrible practice.

care to name some examples and proof of what you are speaking?



I believe it was YOU that said "The South [Dabney] was correct to say that the Bible sanctioned salvery." on 5-16-2004, on the post "R Dabney and Slavery.

So? The bible does sanction slavery. To deny that is to deny God's word. Now, as I made clear--and you left out--the bible does not sanction racial slavery, but that does not mean that it doesn't sanction any kind of slavery at all. As history makes abundantly clear, there are many types of slavery. Slavery isn't some vague, abstract evil principle.
 
...even though some on this board will try to convince you that the salvery that led to the US Civil War...

1. It wasn't a Civil War. Was the War for independence from Britain a Civil War? No. The Americans weren't trying to take control of British Parliament. Just like the Southerners were not trying to gain hold of Washington. They just wanted to be freed from it.

2. Slavery did not lead to the War.

3. I don't use Dabney for a source when it comes to defending Southern history. I can't cite the source right now, but I've read some things wherein he discusses racial issues "biblically" and he's way off, quite disappointing actually. By that, I'm noting that slavery was an injustice. But it was one both the North and South shared. And we also can be thankful for God's providence and how He uses evil for good.

4. My God is not Southern. He's Lord. I don't wear confederate flag shirts and wave them around (although, there's nothing wrong with that). I want to be faithful to Him. But at the same time, I don't like the demonization of the South that exists in these times or the exaltation of Lincoln as a great emancipator or humanitarian. He was a tyrant, dictator, white supermacist, and a big government, big spender, big brother liberal.

5. I love my Yankee brethren. And I love you. And I don't want your bud light. I hate racism. I do not support slavery. I hate affirmative action. I hate the idea of reparations. I hate the sinfulness of man. I hate my sin. And sometimes...I hate history, because we all come down on different sides sometimes at the cost of edification of others.

Ok. I hope none of that came across wrong. I hope I wasn't unclear. I hope I'm not reviled for it. Godspeed. :)


:ditto:
 
...even though some on this board will try to convince you that the salvery that led to the US Civil War...

1. It wasn't a Civil War. Was the War for independence from Britain a Civil War? No. The Americans weren't trying to take control of British Parliament. Just like the Southerners were not trying to gain hold of Washington. They just wanted to be freed from it.

2. Slavery did not lead to the War.

3. I don't use Dabney for a source when it comes to defending Southern history. I can't cite the source right now, but I've read some things wherein he discusses racial issues "biblically" and he's way off, quite disappointing actually. By that, I'm noting that slavery was an injustice. But it was one both the North and South shared. And we also can be thankful for God's providence and how He uses evil for good.

4. My God is not Southern. He's Lord. I don't wear confederate flag shirts and wave them around (although, there's nothing wrong with that). I want to be faithful to Him. But at the same time, I don't like the demonization of the South that exists in these times or the exaltation of Lincoln as a great emancipator or humanitarian. He was a tyrant, dictator, white supermacist, and a big government, big spender, big brother liberal.

5. I love my Yankee brethren. And I love you. And I don't want your bud light. I hate racism. I do not support slavery. I hate affirmative action. I hate the idea of reparations. I hate the sinfulness of man. I hate my sin. And sometimes...I hate history, because we all come down on different sides sometimes at the cost of edification of others.

Ok. I hope none of that came across wrong. I hope I wasn't unclear. I hope I'm not reviled for it. Godspeed. :)


:agree:

Well said!
 
care to name some examples and proof of what you are speaking?



I believe it was YOU that said "The South [Dabney] was correct to say that the Bible sanctioned salvery." on 5-16-2004, on the post "R Dabney and Slavery.

So? The bible does sanction slavery. To deny that is to deny God's word. Now, as I made clear--and you left out--the bible does not sanction racial slavery, but that does not mean that it doesn't sanction any kind of slavery at all. As history makes abundantly clear, there are many types of slavery. Slavery isn't some vague, abstract evil principle.

I wish people would realise that while Southern slavery may have been wrong; the Civil war led to a much worse form of slavery: Statism. If you do not believe me, then read the early chapters of Exodus and 1 Samuel 8 and compare them to what exists in most nations today. All of us are enslaved to Julius Caesar.:chained:

Also, see the chapter on "Christianity versus Statism" in my new book A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government, when it eventually comes out.
 
I always found it ironic that the North portrays the fight as if it was about freeing many individual slaves from their master, and the South portrays the fight about keeping many individual states free from having one central master. Who are we kidding? That is true unity: we're all hypocrites.
 
I thought about pasting some Lincoln quotes where Lincoln made clear his belief in the inferiority of black people, but I will refrain myself. I will restate my former point: If someone makes a categorical claim that Slavery is evil, then they will have problems with the Bible when the bible doesn't share the same view.

Commentators and study bibles will go to great lengths to make plain that slavery was an existing evil and Paul *secretly* wanted to subvert it, but that can't be found in the text.
 
I think what I have seen endorsed on this board is the belief the the War Between the States was not a civil war but a war of Northern aggression; and that the South would possibly have abolished race-slavery on its own had history been allowed to play itself out, and that "affirmative action" is a Statist thing. I don't think I've ever seen race-slavery endorsed on this board.
 
I thought about pasting some Lincoln quotes where Lincoln made clear his belief in the inferiority of black people, but I will refrain myself. I will restate my former point: If someone makes a categorical claim that Slavery is evil, then they will have problems with the Bible when the bible doesn't share the same view.

Commentators and study bibles will go to great lengths to make plain that slavery was an existing evil and Paul *secretly* wanted to subvert it, but that can't be found in the text.

You mean like how it isn't found in this text?

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the 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, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." (1Tim 1:8-11)

Although I guess people have explained away many of the other sins listed, so one could probably justify their beliefs about forcing people to serve as slaves as well... :um:
 
My 1611 says "menstealers". I would think that means "enslavers" but I wouldn't want to die on that hill. Not sure that's what Paul meant though it stands to reason...
 
I thought about pasting some Lincoln quotes where Lincoln made clear his belief in the inferiority of black people, but I will refrain myself. I will restate my former point: If someone makes a categorical claim that Slavery is evil, then they will have problems with the Bible when the bible doesn't share the same view.

Commentators and study bibles will go to great lengths to make plain that slavery was an existing evil and Paul *secretly* wanted to subvert it, but that can't be found in the text.

You mean like how it isn't found in this text?

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the 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, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." (1Tim 1:8-11)

Although I guess people have explained away many of the other sins listed, so one could probably justify their beliefs about forcing people to serve as slaves as well... :um:

As a former, chastened post-theonomist, I despise kidnapping with all my heart. It is a clear example of the need for the death penalty. The OT allowed for voluntary (except in war or crimes) servitude, which precludes kidnapping. Of course, if it means "enslaving" rather than "kidnapping," then the only type of biblical slavery would be indentured servitude.

I thought about derailing the thread on the subject of kidnapping and modern sexual slavery. Given that fact, I would immediately ask the anti-theonomists if they thought the death penalty on kidnapping was still binding in the New Covenant era.
 
Yeah, Paul may be thinking of verses like the following which are definitely speaking of kidnapping, but it appears from this verse that it is assumed that a person kidnaps in order to enslave:
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." (Ex 21:16)
 
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.
 
On the bigger issue of evolving moral values: The world does seem to be developing and/or changing in morals. Old sins are exchanged for new sins. Some sins disapear all together. Cannibalism is no longer practiced in the context of whole tribal groups and only occur in bizarre murder cases like Dahmer. Polygamy, slavery, child sacrifice to pagan Gods, religious wars are all on the outs. Now, we manufacture new sins to take their place... and sometimes sins largely disapear altogether. Slavery, for instance has largely disapeared. I don't know if this is because God is moving the world forward and the world is gradually getting better. but I am glad that this phase of history is over.
(emphasis added)

If you mean that certain forms of slavery are technically illegal in most countries on the planet, then that's true. But I believe the actual practice is alive and well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top