Slavery is good right!

[Larry Parsons]

Why is everyone is against slavery, when the bible has nothing bad to say about it?

[Shea Zellweger]

ummm... is this a trick question?

[Charles W Christian]

There's a neat little book called, The Problem with Paul by Brian Dodd, where the author presents a chart contrasting 1st Century servitude/slavery with chattel slavery (the kind practiced in America for a few hundred years). The author shows that both have negative aspects, but 1st Cent. slavery has far better qualities than chattel slavery. Check it out....And, I hope this is a trick question, but either way, the book will help you see a clear difference and reasons why Christians should reject slavery.....

Thanks
Charles

[Dennis Bratcher]

Why is everyone is against slavery, when the bible has nothing bad to say about it?

Because the Bible is not, and never was, absolute law. Even under Israel's supposed theocracy, "civil" law was not the same as torah. In reality, torah is a way to live under God, a chosen lifestyle within the context of covenant relationship. Even within Scripture, torah changed to meet the demands of a changing history. For example, the tithing systems changed as the economy moved from nomadic herding, to settled agrarian, to largely urban. Also, Nehemiah changed the laws of divorce to meet the crisis of post-exilic Judaism (see Torah as Holiness: Old Testament "Law" as Response to Divine Grace (http://www.crivoice.org/torahholiness.html)).

God gave us intelligence to be able to take basic principles and adapt them into new and unforeseen cultural and historical contexts. Otherwise, Christians would have little to say in the face of modern technology (which is why some Christians are still arguing about women in ministry based on first century AD social mores, without having much cogent to say about far more pressing issues).

So no, slavery, in any form, is not OK. And yes, women should be able to speak in church. And no, in the USA we should not greet one another with a holy kiss.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Roland Hearn]

It doesn't seem to me that the question can be serious. You don't have to think too long about human dignitiy, human worth, and the wonder of lilfe to recognise that none of those things can be preserved if they are not available to all. Regardless of what the Bible does or does not say within its cultural context looking at what it says about such things as the love of God for all leads you inescapably to certain conclusions about the way one should treat another - using another person as a possession does not fit in that construct. So while you cannot see absolute rejection of the concept you see the beiginngs of a counter culture movement that will lead innevitably to Christian opposition to slavery. Philemon is a good place to start to see the laws being overwhelmed by the principle of love.

[Hans Deventer]

So while you cannot see absolute rejection of the concept you see the beginnings of a counter culture movement that will lead inevitably to Christian opposition to slavery.

This, I think, is the main issue. While Paul on the one hand never preached revolution in the traditional sense, Romans 13:1-7 being perhaps the clearest statement, it is also abundantly clear that living the life of the Kingdom as Jesus and Paul proclaimed would indeed inevitably lead to social changes.

Ephesians 6:9 - And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

We probably can't hear the revolution here anymore, but it was very clear to 1st century ears. Everything had changed, but the outside.

For a nice book on how to read the Scriptures with 1st century ears and understand some of the above, see Longnecker's "The Lost Letters of Pergamum: A Story from the New Testament World"

[Craig Laughlin]

Why is everyone is against slavery, when the bible has nothing bad to say about it?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ... Volunteering?

[Billie Goodson]

Why is everyone is against slavery, when the bible has nothing bad to say about it?

I am unconvinced that the bible has nothing "bad to say about" slavery.

Exodus 21:16 -- "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."

Deut 24:7 -- If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

These two verses speak to the most common concepts of slavery today. There is an excellent article I have where the author did a pretty in-depth look at slavery in the ANE cultures and also addresses the biblical perspective. I will look around for it.

[Kevin Rector]

I think that Philemon is a brilliant if subtle refutation of slavery in Paul's day.

[Bill Morrison]

As horrible as the human institution of slavery is (and no doubt I'd feel even more strongly about it if I or my family members were slaves), let's not lose sight of the fact there is something far worse: the slavery to sin into which each of us are born.
Perhaps one reason (in addition to cultural milieu of the time it was written) scripture seems to not address it more often and more directly is because it is dealing with the more serious problem of slavery of ALL of us to sin. I do agree with Billie (post #8) that the Bible is not entirely silent on the issue, and certainly when one understands the real message of the Good News it is difficult to see how slavery would persist for very long. We Wesleyans have a good heritage in regards to Wilberforce and others, although others were kind of slow to get it. (Were they even right with God themselves? He will be the judge.) I especially like Kevin's comment on Philemon (post #9). Let's not be quick to judge Paul for being "silent" on slavery. His subtle approach may have done more good in the long run than a direct approach would have.

BILL

[Todd Erickson]

There are more people in slavery in the world today (roughly 27 million by most estimates) than have ever been in any previous period.

Oh, and the world is flat, and only has four corners, and there are spheres of space around the planets. It says so in the bible.

[Dennis Bratcher]

It doesn't seem to me that the question can be serious. You don't have to think too long about human dignitiy, human worth, and the wonder of lilfe to recognise that none of those things can be preserved if they are not available to all. Regardless of what the Bible does or does not say within its cultural context looking at what it says about such things as the love of God for all leads you inescapably to certain conclusions about the way one should treat another - using another person as a possession does not fit in that construct. So while you cannot see absolute rejection of the concept you see the beiginngs of a counter culture movement that will lead innevitably to Christian opposition to slavery. Philemon is a good place to start to see the laws being overwhelmed by the principle of love.

This issue (among others) remains a problem for those who take a totally literal view of Scripture or who argue most forms of absolute inerrancy. Either the Bible means what it says in a strictly literal way, and we are left with no direct prohibition against slavery. In fact, we have considerable guidelines for how to treat slaves. As a result, there is no biblical support for prohibiting slavery. Or else human reason comes into play in working out biblical principles in application to circumstances in different times and places in ways that go beyond what the Bible specifically says. Since usually those who take the literalist/inerrant perspective have a very low opinion of human beings as totally and irredeemably imperfect and sinful, and therefore cannot be trusted with the things of God, relying on human beings to make moral decisions is not an option. Once again, it is a basic set of presuppositions about the nature of reality filtered through a theological system that determines much of the conclusion.

And yet, few in the modern world, especially in democratic countries, would argue for slavery. For literalists/inerrantists it remains a logical and practical dilemma for which there is no easy solution. That may explain why slavery still existed in most of the world until the middle 1800s. Perhaps it was partly because that platonic perspective of humanity prevailed in the Church from the fourth century on (it is actually much more complicated than this).

Those who do not see humanity in such starkly platonic categories of being contaminated by physical existence have far less trouble with the notion that God trusts genuinely redeemed human beings with torah-making, with moving beyond seeing Scripture as rigid law and creating new instructions that deal with new circumstances and contexts.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Steven Burton]

Why is everyone is against slavery, when the bible has nothing bad to say about it?

Yessir, Massuh!

[Billie Goodson]

Here are the two articles done by Glenn Miller. The first is the Old Testament handling, the second is the New Testament perspective.

http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html


"The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area. In the NT case, the problem is hugely complicated by the SEEMING position that ALL socio-economic institutions are 'neutral'; that they can be either used wonderfully or abused woefully...for example, i am called to be a 'slave to Christ'...and to obey (within conscience and stewardship) the demands of oppressive governments...this area of cultural forms is notoriously difficult (in my opinion) so the Philemon situation is not at all decisive or instructive for me...(i am familiar, however, with those civil war debates, but consider much of that simply bad theological method)...simply put, i think the problem is more complex than a simple 'Paul hedged here'...i am still thinking through this, so dont take my comments as finished goods ...

[Jim Chabot]

Because the Bible is not, and never was, absolute law. Even under Israel's supposed theocracy, "civil" law was not the same as torah. In reality, torah is a way to live under God, a chosen lifestyle within the context of covenant relationship. Even within Scripture, torah changed to meet the demands of a changing history. For example, the tithing systems changed as the economy moved from nomadic herding, to settled agrarian, to largely urban. Also, Nehemiah changed the laws of divorce to meet the crisis of post-exilic Judaism (see Torah as Holiness: Old Testament "Law" as Response to Divine Grace (http://www.crivoice.org/torahholiness.html)).

God gave us intelligence to be able to take basic principles and adapt them into new and unforeseen cultural and historical contexts. Otherwise, Christians would have little to say in the face of modern technology (which is why some Christians are still arguing about women in ministry based on first century AD social mores, without having much cogent to say about far more pressing issues).

So no, slavery, in any form, is not OK. And yes, women should be able to speak in church. And no, in the USA we should not greet one another with a holy kiss.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

WOW! Way to go Mr. Grace and Peace! Did you put too many sugars in your coffee this morning or what?

Absolutely unbelievable.

[Jim Chabot]

Here are the two articles done by Glenn Miller. The first is the Old Testament handling, the second is the New Testament perspective.

http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

Great articles, it is increasingly rare to find someone willing to look at this issue objectively.

Early on in my Christian experience, I noticed that this issue has been a pet for those who needed the theological door opened to discard whatever scripture they deemed offensive.

[Shea Zellweger]

WOW! Way to go Mr. Grace and Peace! Did you put too many sugars in your coffee this morning or what?

Absolutely unbelievable.

I'm having trouble grasping what in Dennis' quote you found unbelievable. Now, if you had quoted his other post, I could see a couple points which might give you trouble, but other than his affirmation of women in ministry (which was not said in an offensive or belittling manner), I don't see anything which would give one pause... unless you support slavery or REALLY want to kiss me next time we do lunch :D.

[Shea Zellweger]

I am unconvinced that the bible has nothing "bad to say about" slavery.

Exodus 21:16 -- "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."

Deut 24:7 -- If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

These two verses speak to the most common concepts of slavery today. There is an excellent article I have where the author did a pretty in-depth look at slavery in the ANE cultures and also addresses the biblical perspective. I will look around for it.

Add that to Paul's commands to Masters' handling of their slaves, and all of a sudden the Christian version of slavery begins to look an awful lot like indentured servanthood, or even contractually binding employment...

[Billie Goodson]

Add that to Paul's commands to Masters' handling of their slaves, and all of a sudden the Christian version of slavery begins to look an awful lot like indentured servanthood, or even contractually binding employment...

Do you mean "the slavery referenced in the New Testament" instead of "the Christian version of slavery"?

[Shea Zellweger]

Do you mean "the slavery referenced in the New Testament" instead of "the Christian version of slavery"?

What I mean is that if Christians were to endorse any form of slavery and defend it biblically, it would look more like contractually binding employment than what we contemporarily understand as "slavery." So in that sense, I do mean "the Christian version of slavery," but I would not be likely to use the term in casual conversation.

[Jim Chabot]

I'm having trouble grasping what in Dennis' quote you found unbelievable. Now, if you had quoted his other post, I could see a couple points which might give you trouble, but other than his affirmation of women in ministry (which was not said in an offensive or belittling manner), I don't see anything which would give one pause... unless you support slavery or REALLY want to kiss me next time we do lunch :D.

I found his premise to be unbelievable.

I don't agree with his view of women in ministry, but it isn't a big deal. It doesn't bother me in any way.

I've thought about your proposal to kiss, and if it's ok with you I'll take a raincheck. Although it is something that is practiced by some in our congregation, I do participate in that setting.

The second post didn't bother me much. My take was that he was just venting. And I have to admit that there are still some knuckle draggers out there that fit the target of his rant, so it did have some basis in fact.

[Shea Zellweger]

I found his premise to be unbelievable.


Unbelievable in the sense that you take Scripture as absolute law, or that the historical evidence provided is in fact inaccurate? I think we do have practically irrefutable evidence that the laws of God have been changed over time (Jesus on Divorce, Jesus' "new command," etc), and the more pressing question is whether that changing of laws is finalized within the accepted canon (I'll even say the Protestant canon), or whether, to borrow a phrase from the UCC folk who currently surround me, "God is still speaking," specifically in regard to a progressing and adapting revelation. I know the conclusion you would draw, and I think I know the conclusion Dennis would draw, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that either claim is "unbelievable," and I certianly don't find either to be ungracious, which appeared to be your initial implication- forgive me if I misunderstood.

[John Brickley]

WOW! Way to go Mr. Grace and Peace! Did you put too many sugars in your coffee this morning or what?

Absolutely unbelievable.

Jim,

What exactly does that add to the conversation?

[Rich Schmidt]

I think we do have practically irrefutable evidence that the laws of God have been changed over time (Jesus on Divorce, Jesus' "new command," etc)...

You don't even have to leave the Old Testament to find changes being made to the laws God's people were expected to live by. Dennis already gave two examples. I only mention it to make sure we don't get sidetracked in the "but Jesus was a unique case" direction.

[John Brickley]

I found his premise to be unbelievable.

I don't agree with his view of women in ministry, but it isn't a big deal. It doesn't bother me in any way.

I've thought about your proposal to kiss, and if it's ok with you I'll take a raincheck. Although it is something that is practiced by some in our congregation, I do participate in that setting.

The second post didn't bother me much. My take was that he was just venting. And I have to admit that there are still some knuckle draggers out there that fit the target of his rant, so it did have some basis in fact.

Jim,

Sorry but your explanation does not strike me as being sufficient (that is my own opinion for what it is worth). What is it that you found unbelievable. And why do you think what he posted was a "rant". He is making a very valid and important point about the nature of scripture which you just blow off with a snide remark and then offer no explanation for that. If you have a critique of substance by all means offer it, but what you said really does nothing but soil the water.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim,

What exactly does that add to the conversation?

My thoughts exactly! The discussion is in regards to slavery as it is contemplated biblically. There have been some excellent posts that help the conversation. Then Dennis turns slavery into whatever bothers Dennis. Adds nothing to the conversation at all now does it?

It's not like we don't allready know that Dennis gets animated about innerrant fundys, or anyone who would question his view of women in ministry. Hello, this thread was about slavery!

[Jim Chabot]

Jim,

Sorry but your explanation does not strike me as being sufficient (that is my own opinion for what it is worth). What is it that you found unbelievable. And why do you think what he posted was a "rant". He is making a very valid and important point about the nature of scripture which you just blow off with a snide remark and then offer no explanation for that. If you have a critique of substance by all means offer it, but what you said really does nothing but soil the water.

You certainly have right to your opinion John. Maybe you could be so kind to allow the same for others.

I happened to find Dennis initial post as offensive and unnecessary. I guess it's my opinion.

[John Brickley]

You certainly have right to your opinion John. Maybe you could be so kind to allow the same for others.

I happened to find Dennis initial post as offensive and unnecessary. I guess it's my opinion.

Jim,

You misunderstand me, I am not asking you to not share your opinion, I'd like to hear it, but that is not what you did, all you did was offer thinly veiled insults. That is (I hope) beneath you and certainly beneath NazNet. I simply expect better. And you are still refusing to deal with what Dennis actually said, rather choosing to dismiss it with further insults. In so doing you missed his whole point, his point was not about fundies (as you describe them), nor was it about women in ministry, but about the dynamic nature of scripture. It is a very important point and has everything to do with the discussion at hand. So lets elevate the conversation back to where it was before this unfortunate detour.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim,

You misunderstand me, I am not asking you to not share your opinion, I'd like to hear it, but that is not what you did, all you did was offer thinly veiled insults. That is (I hope) beneath you and certainly beneath NazNet. I simply expect better. And you are still refusing to deal with what Dennis actually said, rather choosing to dismiss it with further insults. In so doing you missed his whole point, his point was not about fundies (as you describe them), nor was it about women in ministry, but about the dynamic nature of scripture. It is a very important point and has everything to do with the discussion at hand. So lets elevate the conversation back to where it was before this unfortunate detour.

I see it differently, however I do agree with you regarding the elevation of this discussion. That is primarily why I did not head down the side track of the dynamic nature of scripture. All that does is obfuscate the discussion regarding slavery. Maybe it is important, but it is not relevant. Unless one takes for granted that the slavery contemplated in scripture is chattel slavery.

I can see where you may have viewed my comment as thinly veiled insult. I can tell you that it was not the case. My comments were reaction to something that I saw as patently offensive. I do not wish to belabor the point, I agree wholeheartedly that innerancy, fundamentalism or the role of women in ministry have nothing to do with this discussion. And these subjects would have never entered this discussion had not Dennis decided to deride those who hold views counter to his own. There was no need of it.

[Steven Martinez]

There was no need of it.
There is actually no need for this discussion IMHO. All this thread is a simple litmus test veiled in an non-relevant topic. The real question is how do we interpret the Bible and do we as Christians view the Bible as the only source of revelation of God speaking to His Church? Dennis answered that question. Larry's original question was simply a straw man to draw out the response. How do I know this? Because when someone posts a question and does not give their opinion then they are simply trolling for responses. Slavery, women in ministry, Six Day Creation or she bears killing children could have been the opening question. It is obvious by now that there are people who see the Bible as a document that consists of "Thou Shall" and "Thou Shall Not" and nothing else and those who see the Bible as a dynamic theological document that guides the Church in her involvement with this ever changing world, and there are some who see the Bible as something else.

If we want to be offended why don't we become offended at Larry for posting this question in the first place? Especially considering that he offered no opinion or practical context, the very heart of a straw man.

[John Brickley]

There is actually no need for this discussion IMHO. All this thread is a simple litmus test veiled in an non-relevant topic. The real question is how do we interpret the Bible and do we as Christians view the Bible as the only source of revelation of God speaking to His Church? Dennis answered that question. Larry's original question was simply a straw man to draw out the response. How do I know this? Because when someone posts a question and does not give their opinion then they are simply trolling for responses. Slavery, women in ministry, Six Day Creation or she bears killing children could have been the opening question. It is obvious by now that there are people who see the Bible as a document that consists of "Thou Shall" and "Thou Shall Not" and nothing else and those who see the Bible as a dynamic theological document that guides the Church in her involvement with this ever changing world, and there are some who see the Bible as something else.

If we want to be offended why don't we become offended at Larry for posting this question in the first place? Especially considering that he offered no opinion or practical context, the very heart of a straw man.

Could not have stated it better myself. Thank you for that Stu.

[Billie Goodson]

If we want to be offended why don't we become offended at Larry for posting this question in the first place? Especially considering that he offered no opinion or practical context, the very heart of a straw man.

I kind of envy Larry. A short sentence with virtually no substance yet he got people invested in the discussion. Imagine this thread played out in front of a group of non-Christians/atheists. These threads give good insight into our ability to engage in discussions.

[Todd Erickson]

This is also, by the way, an example of a logical fallacy, The fallacy of many questions, or the loaded question. The question assumes things inherently which are not necessarily true.

The classic example of this fallacy is the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" To answer yes is to indicate that you did, indeed, at one point beat your wife, and to say no is to indicate that you are, in fact, still an active proponent of spousal abuse. To argue that you don't beat your wife (which is precisely what a wife beater would say) doesn't help in any way either.

The above question assumes that the bible doesn't say anything about slavery (or rape) that is inherently negative. Whether one takes this as literally true or narratively false immediately divides one into one camp or another...as stated above, a litmus test, rather than a useful argument.

The only appropriate response is "mu" or "Unask the question".

[Jim Chabot]

There is actually no need for this discussion IMHO. All this thread is a simple litmus test veiled in an non-relevant topic. The real question is how do we interpret the Bible and do we as Christians view the Bible as the only source of revelation of God speaking to His Church? Dennis answered that question. Larry's original question was simply a straw man to draw out the response. How do I know this? Because when someone posts a question and does not give their opinion then they are simply trolling for responses. Slavery, women in ministry, Six Day Creation or she bears killing children could have been the opening question. It is obvious by now that there are people who see the Bible as a document that consists of "Thou Shall" and "Thou Shall Not" and nothing else and those who see the Bible as a dynamic theological document that guides the Church in her involvement with this ever changing world, and there are some who see the Bible as something else.

If we want to be offended why don't we become offended at Larry for posting this question in the first place? Especially considering that he offered no opinion or practical context, the very heart of a straw man.

Larry will have to answer for himself here. My guess is that your mind reading skills are not the best. Larry is an out of the box thinker, my guess is that his question is serious. I took it seriously, and I disagree with your statement regarding the real question. Charles Christian and Billie Goodson both posted answers that were relevant to the real question. It is not intellectually honest to discuss interpretation while remaining ignorant of substance.

I see the straw man here as well, and he is not standing with Larry.

[Jim Chabot]

Could not have stated it better myself. Thank you for that Stu.

If you take a serious look at Billy's posts and read his links (lengthy) you would rethink where you are at. You are missing a lot here.

[Larry Parsons]

I am unconvinced that the bible has nothing "bad to say about" slavery.

Exodus 21:16 -- "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."

Deut 24:7 -- If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

These two verses speak to the most common concepts of slavery today. There is an excellent article I have where the author did a pretty in-depth look at slavery in the ANE cultures and also addresses the biblical perspective. I will look around for it.

What about this "You may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." (Leviticus 25:44)
Thanks
Larry P.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I see it differently, however I do agree with you regarding the elevation of this discussion. That is primarily why I did not head down the side track of the dynamic nature of scripture. All that does is obfuscate the discussion regarding slavery. Maybe it is important, but it is not relevant. Unless one takes for granted that the slavery contemplated in scripture is chattel slavery.

I can see where you may have viewed my comment as thinly veiled insult. I can tell you that it was not the case. My comments were reaction to something that I saw as patently offensive. I do not wish to belabor the point, I agree wholeheartedly that innerancy, fundamentalism or the role of women in ministry have nothing to do with this discussion. And these subjects would have never entered this discussion had not Dennis decided to deride those who hold views counter to his own. There was no need of it.


My thoughts exactly! The discussion is in regards to slavery as it is contemplated biblically.

And that was exactly what the post to which you responded here addressed. The question was asked, "Why is everyone against slavery when the bible has nothing bad to say about it?" The response that began with "Because" was a direct answer to that question. Just because you did not like the answer does not mean it was not an answer. And there was nothing whatever in that post that referenced "fundies" in any way.

Now, perhaps you were referring to my other response to Roland. If so, it would be nice in a threaded discussion if you would have responded to that comment there to avoid confusion.

In any case, you seem to assume that you have the unique gift of being able to determine the motives and intentions of other people (that I become unhinged and drift into ranting at the mere thought of fundamentalists!). Unfortunately, mostly for other people, you do not have that gift.

The reality is that I happen to be in the process of writing a paper on biblical inerrancy for the NNU conference in February. This particular topic provided a perfect example of the problem that arises when people try to maintain such a view while at the same time dealing with the interface of an assumed absolute inerrant biblical text with the real world. That's what the response to Roland's post was about.

Now, just in case you missed the main point of that other post, let me repeat it. And just to note, it is directly to the point of the topic of this thread.


Either the Bible means what it says in a strictly literal way, and we are left with no direct prohibition against slavery. . . . Or else human reason comes into play in working out biblical principles in application to circumstances in different times and places in ways that go beyond what the Bible specifically says.

You do not have to agree with that. But it is dishonest to make it about something different than it is.

Now, as always, whether you choose to accept it or not . . . .

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Jim Chabot]

What about this "You may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." (Leviticus 25:44)
Thanks
Larry P.

I've been reading the links that Billie posted. From what I have read so far, I would guess that kidnapping would not be the method used to "acquire" a slave. Slaves were not "owned" they were closer to what we would call an indentured servant. What I am reading indicates that the picture that we have of slavery which uses the "Africa-New World" model is vastly different from that which the bible speaks.

[Billie Goodson]

What about this "You may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." (Leviticus 25:44)
Thanks
Larry P.

What would be your specific question in regards to that verse? The verses I previously posted were only to provide a perspective in regards to your original post, which I am providing below.


Why is everyone is against slavery, when the bible has nothing bad to say about it?

You asserted in your post that the bible had "nothing bad to say about it [slavery]". To disprove your thesis, it is simply required to provide a scriptural reference that would provide a factual counter point to your statement. I provided two verses that serve that purpose. You would need to provide a basis by which the new verse can be evaluated to make it relevant to the discussion.

If your contention by presenting this verse is that the God promotes slavery, then I would counter that you are taking a permissive statement and making it prescriptive. By that measure one could argue that anything allowed by God is also prescriptive. I am not sure you would really desire to pursue that line of argument, but I will be happy to entertain it if you insist.

[Jim Chabot]

And that was exactly what the post to which you responded here addressed. The question was asked, "Why is everyone against slavery when the bible has nothing bad to say about it?" The response that began with "Because" was a direct answer to that question. Just because you did not like the answer does not mean it was not an answer. And there was nothing whatever in that post that referenced "fundies" in any way.

Now, perhaps you were referring to my other response to Roland. If so, it would be nice in a threaded discussion if you would have responded to that comment there to avoid confusion.

In any case, you seem to assume that you have the unique gift of being able to determine the motives and intentions of other people (that I become unhinged and drift into ranting at the mere thought of fundamentalists!). Unfortunately, mostly for other people, you do not have that gift.

The reality is that I happen to be in the process of writing a paper on biblical inerrancy for the NNU conference in February. This particular topic provided a perfect example of the problem that arises when people try to maintain such a view while at the same time dealing with the interface of an assumed absolute inerrant biblical text with the real world. That's what the response to Roland's post was about.

Now, just in case you missed the main point of that other post, let me repeat it. And just to note, it is directly to the point of the topic of this thread.


Either the Bible means what it says in a strictly literal way, and we are left with no direct prohibition against slavery. . . . Or else human reason comes into play in working out biblical principles in application to circumstances in different times and places in ways that go beyond what the Bible specifically says.

You do not have to agree with that. But it is dishonest to make it about something different than it is.

Now, as always, whether you choose to accept it or not . . . .

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis, you are picking and choosing your way through my responses. You are sidetracking the real question, which is sad because you could probably add quite a bit to the discussion.

Until we have a decent view of the meaning of the term in the biblical context contrasted with the view we have in light of our history with slavery in this country. It doesn't matter a whole lot how we interpret the meaning of apples if in fact they are actually oranges.

[David Parker]

Am reading a history of Ireland and was surprised to read that the English routinely took slaves from Ireland and the Irish routinely took slaves from England. Whoever was victorious took slaves as a result of conquest. For some reason, this surprised me.

[Todd Erickson]

Am reading a history of Ireland and was surprised to read that the English routinely took slaves from Ireland and the Irish routinely took slaves from England. Whoever was victorious took slaves as a result of conquest. For some reason, this surprised me.

Also France and England.

[Billie Goodson]

Dennis, you are picking and choosing your way through my responses. You are sidetracking the real question, which is sad because you could probably add quite a bit to the discussion.

Until we have a decent view of the meaning of the term in the biblical context contrasted with the view we have in light of our history with slavery in this country. It doesn't matter a whole lot how we interpret the meaning of apples if in fact they are actually oranges.

Jim, I have lost the bubble on your beef with Dennis' reply. The original post simply said "why is everyone against slavery" then asserted that the bible had nothing to say on the topic (a factual error I posted verses in response to). I think Dennis simply pointed out that we cannot simply use the scriptures as our only source of moral principles. I don't think that is outside of the original query, if the bible did not proscribe slavery, would we as Christians still be without a moral principle upon which to draw from? By that standard, it could be argued that the bible does not proscribe nuking other nation states.

Can I just say that it does appear that perhaps Dennis brought more into the discussion than just a narrowed opinion on this topic, but in fairness, you seem to have done the same with your response.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis, you are picking and choosing your way through my responses. You are sidetracking the real question, which is sad because you could probably add quite a bit to the discussion.

OK.

I responded directly to the original question in both posts. If you choose to ignore that, OK.


Until we have a decent view of the meaning of the term in the biblical context contrasted with the view we have in light of our history with slavery in this country. It doesn't matter a whole lot how we interpret the meaning of apples if in fact they are actually oranges.

The issue is not about the definition of slavery. Scripture does not prohibit any form of slavery no matter how one defines it (except in very specific cases related to fellow-Hebrews). Even to argue that it is more like indentured service ignores other factors, such as the fact that in certain cases a wife and children remained the property of the master even when the slave was freed.

To argue that one form of slavery is not really as bad as another misses the point (as well as being a little counter-intuitive). The issue is the nature of Scripture and how we use it in a modern world. And yes, like it or not, that relates directly to such issues as women in ministry and whether we must follow the command to greet one another with a holy kiss. So, again, if you want to define your own agenda related to the original question, OK.

Now, I'm done with this.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[John Brickley]

If you take a serious look at Billy's posts and read his links (lengthy) you would rethink where you are at. You are missing a lot here.

Just because there where good responses does not change the nature of the question, which I also believe is a straw man. So I really don't see what one has to do with the other. Sorry but I don't see your point.

[Todd Erickson]

In both of the passages in scripture where rape occurred, nothing is said which indicates that it's a bad thing. In fact, even within Levitacal law, the only mention of rape was that if a woman is raped and it can be pinned on you, you have to marry her.

So obviously rape is okay.

The bible also says "blessed is he who dashes the head of the infant of one's enemy against the rock". No specific mention is made against this. It must be okay.

In order for these statements to stand, you have to be of the persuasion who states that every word in the bible holds precisely the same weight and meaning. The bible is, essentially, a rule book, and if you can find a statement in the bible which backs your position, then you are fine.

If a proverb countermands what seems to be a clear statement of Jesus, then fine, you can follow the proverb. Etc.

If, on the other hand, the bible represents a narrative whole that speaks of a Saving God who wishes to redeem creation, this this is the most violent, sickening line of thought every brought up, and makes me feel very fundamentalist in my own way.

[Billie Goodson]

In both of the passages in scripture where rape occurred, nothing is said which indicates that it's a bad thing. In fact, even within Levitacal law, the only mention of rape was that if a woman is raped and it can be pinned on you, you have to marry her.



Deuteronomy 22:25 - But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

While it does not explicitly say "it is a bad thing", the prescribed punishment seems to at least carry the connotation that repeat offenses should not be expected.

[Todd Erickson]

Deuteronomy 22:25 - But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

While it does not explicitly say "it is a bad thing", the prescribed punishment seems to at least carry the connotation that repeat offenses should not be expected.

if she's pledged to be married, then it would be adultery (both of them being killed) unless it can be shown that it was involuntary. The inverse to this is not "If she isn't pledged to be married, then they both die".

[Larry Parsons]

I think that Philemon is a brilliant if subtle refutation of slavery in Paul's day.
Philemon is a letter concerning a slave who escape and was converted under Paul ministry. If Paul was against slavery why would he instuct the slave to go back to the slave owner and why would he write to the slave owner to be kind to the slave.In Col,4:1 All, Paul is doing telling the slaves owner to treat their slaves equal in other word they were to provide housing, food and clothes.
Thanks
Larry P.

[Larry Parsons]

I am unconvinced that the bible has nothing "bad to say about" slavery.

Exodus 21:16 -- "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."

Deut 24:7 -- If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

These two verses speak to the most common concepts of slavery today. There is an excellent article I have where the author did a pretty in-depth look at slavery in the ANE cultures and also addresses the biblical perspective. I will look around for it.
Notice what Deut 21:7 is saying If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites...." But on the other hand they could buy slaves from their neighboring nations.
Thanks
Larry.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I have lost the bubble on your beef with Dennis' reply. The original post simply said "why is everyone against slavery" then asserted that the bible had nothing to say on the topic (a factual error I posted verses in response to). I think Dennis simply pointed out that we cannot simply use the scriptures as our only source of moral principles. I don't think that is outside of the original query, if the bible did not proscribe slavery, would we as Christians still be without a moral principle upon which to draw from? By that standard, it could be argued that the bible does not proscribe nuking other nation states.


Now I'm missing something. Charles had posted a book reference indicating that the slavery spoken of in the Bible differed from that which we are familiar with. He indicated that this would show why we reject slavery. You then posted some information and a couple of real good links (which I am partway through).

This information coupled with the verses relating to slavery seem to indicate the the scriptural account is indeed against the type of slavery we think of today, while providing guidelines for something that was called slavery back then. That something doesn't look like what we call slavery today.

The links you have provided open a window into where Paul was coming from in the context of his day. While at the same time, the NT verses addressing slavery do not ring true as corollary to our modern view.

In short, what has developed is something that makes interpretation somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. If we take that which Charles points to and the information contained in your links, and view scripture in context. If we do that, there is no reason for an innerantist or a fundamentalist to also agree that the type of slavery where people were considered as property is wrong scripturally. While at the same time scripture provides guidelines for situations where people are involved in situations where their free agency is pledged for a time. Thus the interpretationional view is simply a sidebar that detracts from the endeavor to understand.


Can I just say that it does appear that perhaps Dennis brought more into the discussion than just a narrowed opinion on this topic, but in fairness, you seem to have done the same with your response.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. I can see where it may look as if I was unduly harsh, I was offended no doubt.

[Steven Burton]

Also France and England.

You could included just about every if not every culture that has done that. I mean the North Africans took slaves from western France during the dark ages and even before or the Vikings or the Romans...... I will say the idea of slavery differs in the cultures as to how and what kind of punishments are done. Such as in Roman custom a slave could buy his freedom from his master. It was not widely talk about but it could have been done. Persians may have be the most lenient, but I have not researched it far enough to fully see if that might be the case. I know they where probably the most tolerant of the conquerors and seem to have let most conquered countries continue there practices of worship and freedom.

[Jim Chabot]

Just because there where good responses does not change the nature of the question, which I also believe is a straw man. So I really don't see what one has to do with the other. Sorry but I don't see your point.

Have you read the links? If not, then I would propose that you are not looking to see my point. That's your prerogative, I don't have a problem with it, one can only lead a horse to water.

[Billie Goodson]

if she's pledged to be married, then it would be adultery (both of them being killed) unless it can be shown that it was involuntary. The inverse to this is not "If she isn't pledged to be married, then they both die".

Actually, the context of the verses addresses the judgement of voluntary/involuntary. The preceding verses tell us if it happens in a city, and it was involuntary, the woman would have cried out for help. Absent a cry for help, it would be presumed consensual. If it happened in the country, the implication is that even if she cried out, there would have been no one to prevent the act, thus it is deemed non-consensual, without regard to her actually consenting or not.

Still, your assertion was that nothing indicated rape was a "bad thing". If that is true, then what is being punished in verse 25?

[Larry Parsons]

What I mean is that if Christians were to endorse any form of slavery and defend it biblically, it would look more like contractually binding employment than what we contemporarily understand as "slavery." So in that sense, I do mean "the Christian version of slavery," but I would not be likely to use the term in casual conversation.
Shea, Here my thought about what you said. During the time of Paul there were Christians slaves and slaves owners who treat their slave fair.In fact it was type of employment and if I'm not mistaken Christian or biblical slavery was temporary every 7 years the slaves were set free but if they want to stay they would nail their ear to the door post. (How they did that I don't know) Heathen slavery was for life time.
Thanks
Larry P.

[Larry Parsons]

There is actually no need for this discussion IMHO. All this thread is a simple litmus test veiled in an non-relevant topic. The real question is how do we interpret the Bible and do we as Christians view the Bible as the only source of revelation of God speaking to His Church? Dennis answered that question. Larry's original question was simply a straw man to draw out the response. How do I know this? Because when someone posts a question and does not give their opinion then they are simply trolling for responses. Slavery, women in ministry, Six Day Creation or she bears killing children could have been the opening question. It is obvious by now that there are people who see the Bible as a document that consists of "Thou Shall" and "Thou Shall Not" and nothing else and those who see the Bible as a dynamic theological document that guides the Church in her involvement with this ever changing world, and there are some who see the Bible as something else.

If we want to be offended why don't we become offended at Larry for posting this question in the first place? Especially considering that he offered no opinion or practical context, the very heart of a straw man.
Steven, What got me think about this idea of slavery is Ron Sider book, Rich Christians and reason I didn't ofer opinion I didn't have time it was late and I had service this moning plus I made some calls.
Thanks
Larry.

[Billie Goodson]

In short, what has developed is something that makes interpretation somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. If we take that which Charles points to and the information contained in your links, and view scripture in context. If we do that, there is no reason for an innerantist or a fundamentalist to also agree that the type of slavery where people were considered as property is wrong scripturally. While at the same time scripture provides guidelines for situations where people are involved in situations where their free agency is pledged for a time. Thus the interpretationional view is simply a sidebar that detracts from the endeavor to understand.



I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. I can see where it may look as if I was unduly harsh, I was offended no doubt.

Thanks Jim. Dennis' comment struck me as odd because I felt that I had provided a sufficient cause to negate the original claim, yet I have come to accept that sometimes what seems so very clear to one is missed by another. Because of the nature of forums, I just accept it as the price of participation. I too find the inerrantist discussion moot on this topic unless someone could provide a basis for rejecting the scriptural reference I provided. But, even if someone could impeach those verses, you would then be faced with Dennis' statements. So, they are secondarily appropriate, in my opinion.

But, that is all just my opinion.

[Billie Goodson]

Steven, What got me think about this idea of slavery is Ron Sider book, Rich Christians and reason I didn't ofer opinion I didn't have time it was late and I had service this moning plus I made some calls.
Thanks
Larry.

Larry,

Is it Sider's premise that slavery is good or that the bible is silent on the topic? I am not that familiar with his work but from my cursory knowledge of him, that does not sound consistent. If those reflect his thoughts, not a great recommendation to read his work.

[Todd Erickson]

"Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger is written for our times, when every day more than 34,000 children die of starvation and preventable diseases, and 1. 3 billion human beings live in relentless, unrelieved poverty worldwide. Why is there still so much poverty in the world? Conservatives blame sinful individual choices and laziness. Liberals condemn economic and social structures. Who is right? Who is wrong? Both, according to Ronald Sider in this newly revised, expanded and updated edition of Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger. Sider explains that poverty is the result of complex causes, and then he presents practical, workable proposes for change, proposals that should be taken up by every man and every woman who seeks to deserve the title "Christian" and to apply and to follow the teaches of Jesus of Nazareth in the modern world. -- Midwest Book Review" (Amazon)

http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Christians-Age-Hunger-Generosity/dp/0849945305/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287544343&sr=1-1

[Billie Goodson]

"Conservatives blame sinful individual choices and laziness. Liberals condemn economic and social structures. Who is right? Who is wrong? Both, according to Ronald Sider in this newly revised, expanded and updated edition of Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger." (Amazon)

http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Christians-Age-Hunger-Generosity/dp/0849945305/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287544343&sr=1-1

I would have been a self-described conservative until I see how either Sider or the reviewer characterizes conservatives. I don't fit the category of liberal either. Not sure if this book would be relevant to me if the review reflects the book.

[Steven Martinez]

Steven, What got me think about this idea of slavery is Ron Sider book, Rich Christians and reason I didn't ofer opinion I didn't have time it was late and I had service this moning plus I made some calls.
Thanks
Larry.

This is a Host Post
Larry, I understand your rational, but let me offer this for future consideration. For the sake of conversation, it is always better to delay a post with your entire thought given then to hastily post and leave doubt to your intentions. I moved this thread from the CE forum to the Theology forum. This could be a simple mistake, and I interpreted as such. That is why I moved it. If you do not wish for a host to interpret a post then it is best to give as much information as possible when posting. Also, the title of a thread is important. Your title is hard to discipher due to punctuation and grammar selection. But again the question to you is why is this topic important to you or relevant to Christianity in general?

Steve Martinez
CE Host (Hijacking the Theology Forum for a second)

[Larry Parsons]

Larry,

Is it Sider's premise that slavery is good or that the bible is silent on the topic? I am not that familiar with his work but from my cursory knowledge of him, that does not sound consistent. If those reflect his thoughts, not a great recommendation to read his work.
Billie, I'm reading his works in fact this second time around. Sider is against slavery and what we know about slavery today I believe we would all be against it. But know one has given a verse of scripture that tell us that slavery in it self is a sin. The sin come in at is how the slaves owner treated thier slaves.I used to joke around when people used to ask who do you work for. I would tell them I work for a bank, a car company and credit card company and what is left over I some food and buy few candle sticks. and etc. Now I'm a free slaves I don't work for a bank nor do I work for a car company or credit card company.
Thanks
Larry

[Charles W Christian]

Now I'm missing something. Charles had posted a book reference indicating that the slavery spoken of in the Bible differed from that which we are familiar with. He indicated that this would show why we reject slavery. You then posted some information and a couple of real good links (which I am partway through).

This information coupled with the verses relating to slavery seem to indicate the the scriptural account is indeed against the type of slavery we think of today, while providing guidelines for something that was called slavery back then. That something doesn't look like what we call slavery today.

The links you have provided open a window into where Paul was coming from in the context of his day. While at the same time, the NT verses addressing slavery do not ring true as corollary to our modern view.

In short, what has developed is something that makes interpretation somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. If we take that which Charles points to and the information contained in your links, and view scripture in context. If we do that, there is no reason for an innerantist or a fundamentalist to also agree that the type of slavery where people were considered as property is wrong scripturally. While at the same time scripture provides guidelines for situations where people are involved in situations where their free agency is pledged for a time. Thus the interpretationional view is simply a sidebar that detracts from the endeavor to understand.



I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. I can see where it may look as if I was unduly harsh, I was offended no doubt.

What you are arguing is not exactly true here. What the Bible observes in a culture doesn't equal an endorsement! Just because the Bible reports what happened doesn't mean it endorses everything that happened. Christianity eventually became a key voice in the elimination of ancient slavery, even though there were periods later when Christianity battled over it (with the "pro" slavery side, sadly, using similar kinds of reasoning you seem to be attempting here, unless I am reading you wrong). Ultimately the Christian Gospel found no way to embrace both slavery and the Gospel at the same time. That whole "do unto others" thing that Jesus taught should factor in here. As one Naznetter asked earlier, "Would you be willing to volunteer?" Would taking people with names beginning with "J" into slavery be OK?

Come on.... I don't know what you're trying to do or if you're just trying to sound theologically/philosophically superior, etc., but trust me, if that is your goal, you are falling way short. This is mainly because of the things Dennis B. has already said about how we use Scripture, the nature of slavery, etc., etc.

Charles

[Charles W Christian]

Billie, I'm reading his works in fact this second time around. Sider is against slavery and what we know about slavery today I believe we would all be against it. But know one has given a verse of scripture that tell us that slavery in it self is a sin. The sin come in at is how the slaves owner treated thier slaves.I used to joke around when people used to ask who do you work for. I would tell them I work for a bank, a car company and credit card company and what is left over I some food and buy few candle sticks. and etc. Now I'm a free slaves I don't work for a bank nor do I work for a car company or credit card company.
Thanks
Larry

In response to this: No one can show me specifically where lots of acts of sin are "sinful." However, the thrust and nature of the Christian Gospel would declare them so. Proof-texting is not the same as properly understanding Scripture, as you seem to be showing us (whether you are intending to show us this or not)....

CWC

[Shea Zellweger]

Deuteronomy 22:25 - But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

While it does not explicitly say "it is a bad thing", the prescribed punishment seems to at least carry the connotation that repeat offenses should not be expected.


Actually, the context of the verses addresses the judgement of voluntary/involuntary. The preceding verses tell us if it happens in a city, and it was involuntary, the woman would have cried out for help. Absent a cry for help, it would be presumed consensual. If it happened in the country, the implication is that even if she cried out, there would have been no one to prevent the act, thus it is deemed non-consensual, without regard to her actually consenting or not.

Still, your assertion was that nothing indicated rape was a "bad thing". If that is true, then what is being punished in verse 25?

Billy, I think Todd's right in this instance. The entire passage talks about the difference between a pledged woman who is raped vs. a pledged woman engaging in consentual sex. The rape is not used as a condemnation of the man, but an exoneration of the woman. Verse 25 just confirms that the man is already condemned on the grounds of adultery, not on the grounds of rape, and so the rape determination is for the sake of the woman. Rape of an unpledged/unmarried woman, as Todd has pointed out, was cause for marrying her (yet another instance where it appears that there is no ancient seperation between sex and marriage).

[Hans Deventer]

Dennis, you are picking and choosing your way through my responses. You are sidetracking the real question, which is sad because you could probably add quite a bit to the discussion.

Until we have a decent view of the meaning of the term in the biblical context contrasted with the view we have in light of our history with slavery in this country. It doesn't matter a whole lot how we interpret the meaning of apples if in fact they are actually oranges.

Jim, it seems everyone agrees the actual issue is how we read the Scriptures. You indicated you have a problem with slavery because it is often used as an example of why we read things differently nowadays. I'm sure slavery has looked different throughout history. Some had positions that could be considered quite good, more like a servant (as Cornelius said, almost like a son), others were treated totally inhumane, worse than animals, and anything in between. Paul acknowledges these differences in treatment. I don't think the difference is as wide as you suggest it is, but of course the real problem is that for you, it NEEDS to be different for otherwise people who interpret the Scriptures differently would actually have a good point.
So I'm suggesting you're coming to this issue with a specific goal in mind, like others. And it seems to me the real apples and oranges are the different goals, rather than the differences in slavery.

Unfortunately, I'm at loss on how to bridge the differences in goals, because they do come down to differences in reading the Scriptures. We've had so many discussions here on NazNet that ultimately relate to this issue, but it seems few if any change their minds in the process. Do you have any idea how to do this, bridge the gap?

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, it seems everyone agrees the actual issue is how we read the Scriptures. You indicated you have a problem with slavery because it is often used as an example of why we read things differently nowadays. I'm sure slavery has looked different throughout history. Some had positions that could be considered quite good, more like a servant (as Cornelius said, almost like a son), others were treated totally inhumane, worse than animals, and anything in between. Paul acknowledges these differences in treatment. I don't think the difference is as wide as you suggest it is, but of course the real problem is that for you, it NEEDS to be different for otherwise people who interpret the Scriptures differently would actually have a good point.
So I'm suggesting you're coming to this issue with a specific goal in mind, like others. And it seems to me the real apples and oranges are the different goals, rather than the differences in slavery.

Unfortunately, I'm at loss on how to bridge the differences in goals, because they do come down to differences in reading the Scriptures. We've had so many discussions here on NazNet that ultimately relate to this issue, but it seems few if any change their minds in the process. Do you have any idea how to do this, bridge the gap?

Yes, I can admit to this at some level, although I am coming at it from the reverse. I can see where it would be advantageous for those who view scripture as transcendent of time and culture, to be inquisitive into the nuts and bolts of what is actually contemplated by the term "slavery". I'll plead guilty to that, and although I can't speak for Larry, I'm guessing that is where he is coming from. That was my guess right from his initial post and each of his posts move toward that thought.

On the other hand we have those who appear to view scripture in a different light. They view it is somewhat dynamic fashion, I won't detail their thoughts because I don't understand where they are coming from and I don't want to mischaracterize. But in any case, the cart has been proposed to be ahead of the horse here. It has been suggested that this interpretive view is the answer to Larry's question, when that logically cannot be the case initially. Yes one has to allow for the possibility that there is no reconciliation between the scriptural account of slavery and that which we see as right and wrong today. If there is no reconciliation, then yes, I believe we must think about what Dennis has suggested. However the thought that we must head directly there, is in my opinion, intellectually bankrupt. One simply does not proceed to a solution without first ascertaining that there is indeed a problem.

I will agree that if we are discussing chattel slavery. If we are discussing a system where human beings are considered to be bought and sold without any rights apart from their masters desires, then yes we have a problem. If scripture contemplates such a thing without negative connotation, then yes I must wrestle with it. What I have found to be offensive is the jumping ahead, this is a sidetrack, it obfuscates the real issue and it is not helpful. I found it quite curios that someone with a good deal of knowledge regarding ancient languages and cultures would not participate in the nuts and bolts conversation. Dennis insisted on jumping ahead, and he did so with some degree of prejudice for along with this sidetrack, he also introduces three other non-relevant issues into the conversation.

Now the other issues introduced we shown as being linked to Dennis initial thought, when in fact this linkage may not exist, for if we do not examine the path of the root discussion we then move forward with an untested assumption. Another consideration is that in order to have an honest search for the truth, we must cast aside our notions of linkage, we must be unconcerned with how this discussion would affect other discussions, we must walk without crutches. I am not trying to determine Dennis motives or methods, I am observing that he presented his interpretive thought with baggage attached.

I don't know if this analogy will help or not but I'll offer it with hope that it does. We have before us a metal six sided object, it has a hole in it and what appear to be threads. It is clear that it is a nut and it is intended to fit on a bolt, but that is not enough information because we have two bolts to choose from, one is fine thread and the other is coarse. There is still much to learn about the nut before we decide which bolt would be a good fit. We can examine to see if the internal threads are fine or coarse. We can check the root diameter to see if we even have the right size nut in the first place. Is there an indention on one of the sides that would indicate that this is a locking nut? Is the nut castellated, does it's intended use require a cotter pin? Is it plated or plain, can we use it in an exposed location? We can answer these questions and have a reasonable expectation of a good fit. Or we can save time and just jamb the nut on top of the bolt we wish it to fit and hope that we don't ruin both the nut and the bolt in the process.

I just remembered that I do not agree with your initial statement. I don't think that everyone agrees that the actual issue is how we read scripture. Not at all. For the purpose of this discussion, there are some of us who are just reading it, we aren't necessarily thinking about "how" we are reading it, because that is not the issue, it really doesn't matter at this point in the discussion. Cart before the horse, it may play a part, but it is irrelevant at this point, except for those who must interject this view to cloud the issue.

[Billie Goodson]

Billy, I think Todd's right in this instance. The entire passage talks about the difference between a pledged woman who is raped vs. a pledged woman engaging in consentual sex. The rape is not used as a condemnation of the man, but an exoneration of the woman. Verse 25 just confirms that the man is already condemned on the grounds of adultery, not on the grounds of rape, and so the rape determination is for the sake of the woman. Rape of an unpledged/unmarried woman, as Todd has pointed out, was cause for marrying her (yet another instance where it appears that there is no ancient seperation between sex and marriage).

I have difficulties with your interpretation of the act but would rather not continue the discussion in this thread. If a host/moderator can break it out, I would prefer the discussion occur in a separate thread.

[Hans Deventer]

I just remembered that I do not agree with your initial statement. I don't think that everyone agrees that the actual issue is how we read scripture. Not at all.

Not? But then, what is?

[Rich Schmidt]

On the other hand we have those who appear to view scripture in a different light. They view it is somewhat dynamic fashion, I won't detail their thoughts because I don't understand where they are coming from and I don't want to mischaracterize. But in any case, the cart has been proposed to be ahead of the horse here. It has been suggested that this interpretive view is the answer to Larry's question, when that logically cannot be the case initially. Yes one has to allow for the possibility that there is no reconciliation between the scriptural account of slavery and that which we see as right and wrong today. If there is no reconciliation, then yes, I believe we must think about what Dennis has suggested. However the thought that we must head directly there, is in my opinion, intellectually bankrupt. One simply does not proceed to a solution without first ascertaining that there is indeed a problem.


I just remembered that I do not agree with your initial statement. I don't think that everyone agrees that the actual issue is how we read scripture. Not at all. For the purpose of this discussion, there are some of us who are just reading it, we aren't necessarily thinking about "how" we are reading it, because that is not the issue, it really doesn't matter at this point in the discussion. Cart before the horse, it may play a part, but it is irrelevant at this point, except for those who must interject this view to cloud the issue.

Jim, it sounds like you're saying that we all start with view A of Scripture, and there's no sense talking about view B of Scripture if it's not needed to solve this slavery problem. Well, that assumes that view A is the "normal" or "correct" view that we're all starting with. But some believe that the nature of Scripture itself leads toward view B... totally apart from whether or not it helps resolve this slavery issue. It's only a matter of "cart before the horse" if we're all starting with view A and only considering view B because it might help resolve the problem.

Or, to look at this thread from another angle...

1. The thread starts by introducing a tension.

2. Some people propose one way of resolving that tension.

3. Dennis proposes another way of resolving that tension.

4. You say that there's no reason to propose another possible resolution when the first one was working just fine.

That's how it's looking to me.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Ex 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 21:8 If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. 21:9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. 21:11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

Things to be learned from this passage:

1) A man can sell his daughter as a slave. This tells us that in the right circumstances (for example, if one needs the money) it is OK to sell a daughter to a man.

2) Female slaves are to be treated differently than male slaves. Purchased male slaves must be released after six years (Ex 21:2). However, the purchase of female slaves is a permanent purchase. This tells us that women are of a different status than males and are to be considered the property of the male owner.

3) The female slave can be re-purchased by her father (redeemed) if she does not please her master. This tells us that trial runs at sexual relationship and/or marriage are OK, as long as the financial arrangements balance out, and that the man alone decides the criteria for "success."

4) In this passage, it seems that the daughter is being sold for sex, either as a wife or concubine/mistress (cultural information about "wife" would be helpful here). This tells us that a father can sell his daughter for sexual slavery, as long as the proper criteria are met.

5) The daughter, whose presumed role will be a wife (or concubine/mistress) is called a slave. This tells us that a wife or mistress should be seen as a slave, one who serves a master (husband). This also tells us that we should have arranged marriages and charge men money for daughters.

6) There are restrictions on the slavery. The man buying the daughter cannot sell her to foreigners. This puts a limit on human trafficking, so this is a better and humane form of slavery.

7) A man can buy the daughter and either take her for himself or give her to his son. This assumes that women are property or a commodity that can be purchased or given as gifts. This tells us that women should have no voice in their own lives and are the property of fathers and husbands to be disposed of as they wish.

8) If the daughter is given to the son, she is to be treated as a daughter; that is, as part of the familial property of the father, but which also puts restrictions on sexual access. This tells us that this is not a case of prostitution, so this form of sexual slavery where a daughter is sold to only one man is OK.

9) The son must provide food and clothing to the female slave. This tells us that we must provide basic necessities for female slaves, even when we take a second wife.

10) The female slave must retain her status if the son takes another wife. This tells us that it is OK to have more than one wife, but we must treat them all equitably.

11) If the female slave is given to the son and he takes another wife, then the female slave cannot be relegated to inferior status. This tells us that this is a good form of sexual slavery since the female slave has certain protected rights.

12) The female slave must be released without cost or penalty if she is replaced with another wife. On the one hand, this tells us that the female slave is protected from abuse. On the other hand, it also tells us that if we tire of one female slave/wife it is OK to replace her with another.

TIC ;)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Rich Schmidt]

TIC ;)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Of the 104 possible meanings of TIC found here (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TIC), I'm going to assume the one you mean is "Tongue In Cheek."

:)

[Kevin Rector]

Philemon is a letter concerning a slave who escape and was converted under Paul ministry. If Paul was against slavery why would he instuct the slave to go back to the slave owner and why would he write to the slave owner to be kind to the slave.In Col,4:1 All, Paul is doing telling the slaves owner to treat their slaves equal in other word they were to provide housing, food and clothes.
Thanks
Larry P.

Wow, you have a very different understanding of what it is to be a brother than I do. Paul tells Philemon to treat Onesimus not as a slave but as a brother (vs 16). Paul tells Philemon to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul, and then Paul reminds him that he owes his very life - eternal life - to Paul.

As to why Paul would send him back, Onesimus needs to go back so that he and Philemon can be reconciled as brothers.

For the record, brothers don't own each other as chattel - but they often server each other out of love.

[Larry Parsons]

Wow, you have a very different understanding of what it is to be a brother than I do. Paul tells Philemon to treat Onesimus not as a slave but as a brother (vs 16). Paul tells Philemon to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul, and then Paul reminds him that he owes his very life - eternal life - to Paul.

As to why Paul would send him back, Onesimus needs to go back so that he and Philemon can be reconciled as brothers.

For the record, brothers don't own each other as chattel - but they often server each other out of love.
Kevin, Maybe we do and maybe we don't This is how I see this story of Onesimus and Philemon. Phiemon was a well to do Christian slave owner who was treating his slaves just as Paul suggested in Col.4:1 If this was true and I don't see why it wouldn't be if was the case then Phiemon was teating his slaves fair. Giving them a place to live.food to eat and clothes to wear. But for some reason Onesimus took off. This may give us a litle hint that Onesimus was not a slaves that was chain up.He seem to have some freedom to walk around or even come and go. Latter when Onesimus met Paul and confess his sins and became a brother in Christ. Just because Onesimus became a Christian that didn't concels out his civil debt. Philemon the well to do christian didn't really need Onesimus but Onesimus need Philemon and Paul knew this and he was looking out for his new Christian brother. In one since slavery was a type of employment. If you want to call Onesimus a love slave because he return to Phiemon that ok with me but he was still a slave. Would you believe that slavery may have keep lot of people from staving if they were being treating equally as Paul suggest.
Thnks
LarryP

[John Brickley]

Larry,

I am really confused. What is it that you want to accomplish with this thread?

[Jim Chabot]

Kevin, Maybe we do and maybe we don't This is how I see this story of Onesimus and Philemon. Phiemon was a well to do Christian slave owner who was treating his slaves just as Paul suggested in Col.4:1 If this was true and I don't see why it wouldn't be if was the case then Phiemon was teating his slaves fair. Giving them a place to live.food to eat and clothes to wear. But for some reason Onesimus took off. This may give us a litle hint that Onesimus was not a slaves that was chain up.He seem to have some freedom to walk around or even come and go. Latter when Onesimus met Paul and confess his sins and became a brother in Christ. Just because Onesimus became a Christian that didn't concels out his civil debt. Philemon the well to do christian didn't really need Onesimus but Onesimus need Philemon and Paul knew this and he was looking out for his new Christian brother. In one since slavery was a type of employment. If you want to call Onesimus a love slave because he return to Phiemon that ok with me but he was still a slave. Would you believe that slavery may have keep lot of people from staving if they were being treating equally as Paul suggest.
Thnks
LarryP

Just a couple of things to add. Onesimus did not need to return to Philemon, he could have sought asylum to servi at a Roman Temple and shop himself to a master who could advance his wealth and position. His sale price would be remitted to Philemon, but it could have been pennies on the dollar, a loss to Philemon. Paul sends him back encouraging him to do right by Philemon, he also encourages Philemon to do right by Onesimus by receiving him as a brother. This way they both benefit.

I'm seeing a few things play out in this discussion. One is that slavery is not slavery, there is little comparison to make between Roman slavery and it's New World namesake. I don't see where slavery is condoned in Paul's writings, he encourages slaves to exhibit good Christian witness by serving their masters well. He encourages others not to sell themselves into slavery. He encourages Christian masters to treat their slaves well, for both master and slave serve the same master. He encourages Philemon to manumit Onesimus. He also lists slave traders as wrongdoers. Paul does not go on a tirade against slavery, yet he does encourage Christians to move away from it. Even though slavery in the first century has no comparison to what we call slavery today, it was incompatible with the freedom imparted into humans made in God's image.

I found this story of a famous slave quite interesting. It is telling of a slave system that is unrecognizable using the contemporary definition.


We do know that not all Christian masters freed their servants, nor that all Christian servants were honest and loyal. We have the famous case of Callistus in the third century, in which the slave Callistus was set up as a banker in Rome by his (Christian) master Carpophorus. This would have been an excellent position, with high autonomy and almost certain to have resulted in early freedom and material comforts. [This might have represented a very good 'use' of the master/servant relationship.] However, Callistus embezzled funds, ran away to avoid discovery by the bank's depositors, tried to kill himself when he thought he was about to be apprehended, created a riot in a synagogue, and was sentenced by government courts to prison. He later was freed and became Pope in 217 AD.

My take on this is that for this issue, how one reads scripture really doesn't matter. The New Testament doesn't condone slavery, no need to employ any type of hermeneutic, the same answer will emerge. FWIW

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm seeing a few things play out in this discussion. One is that slavery is not slavery, there is little comparison to make between Roman slavery and it's New World namesake.

..........

My take on this is that for this issue, how one reads scripture really doesn't matter. The New Testament doesn't condone slavery, no need to employ any type of hermeneutic, the same answer will emerge. FWIW

No, I think you're stretching the facts a bit here. Roman slavery was very much like its new world namesake. Slaves were property, and it was legal to beat, abuse, sexually defile, neglect, and otherwise mistreat slaves- even have them killed for "good" reason. It is a romantic notion that slaves were better treated by the Romans, but it's just not so. Likewise with the Israelites. As Dennis pointed out above, there was a law on the books in Israel which allowed for a man to buy another man's daughter, try her out sexually, and return her if she didn't satisfy him (and all but ruin her chance at a conventional marriage later in life). Slaves were certainly property in ancient Israel, and they were treated as such, especially when those slaves were not Israelites.
Paul's commands in Scripture paint a bicture of a bondservant/ indentured servant type relationship as being the proper approach to slavery by Christians, but this approach would have been far from normal in the Roman context. The ideas of fairness, good treatment, and even love which Paul called for between slaves and masters would have elevated slaves to the point of being basically another employee or servant, which would have been in total defiance to the system of slavery which was currently in place. I would agree that it takes very little hermeneutical gymnastics to conclude that Paul's description of slave-master relationships does not condone the form of slavery we had in America, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that Israel and/or Rome were of a like mind.

[Jim Chabot]

No, I think you're stretching the facts a bit here. Roman slavery was very much like its new world namesake. Slaves were property, and it was legal to beat, abuse, sexually defile, neglect, and otherwise mistreat slaves- even have them killed for "good" reason. It is a romantic notion that slaves were better treated by the Romans, but it's just not so. Likewise with the Israelites. As Dennis pointed out above, there was a law on the books in Israel which allowed for a man to buy another man's daughter, try her out sexually, and return her if she didn't satisfy him (and all but ruin her chance at a conventional marriage later in life). Slaves were certainly property in ancient Israel, and they were treated as such, especially when those slaves were not Israelites.
Paul's commands in Scripture paint a bicture of a bondservant/ indentured servant type relationship as being the proper approach to slavery by Christians, but this approach would have been far from normal in the Roman context. The ideas of fairness, good treatment, and even love which Paul called for between slaves and masters would have elevated slaves to the point of being basically another employee or servant, which would have been in total defiance to the system of slavery which was currently in place.

Ok, but this fellow disagrees with your assessment, and he has plenty of cites.

http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

I don't see where the OT examples are necessarily helpful, unless we want to begin stoning disobedient children once again. (don't blame me for that one, I got it from Hans!:tongue:)



I would agree that it takes very little hermeneutical gymnastics to conclude that Paul's description of slave-master relationships does not condone the form of slavery we had in America, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that Israel and/or Rome were of a like mind.

I don't see where it takes any gymnastics whatsoever. Paul's words taken in toto, reveal that he isn't talking about slavery as we know it and he isn't in favor of it as he see's it either. Slavetraders are wrongdoers and no one should sell themselves into slavery.

[Todd Erickson]

I don't see where it takes any gymnastics whatsoever. Paul's words taken in toto, reveal that he isn't talking about slavery as we know it and he isn't in favor of it as he see's it either. Slavetraders are wrongdoers and no one should sell themselves into slavery.

It feels like you agree with Shea, but at the same time, he's wrong because he doesn't say it the way you would say it. It's unclear what you're trying to accomplish here.

[Shea Zellweger]

Ok, but this fellow disagrees with your assessment, and he has plenty of cites.

It took me all of 30 seconds to find where the author provides a citation stating "This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault..." and then goes on to talk about the other forms of slavery.

The next quote includes ""Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point."

Several other statements in the article paint the same picture, of an ambiguous term which could mean many things, but which included the forms of slavery I mentioned. The author and the sources only "disagree" with me if you close your left eye and read from between your fingers so as not to see the parts which support what I said. So no, it doesn't say that slavery isn't what I said it was, it says that there were also other things which might be referred to as slavery. A death cap can cause fatal mushroom poisoning, but not all people who eat death caps will die, so by the same reasoning death caps must not be poisonous... it's basically the same argument.

[Larry Parsons]

Just a couple of things to add. Onesimus did not need to return to Philemon, he could have sought asylum to servi at a Roman Temple and shop himself to a master who could advance his wealth and position. His sale price would be remitted to Philemon, but it could have been pennies on the dollar, a loss to Philemon. Paul sends him back encouraging him to do right by Philemon, he also encourages Philemon to do right by Onesimus by receiving him as a brother. This way they both benefit.

I'm seeing a few things play out in this discussion. One is that slavery is not slavery, there is little comparison to make between Roman slavery and it's New World namesake. I don't see where slavery is condoned in Paul's writings, he encourages slaves to exhibit good Christian witness by serving their masters well. He encourages others not to sell themselves into slavery. He encourages Christian masters to treat their slaves well, for both master and slave serve the same master. He encourages Philemon to manumit Onesimus. He also lists slave traders as wrongdoers. Paul does not go on a tirade against slavery, yet he does encourage Christians to move away from it. Even though slavery in the first century has no comparison to what we call slavery today, it was incompatible with the freedom imparted into humans made in God's image.

I found this story of a famous slave quite interesting. It is telling of a slave system that is unrecognizable using the contemporary definition.



My take on this is that for this issue, how one reads scripture really doesn't matter. The New Testament doesn't condone slavery, no need to employ any type of hermeneutic, the same answer will emerge. FWIW
Jim, thanks for imput but if onesimus had sold himself to a Roman Temple he would to deny Christ as Lord and to declare Nero as lord or be put to death.
Thanks
Larry

[Larry Parsons]

No, I think you're stretching the facts a bit here. Roman slavery was very much like its new world namesake. Slaves were property, and it was legal to beat, abuse, sexually defile, neglect, and otherwise mistreat slaves- even have them killed for "good" reason. It is a romantic notion that slaves were better treated by the Romans, but it's just not so. Likewise with the Israelites. As Dennis pointed out above, there was a law on the books in Israel which allowed for a man to buy another man's daughter, try her out sexually, and return her if she didn't satisfy him (and all but ruin her chance at a conventional marriage later in life). Slaves were certainly property in ancient Israel, and they were treated as such, especially when those slaves were not Israelites.
Paul's commands in Scripture paint a bicture of a bondservant/ indentured servant type relationship as being the proper approach to slavery by Christians, but this approach would have been far from normal in the Roman context. The ideas of fairness, good treatment, and even love which Paul called for between slaves and masters would have elevated slaves to the point of being basically another employee or servant, which would have been in total defiance to the system of slavery which was currently in place. I would agree that it takes very little hermeneutical gymnastics to conclude that Paul's description of slave-master relationships does not condone the form of slavery we had in America, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that Israel and/or Rome were of a like mind.
Shea, I agree with you when you stated The ideas of fairness, good treatment, and even love which Paul called for between slaves and masters would have elevated slaves to the point of being basically another employee or servant, which would have been in total defiance to the system of slavery which was currently in place. Some people that I read after believe that all slavery is a sin. Yet we know that God allow slavery but it was the treatment of the slave that became sinful.
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

I don't see where it takes any gymnastics whatsoever. Paul's words taken in toto, reveal that he isn't talking about slavery as we know it

Great! He's not talking about homosexuality as we know it either. Seems we're getting somewhere! I'm actually glad you're so clear on the differences in situation in AD 50 and today.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, thanks for imput but if onesimus had sold himself to a Roman Temple he would to deny Christ as Lord and to declare Nero as lord or be put to death.
Thanks
Larry

Thanks Larry. That aspect of this hadn't caught my attention. This would have placed the newly converted Onesimus in a bind, no doubt.

Perhaps this could have factored into Paul's admonition against believers selling themselves into slavery? It seems that full participation in the slave system may require obeisance to Roman Temple, death would be preferable to that.

I am also agreeing that slavery was a form of employment. Some apparently did quite well under that system, yet Paul says this is not for the believer. Do not sell yourself into slavery.

If we attempt to correlate Paul's admonition against selling oneself into slavery with our current definition of the term, we encounter difficulties. How could someone even contemplate selling themselves into such a system of brutal repression? It becomes impossible to reconcile, unless slavery was an employment system with enough positives to create an enticement to join. Yet Paul is still against it.

[Jim Chabot]

Great! Seems we're getting somewhere! I'm actually glad you're so clear on the differences in situation in AD 50 and today.

I think so! From what I am reading there is very little comparison to be made between our understanding and the actual practice. Yet it remains clear that it is not condoned, not at all. To say that scripture condones the forced brutal repression, that visited this country at one time, is tantamount to saying that scripture condones kidnapping and torture.

We can then read scripture through most any honest lens and come to the same conclusion. Scripture does not condone slavery.

[Todd Erickson]

I think that for me, the problem with this entire thread is that it's very much in the arena of a false argument, trying to find a specific ban against something we would consider sinful here in the 20th century that was perfectly normal at the time, and remains perfectly normal in many third world countries (or among the poverty stricken in various parts of the U.S.).

But when I look for an argument against slavery, I don't go looking for specific mentions of slavery, in terms of what I am "not" to do. I look at what I am meant to do.

First, Jesus came to free us, not to enslave us, that we might return to what we were created to be.

Second, the follower of Christ will be humble, unconditionally loving, compassionate, patient, unselfish, graceful, merciful...if I am those things, and I am relational in my pursuit, then there is no room for anything like slavery, or rape, or violence in my life, because all of those things have to do with impressing my will on another.

When we attempt to make the logical presence of a specific term or phrase the mark of how the bible says we can or cannot do something, rather than the Gospel we have been given, I strongly believe that we grieve the Spirit. To enter into this honestly and openly is to shut off that inside of us which may listen to the true voice of God, because the argument is more interesting.

[Billie Goodson]

I think that for me, the problem with this entire thread is that it's very much in the arena of a false argument, trying to find a specific ban against something we would consider sinful here in the 20th century that was perfectly normal at the time, and remains perfectly normal in many third world countries (or among the poverty stricken in various parts of the U.S.).

But when I look for an argument against slavery, I don't go looking for specific mentions of slavery, in terms of what I am "not" to do. I look at what I am meant to do.

First, Jesus came to free us, not to enslave us, that we might return to what we were created to be.

Second, the follower of Christ will be humble, unconditionally loving, compassionate, patient, unselfish, graceful, merciful...if I am those things, and I am relational in my pursuit, then there is no room for anything like slavery, or rape, or violence in my life, because all of those things have to do with impressing my will on another.

When we attempt to make the logical presence of a specific term or phrase the mark of how the bible says we can or cannot do something, rather than the Gospel we have been given, I strongly believe that we grieve the Spirit. To enter into this honestly and openly is to shut off that inside of us which may listen to the true voice of God, because the argument is more interesting.

I might could agree with your sentiment Todd if we were all born with an in-depth and intimate knowledge of what you refer to as the gospel. I am maybe willing to grant that some people may have been born with such a clear interpretation, but I am well aware that I was not. I find that I have a great need to spend time with the scripture delving into discrete topics or I don't spend any time at all in scripture. While I appreciate that all are not wired that way, I am thankful that some people will ask the questions that challenge me to do just that. I keep hoping to find someplace where I am most comfortable, when that happens, I plan to let others of my kind know where I have found rest. Until then, maybe if those who have achieved perfect knowledge can tolerate me, I would appreciate it. I do realize we all seem to learn differently, and sometimes I will even admit I learn a lot from people who don't think like I do. Such a strange world we are called to minister in.

[Todd Erickson]

I might could agree with your sentiment Todd if we were all born with an in-depth and intimate knowledge of what you refer to as the gospel. I am maybe willing to grant that some people may have been born with such a clear interpretation, but I am well aware that I was not. I find that I have a great need to spend time with the scripture delving into discrete topics or I don't spend any time at all in scripture. While I appreciate that all are not wired that way, I am thankful that some people will ask the questions that challenge me to do just that. I keep hoping to find someplace where I am most comfortable, when that happens, I plan to let others of my kind know where I have found rest. Until then, maybe if those who have achieved perfect knowledge can tolerate me, I would appreciate it. I do realize we all seem to learn differently, and sometimes I will even admit I learn a lot from people who don't think like I do. Such a strange world we are called to minister in.

If the discussion was about whether slavery was actually sin or not, that would be one thing, and would certainly be educational, and I think that people have attempted to do that. But much of the discussion has actually amounted to whether we can make the bible say that slavery is wrong, or rape is wrong, or various other things that were taken for granted 2000 years ago when the bible was written. So really, the thread is mostly about interpretation and inerrancy, not about slavery.

[Billie Goodson]

If the discussion was about whether slavery was actually sin or not, that would be one thing, and would certainly be educational, and I think that people have attempted to do that. But much of the discussion has actually amounted to whether we can make the bible say that slavery is wrong, or rape is wrong, or various other things that were taken for granted 2000 years ago when the bible was written. So really, the thread is mostly about interpretation and inerrancy, not about slavery.

I don't disagree with your breakdown of the thread. But, I think that we have to admit that our opinion is a product of interpretation and our belief in personal inerrancy (at least in interpretive form). I seldom find myself arguing from a point where I believe I am wrong. (Although I have argued from sides that I thought were wrong, but will take that side just for the sake of an argument).

[John Brickley]

I have to say that this whole thread (with a few exceptions) is getting more than a little bizzare to me. To compare various forms of slavery to determine if one is more acceptable than another is the moral equivalent of asking which form of child abuse is preferrable. It is all heinous. I honestly don't understand how this thread even got this far, especially considering how the original question was asked:
Why is everyone is against slavery, when the bible has nothing bad to say about it? I mean really are you kidding me?

In my opinion the only redeeming discussion that has taken place are those posts that have tried to move this discussion to where the real issue is, the dynamic nature of scripture as opposed to a static view of scripture. Those posts that have insisted that this is about slavery and that there is value in comparing "types" of slavery as if one is better than another and thus somehow defendable, are just frightening.

Unless we allow this discussion to deal with the real issue which is the nature of scripture I honestly don't see any good place this thread can go arguing the merits of types of slavery.

But that is just my somewhat shocked $.02

[Larry Parsons]

If you really think about slavery in God's eyes. I believe you will have to come to conclusion that Slavery was wonderful tool for evangelize the heathens. God must have thought it was good he even set up slavery management classes so the slave business could run smooth. One thing the slave owner learn. Slaves could be purchased from the heathen nations see(Leviticus 25:44-46) Remember, when the Heathen slaves were placed in contact with believers. They were treated fair and equl according to the biblcal slave laws that God had set down for the slaves owner to obey. and while being a slave they were able to hear the liberating message of the gospel. The Slaves was making restitution for stealing and they were not caged up at taxpayers’ expense and treated like an animal; they would labored productively, in an evangelical family setting. They could earned back his self-respect, and restored what he owed to his victim. Another good thing about slavery that the bible support the slaves had job security and according to Lev.25:49 they had the right to save up thier money to purchase thier own freedom.
Thanks
Larry P.
If the old south as a whole would have apply the biblical slave law our country may hve never had a civil war..Lp

[John Brickley]

If you really think about slavery in God's eyes. I believe you will have to come to conclusion that Slavery was wonderful tool for evangelize the heathens. God must have thought it was good he even set up slavery management classes so the slave business could run smooth. One thing the slave owner learn. Slaves could be purchased from the heathen nations see(Leviticus 25:44-46) Remember, when the Heathen slaves were placed in contact with believers. They were treated fair and equl according to the biblcal slave laws that God had set down for the slaves owner to obey. and while being a slave they were able to hear the liberating message of the gospel. The Slaves was making restitution for stealing and they were not caged up at taxpayers’ expense and treated like an animal; they would labored productively, in an evangelical family setting. They could earned back his self-respect, and restored what he owed to his victim. Another good thing about slavery that the bible support the slaves had job security and according to Lev.25:49 they had the right to save up thier money to purchase thier own freedom.
Thanks
Larry P.
If the old south as a whole would have apply the biblical slave law our country may hve never had a civil war..Lp

What???

Okay now I am really frightened. :smilies0723::smilies0723::smilies0723::smilies072 3::smilies0723::smilies0723:

[Jim Chabot]

If you really think about slavery in God's eyes. I believe you will have to come to conclusion that Slavery was wonderful tool for evangelize the heathens. God must have thought it was good he even set up slavery management classes so the slave business could run smooth. One thing the slave owner learn. Slaves could be purchased from the heathen nations see(Leviticus 25:44-46) Remember, when the Heathen slaves were placed in contact with believers. They were treated fair and equl according to the biblcal slave laws that God had set down for the slaves owner to obey. and while being a slave they were able to hear the liberating message of the gospel. The Slaves was making restitution for stealing and they were not caged up at taxpayers’ expense and treated like an animal; they would labored productively, in an evangelical family setting. They could earned back his self-respect, and restored what he owed to his victim. Another good thing about slavery that the bible support the slaves had job security and according to Lev.25:49 they had the right to save up thier money to purchase thier own freedom.
Thanks
Larry P.
If the old south as a whole would have apply the biblical slave law our country may hve never had a civil war..Lp

I don't think we can really see slavery as a panacea of sorts. I can see where some sort of indenture system would have served Israel well in the days before currency and banking. But let's remember that God's agency in the world changes with the coming of the Kingdom. No longer is God's agency limited to Israel, his oracle people. The kingdoms of the earth have now become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ. We can no longer look to the OT laws in regarded to slavery, a modification is now in order and Paul brings this to us.

Slavetraders are considered wrongdoers, there is no longer anymore foreigners, all are eligible to become members of the family of God.

Christians are not to participate, we are not to sell ourselves into slavery. Yes those who held slaves we're permitted to keep them, but they must treat them like family. And Paul speaks by example when he urges manumission for Onesimus.

In short, it was over. Slavery may have once had a place, but it is incompatible with the freedom made available throughout the world through Christ Jesus.

Our Civil war had much more than slavery as it's cause. The disparity between the industrialised north and the agrarian south had become divisive as the south became marginalized beyond toleration.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

I am both surprised and confused that, in three pages of discussion, no one has yet mentioned Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If there is neither Jew nor Greek, what becomes of laws concerning foreigners? If there is neither slave nor free, what becomes of the system of slavery which, historical facts tell us, hadn't actually disappeared by that point, even among believers? This verse says to me that we are all one, that we are of the same substance, that we are all equals. What does this equality that we find in Christ do to slavery?

[John Kennedy]

Attempting to see slavery in a more favorable light because it may have in some way facilitated evangelism is a world-class attempt at putting lipstick on a pig. Following that sort of logic requires that one adopt an 'end justifies the means' ethic. It just shows you don't have to be Jewish to have chutzpah.

[Craig Laughlin]

I've only been on Naznet a few years but this has to be among the most bizarre threads I have ever read.

[Todd Erickson]

If you really think about slavery in God's eyes. I believe you will have to come to conclusion that Slavery was wonderful tool for evangelize the heathens. God must have thought it was good he even set up slavery management classes so the slave business could run smooth. One thing the slave owner learn. Slaves could be purchased from the heathen nations see(Leviticus 25:44-46) Remember, when the Heathen slaves were placed in contact with believers. They were treated fair and equl according to the biblcal slave laws that God had set down for the slaves owner to obey. and while being a slave they were able to hear the liberating message of the gospel. The Slaves was making restitution for stealing and they were not caged up at taxpayers’ expense and treated like an animal; they would labored productively, in an evangelical family setting. They could earned back his self-respect, and restored what he owed to his victim. Another good thing about slavery that the bible support the slaves had job security and according to Lev.25:49 they had the right to save up thier money to purchase thier own freedom.
Thanks
Larry P.
If the old south as a whole would have apply the biblical slave law our country may hve never had a civil war..Lp

Larry...this doesn't make sense. The Jews didn't have the gospel, and the purpose of the Levitical law was to set them apart from the practices of other nations, and not bring in their practices. This is much of why God told them to wipe out entire peoples rather than enslave them... every time they enslaved people, they wound up absorbing their practices.

[Bill Morrison]

I've only been on Naznet a few years but this has to be among the most bizarre threads I have ever read.

AGREED! When people think outside the box, as some have done in this thread, they may come up with new insights......or just end up down at the end of some bizarre path. Maybe some of each. I have no doubt that some African Americans have been saved and will spend eternity with God who would not have if their ancestors had not been brought to America through the horrrible institution of slavery. God can redeem the worst of situations. That is one reason we call it Good News! He worked through David's murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba to bring Christ into our world. But what David did was wrong and he (as well as others) suffered and paid dearly for it.

BILL

[Dennis Bratcher]

I am both surprised and confused that, in three pages of discussion, no one has yet mentioned Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If there is neither Jew nor Greek, what becomes of laws concerning foreigners? If there is neither slave nor free, what becomes of the system of slavery which, historical facts tell us, hadn't actually disappeared by that point, even among believers? This verse says to me that we are all one, that we are of the same substance, that we are all equals. What does this equality that we find in Christ do to slavery?

The "peace on earth" that was proclaimed at Christ's birth remains a goal, but after 2,000 years one not yet reached. The equality of women that Paul seems to proclaim is well toward fulfillment after 2,000 years but is still not a total reality, no matter what laws might be on the books (ask most any woman in ministry or in business leadership, or listen to some of the opinions expressed here). The equality and unity of all people under God was certainly part of the Gospel message, but remains elusive after 2,000 years. If anything, the Christian Church is more fragmented than it has ever been.

And while Paul may have envisioned a modification of slavery to bring it under the command to love one another (in spite of suggestions to the contrary, nowhere does he suggest ending the practice), it took over 1,800 years before most of humanity came to the point of realizing the implications of that command. All that is to say that what is presented as a goal and ideal of Christian living invariably intersects with the obstinacy of humanity. And all too often human intransigence triumphs.

On another note, much of the Gospel is subversive (Luke's Gospel portrays this aspect masterfully). That is, it does not directly challenge established social mores. Rather, it calls people to live, as Walt Bruggemann says in The Prophetic Imagination, in an alternate reality, a reality shaped by the call of God to be his people, a reality that is much different than the dominant reality of power and subjugation. It is the kind of alternate reality that calls us to turn the other cheek to our enemy, to eat with sinners, to touch lepers, to walk two miles instead of one, to give cups of cold water in Jesus' name, to turn aside to care for the Samaritan. Living that alternate reality becomes a subversion of the dominant systems that seek to control by coercion and raw power.

That is the message of much of the Gospel, which helps explain why there are no direct challenges to corrupt political systems ("render to Caesar"), no calls to overthrow the social order, and no objection to oppressive familial structures. That does not mean there is no challenge to those things. But it is not direct. The focus is on the nature of living the Kingdom and being the people of God within the circumstance in which we exist in the world (Phil 4:11-13), without spending our energies fighting everything that we think is wrong. Living as people of God is not about revolution but about love. So Paul can tells slaves to obey their masters and to be good slaves unto the Lord (Eph 6, Col 3, Titus 2), tell women to be silent in church (1 Cor 14), and agree to circumcise Timothy (Acts 16:3). Those are examples of working within a context while living out the love of God that proclaims a different message.

The problem is that through much of Church history, the Church had itself become the very instrument of dominating power. Also, living such an alternate reality carries with it such a high cost that many are not willing to risk it.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Larry Parsons]

Larry...this doesn't make sense. The Jews didn't have the gospel, and the purpose of the Levitical law was to set them apart from the practices of other nations, and not bring in their practices. This is much of why God told them to wipe out entire peoples rather than enslave them... every time they enslaved people, they wound up absorbing their practices.
Todd, I should not have said the gospel I even hisitated for a moment when i wrote, but they did have the covenant which I believe we could consider it as old testment gospel. I do question the idea that God told hebrews to wipe out whole group of people but we can talk about that latter. It seem like the Children of Israel had alway had a problem of following and obeying God's law's. I thought the purpose that God had for the Jewish nation was to be fruitful and win other nations over to the covenant. If they would have obey the slave law when they brought in slave from other nations they would have become part of the Jewish nation. It would be Old Covenant evangelism (This what I was trying to say) However we know that never happen. but to me this what God had in mind when he set up the Hebrew slaves system with it laws. God wanted his people to use slave system to win other nation to the covenant. But we know that did work!
Thanks
Larry P

[Billie Goodson]

Todd, I should not have said the gospel I even hisitated when i wrote, but the did have the covenant which I believe we could consider it as old testment gospel. I question the idea that God told hebrew to wipe out whole group of people but we can talk about that latter. It seem like the Children of Israel has alway had a problem of following and obey God's law's. The purpose that a Jewish nation was to be fruitful and win other nation to the covenant. If they would have obey the slave law when they brought in slave from other nations they would have become part of the Jewish nation. (This what I was trying to say) However we know that never happen. but to me this what God had in mind he wanted his people to use slavery to win other nation to the covenant. But we know it didn't turn out that way.
Thanks
Larry P

I think you are still confusing permitted with prescribed.

[Hans Deventer]

I've only been on Naznet a few years but this has to be among the most bizarre threads I have ever read.

I have a real hard time believing my eyes too. I'm almost wondering if there is a disconnection between what I read and my interpretation of it. Cognitive dissonance?

[Billie Goodson]

I have a real hard time believing my eyes too. I'm almost wondering if there is a disconnection between what I read and my interpretation of it. Cognitive dissonance?

I think it is interesting that naznet is in one respect resembling a church. Many churches would love to see growth, but they have the desire for the growth to look just like the current church that they have grown comfortable in. I think the resemblance is even near complete when one member of the "old crowd" never hesitates to let the newcomers know where they would be more comfortable. It is a form of exclusivism that I find inconsistent with the church.

[Hans Deventer]

I think it is interesting that naznet is in one respect resembling a church. Many churches would love to see growth, but they have the desire for the growth to look just like the current church that they have grown comfortable in. I think the resemblance is even near complete when one member of the "old crowd" never hesitates to let the newcomers know where they would be more comfortable. It is a form of exclusivism that I find inconsistent with the church.

Billie, I'm actually comfortable with a lot of differences in church. And I've seen quite a few. But I gladly admit that sometimes, I'm still surprised.

[Jim Chabot]

I have a real hard time believing my eyes too. I'm almost wondering if there is a disconnection between what I read and my interpretation of it. Cognitive dissonance?

I have to wonder if it has something to do in regards to the depths in which we seek out the character of God. Or at least that is what I think I am seeing here with the variety of reactions. For instance there is a group here that rarely gets past the sermon on the mount, it is used to represent the character of God and all must bend to it. Another group, mostly gone now, sees God in a very impersonal manner, they see one who sets down rules and we follow. And there are some who have made him in their own image, each one doing what is right in their own eyes. We all see things very differently, and yet we are loving people, we have his spirit, we belong to him. Parts of the body perhaps? I don't know, just early morning musing.

From my perspective, I spend lot's of time wondering what it would be like to be another person. I wonder a lot about what motivates people, what makes them tick, I find that it is a way to find the good in people where it may otherwise be hidden. I see things in scripture that I naturally attribute to God's character, where others may not. For instance the killing of the Egyptian's first born, the brutal massacres carried out at his orders as the chosen people inherited the land of Canaan, The destruction of Jerusalem, and I think often that He had no real objection to the persecution of Lot. So I'm guessing that gives me a more of a curiosity when I look at slavery rather than a repulsion that would prevent me from exploring?

As I write this I'm thinking of two examples of enslaved individuals. One is my Father, he had every advantage and freedom that this country could offer. He was able to rise out of the poverty visited upon us through the great depression, he put himself through college and he held a very good job in the corporate world until his retirement at age 62. Yet he was miserable, he had been enslaved by God. He lost the use of his left arm to polio at the age of seven, he was trapped into a white collar world. He yearned for a different path in life and he blamed God for his limitations. He didn't love his master. Yet somehow, as he sits in a nursing home, robbed of the ability to move around and robbed of his speech, he is now reflecting on who God is and I can see him content. I am amazed at his eagerness to attend bible study, funny how God works.

I have an uncle who was enslaved in a different way. He shunned education, dropping out in the sixth grade and he ran away from home completely obedient to the spirit of freedom. After bouncing around from place to place he was enticed by an opportunity to explore the high seas. He joined the Merchant Marine, to do so required indenture for a four year hitch, but off he went. He worked on a ship that traversed between Boston and Sydney Australia for his entire working life. He gored his ear on the doorpost, he was a happy guy.

Slavery isn't just some monolithic thing that has been defined by our recent history in the southern part of this country. I believe that if we allow ourselves to succumb to repulsion we miss out on a lot of what scripture has to say. And should we close our minds at this point in our exploration, the determination whether scripture is dynamic or not is irrelevant. Why would it matter how we view something that we aren't really looking at. Something like deciding how we view a Christmas present before we open it.

FWIW .02

[Jim Chabot]

I am both surprised and confused that, in three pages of discussion, no one has yet mentioned Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If there is neither Jew nor Greek, what becomes of laws concerning foreigners? If there is neither slave nor free, what becomes of the system of slavery which, historical facts tell us, hadn't actually disappeared by that point, even among believers? This verse says to me that we are all one, that we are of the same substance, that we are all equals. What does this equality that we find in Christ do to slavery?

Of course none of those distinctions have disappeared, even today. Nor do I believe they were meant to. Yet we are all equal, we have the availability of the love of God. Calvary indeed covers it all, his love is universal, we may have different life experiences yet we share equally in the Spirit, we share equally in His Love, and we share equally in Him who is our destination. We pay way too much attention to what limits our equality here on earth, we need to hold that upward look, we need His long view!

At least that is what the verse says to me.

I think that Paul explains this in regard to slavery right here;

Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Eph 6:6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

Eph 6:7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

Eph 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free.

Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

One remains the master and one remains the slave, yet both are equal in that they also serve the same Master.

[Daniel Hamlin]

The "peace on earth" that was proclaimed at Christ's birth remains a goal, but after 2,000 years one not yet reached.

Heck, I'd be happy with just "peace on NazNet", forget the rest of the earth!

[Hans Deventer]

I have to wonder if it has something to do in regards to the depths in which we seek out the character of God. Or at least that is what I think I am seeing here with the variety of reactions. For instance there is a group here that rarely gets past the sermon on the mount, it is used to represent the character of God and all must bend to it. Another group, mostly gone now, sees God in a very impersonal manner, they see one who sets down rules and we follow. And there are some who have made him in their own image, each one doing what is right in their own eyes. We all see things very differently, and yet we are loving people, we have his spirit, we belong to him. Parts of the body perhaps? I don't know, just early morning musing.

Jim, I don't understand God at all, and least of all, His grace. When I look around, both in the Scriptures, in history and in the world today, there is very little I understand. And God hardly seems eager to explain. I do think God wants me to trust Him despite that fact. I also believe Christ came to exemplify what such a life would look like, and at the same time displayed the love of God. (And a lot of other things)

To me, my faith is simple. The question I hear is, "So you don't get to hear the answer to all your why's. But I love you and have shown you how far I'm willing to go in order to have a relationship with you, to have you trust Me. It will be eternal life. Will you trust me?"

With such a faith, there is room for lots of stuff I don't understand.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I don't understand God at all, and least of all, His grace. When I look around, both in the Scriptures, in history and in the world today, there is very little I understand. And God hardly seems eager to explain. I do think God wants me to trust Him despite that fact. I also believe Christ came to exemplify what such a life would look like, and at the same time displayed the love of God. (And a lot of other things)

To me, my faith is simple. The question I hear is, "So you don't get to hear the answer to all your why's. But I love you and have shown you how far I'm willing to go in order to have a relationship with you, to have you trust Me. It will be eternal life. Will you trust me?"

With such a faith, there is room for lots of stuff I don't understand.

Yes absolutely! I can resonate with everything you have written here. The apostle Paul had a front row seat, he had a deep and thorough schooling, first hand knowledge and a face to face encounter with Jesus. He wrote that we see through a glass darkly. I'm thinking that the cloudy glass is a long ways off from my seat in the third balcony.

Re-reading my post, I noticed a very poor word choice. I used the word" depth" in realtion to our individual curiousity to the nature of God. I should have used the word "direction" I did not intend to convey that our differences are quantitive. We look through different closets and attics for our answers.

"God wants me to trust him despite that fact" Yes! That's it, that in large part frames my view and curiosity. That is why I take everything as part of his character, that is why I view everything as comprising part of his essential nature of love. Annihilation of those in Israel's past, Job's troubles, animal sacrifice and slavery. Somehow it is part of Love. Of which I have no comprehension, only enough to say that it must be true for our God is one and in him is no shadow of turning.

So I am quite curious about the definition of the slavery that Paul contemplated.

[Hans Deventer]

Yes absolutely! I can resonate with everything you have written here. The apostle Paul had a front row seat, he had a deep and thorough schooling, first hand knowledge and a face to face encounter with Jesus. He wrote that we see through a glass darkly. I'm thinking that the cloudy glass is a long ways off from my seat in the third balcony.

Re-reading my post, I noticed a very poor word choice. I used the word" depth" in realtion to our individual curiousity to the nature of God. I should have used the word "direction" I did not intend to convey that our differences are quantitive. We look through different closets and attics for our answers.

Oh yes. But, even looking through a glass darkly, not ALL is dark. That would be very negative theology and it would deny the revelation that we DID receive. So yes, you are right, I do focus on Jesus and even more specifically, the Sermon on the Mount as He exemplified it in His life, forgiving even those that crucified God Himself. That's the image of the book again that I spoke about at the conference. In that respect, I will indeed plead guilty if people accuse me of lifting one part of Scripture above another. It is true, I sing along as loud as I can with DC Talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jDnVpCNlyY&feature=related).
I actually believe my greatest problem is that I'm not consistent enough to be one.

It doesn't mean the rest of the Scriptures are irrelevant though. But it does mean that I will read them in the light of the revelation in Jesus Christ, and not the other way around. Why? Because in order to believe, you have to make SOME sense of the gospel. You have to at least see a thread running through the Scriptures, that is central to all the different voices that together form the Holy Scriptures. Isn't that dangerous? It probably is. Even Jesus Himself isn't always so easy to understand, and not everything He did is self explanatory. But it helps limit the topic somewhat and most of all, I believe in doing so, I'm focussing on the One who said He embodied the Truth, the Way, and the Life. Peter got it right:



67 "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6)

There is no revelation higher than in the Holy One of God. So that's where I am looking.

As to Paul, I agree he must have had a great view on who Jesus is. But he was also writing to specific churches in specific situations, and I don't think that is taken into account enough. And James' letter is Scripture too, and he did see things a little differently. As did John. They are like different instruments playing the tune the Master is conducting.

[Charles W Christian]

I've only been on Naznet a few years but this has to be among the most bizarre threads I have ever read.

Bizarre and extremelly wrong-headed in its premise.... Sorry, Larry, but you are sailing in some strange waters, and you seem to have missed the forest for the trees....

Charles

[John Brickley]

Bizarre and extremelly wrong-headed in its premise.... Sorry, Larry, but you are sailing in some strange waters, and you seem to have missed the forest for the trees....

Charles

I could not agree more.

[Larry Parsons]

I know that few of you thought I was losing my mind off when I mention that slavery could have used as evengelist tool. If you look at the Mosic slve law that is found in Leviticus 25:44-46 The first thing you will notice that the Israelite could buy slves from other nation. The other nation had slaves store where people could buy slaves.The Israelite were allow to buy those slaves. Israelites could buy slaves from strnger that lived in the Land. After a Isrealite bought a slave brought the slave home. The Israelite family could adopt the slave and even give him a portion of the fmily's inheritance once became a Jew. The bottom line I believe if the Children of Isrel would have practice the Mosic Slave law as God intend them to do. God's Old Testement Kingdom would have grow.All the slaves that the Israelite bought ftom other nation nd stranger in the land could all become Jew. I think is interesting and diffrent study. Todd i do agree this Lw was annulled by christ when he brought in the new Covenant.
Thnks
Larry

[Jon Bemis]

If the old south as a whole would have apply the biblical slave law our country may hve never had a civil war..Lp

This statement takes this discussion from bizarre to absurd.

[Larry Parsons]

This statement takes this discussion from bizarre to absurd.
Jon, The reason I that, if the old south slave owner would have treated thier slave according to Mosic slave law they would have been treted as human. There was time in the south were people believe that the negro didn't have soul and because of that they were treat like animals if were treated like humans I think thing may have been different.

[John Brickley]

Jon, The reason I that, if the old south slave owner would have treated thier slave according to Mosic slave law they would have been treted as human. There was time in the south were people believe that the negro didn't have soul and because of that they were treat like animals if were treated like humans I think thing may have been different.

Larry,

But don't you get it? You cannot be held as a slave and treated as human at the same time, the 2 are mutually exclusive. Slavery IS dehumanizing in all of its forms. There is no good form of slavery, it is all evil. To try to argue if one is better than another is just wrong. So your whole premise is wrong from the beginning and no amount of defense of Old Testament forms of slavery will change that. To be owned by another is to be robbed of your dignity and humanity, period, regardless of how you are treated.

Honestly the more you try to argue to the contrary the more frightening it sounds to me.

[Jon Bemis]

Jon, The reason I that, if the old south slave owner would have treated thier slave according to Mosic slave law they would have been treted as human. There was time in the south were people believe that the negro didn't have soul and because of that they were treat like animals if were treated like humans I think thing may have been different.

Larry,

The slaves that were in "the old south" had been kidnapped, sold into slavery, put aboard ships under conditions that were so bad that many died in route, and then auctioned off to live their lives far from home and family. Their sole purpose was to provide labor so others could benefit from their misery. Exactly how would applying "Mosic slave law" make these wrongs right? There is no argument you can make that can put an acceptable cover over something as wrong as slavery.

[Rich Schmidt]

Larry,

The slaves that were in "the old south" had been kidnapped, sold into slavery, put aboard ships under conditions that were so bad that many died in route, and then auctioned off to live their lives far from home and family. Their sole purpose was to provide labor so others could benefit from their misery. Exactly how would applying "Mosic slave law" make these wrongs right? There is no argument you can make that can put an acceptable cover over something as wrong as slavery.

If the slave owners of "the old south" had followed the OT laws about slavery, then perhaps they wouldn't have participated in that system at all, since it involved kidnapping, etc. Perhaps the slaves would have had the opportunity to earn their freedom. Perhaps it would have led to an earlier end of slavery altogether. It kind of makes for an interesting "alternative history" thought experiment... maybe would make for an interesting novel... but it's not an experiment that I have the inclination to pursue any further than I have just now...

[Larry Parsons]

If the slave owners of "the old south" had followed the OT laws about slavery, then perhaps they wouldn't have participated in that system at all, since it involved kidnapping, etc. Perhaps the slaves would have had the opportunity to earn their freedom. Perhaps it would have led to an earlier end of slavery altogether. It kind of makes for an interesting "alternative history" thought experiment... maybe would make for an interesting novel... but it's not an experiment that I have the inclination to pursue any further than I have just now...
Rich,
Rich, The Mosic law did not allow the Israelite to kidnapped their slaves. but they could buy slaves from a neighboring nations or even from the stranger that lived in the land.See (Lev.25:44-45) When the Israelite bought a slave from another nation and brought the slave back home. Remember the slave that was sold to the Israelite they were already slaves. The slaves was just changing owners. remember others nation were Israelite mission field. And one way the Israelite could evangelize was to go to neighboring nation and bring slave back and teach the Hebrew law According to the law of Moses the slaves owner were not rule over their slave with rigour. in other word they were they were not to be over work and they were to be treated fair. The only diffrence between a hire help who was an Israelite and a slave the hire help could walk off anytime and they were pay a wage. However the slave could become a Isrelite and become a citzen of Isreal.
I think we all have heard about the Love slaves this when a slave would remind with his owner on voluntarily basics. If a slave was treat unhuman he would never voluntor to be a love slave. Again God did allow for slavery and it was never condeem anywhere in the scripture. It was treatment of the slave that condeem but not slavery it self. Again during the time of the old covenant slavery was a form of evangelism. The gentile slaves was taken out of the world and was place with the covennt people.
Thank
Larry P

[Dennis Bratcher]

Rich,
Rich, The Mosic law did not allow the Israelite to kidnapped their slaves. but they could buy slaves from a neighboring nations or even from the stranger that lived in the land.See (Lev.25:44-45) When the Israelite bought a slave from another nation and brought the slave back home. Remember the slave that was sold to the Israelite they were already slaves. The slaves was just changing owners. remember others nation were Israelite mission field. And one way the Israelite could evangelize was to go to neighboring nation and bring slave back and teach the Hebrew law According to the law of Moses the slaves owner were not rule over their slave with rigour. in other word they were they were not to be over work and they were to be treated fair. The only diffrence between a hire help who was an Israelite and a slave the hire help could walk off anytime and they were pay a wage. However the slave could become a Isrelite and become a citzen of Isreal.
I think we all have heard about the Love slaves this when a slave would remind with his owner on voluntarily basics. If a slave was treat unhuman he would never voluntor to be a love slave. Again God did allow for slavery and it was never condeem anywhere in the scripture. It was treatment of the slave that condeem but not slavery it self. Again during the time of the old covenant slavery was a form of evangelism. The gentile slaves was taken out of the world and was place with the covennt people.
Thank
Larry P

Besides other problems, I think you are seriously idealizing biblical slavery and trying to make it something it wasn't.


Ex 21:20 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21:21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

So you can kill a slave as long as you do not beat him/her to death all at once. This is very, very far from humane treatment.


Ex 21:26 When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. 21:27 If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth.

While there is redress for the slave, the fact that this was necessary says that there was often violence associated with slavery.


Ex 21:28 When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 21:29 If the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not restrained it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. . . . 21:32 If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall pay to the slave-owner thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

This rather graphically shows that a slave was not valued as much as a free person.


Lev 25:39 If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 25:40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. . . .

This passage clearly distinguishes between a slave and an indentured servant.

Deuteronomy 21 outlines the parameters under which foreign women captured in war can be forced to become wives of their captors.

In Joshua 9 the deception of the Gibeonites led to their enslavement to the Israelites.

In 1 Kings 9, Solomon enslaved surrounding peoples for the work of building the temple:


1 Kings 9:20 All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel-- 9:21 their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the Israelites were unable to destroy completely--these Solomon conscripted for slave labor, and so they are to this day. 9:22 But of the Israelites Solomon made no slaves

So to say that "The Mosic law did not allow the Israelite to kidnapped their slaves" is not quite accurate.

These and other passages tell us that slavery even under torah was not the humane thing that you and others here are claiming. And as I have said several times in this thread, there is no good slavery, especially by our modern standards of individual liberty and justice. We simply live in a different world than tenth century BC Israel or first century AD Rome. To try to take Scripture that comes from those contexts and deals with such highly historically and culturally conditioned practices as slavery, the treatment of women, or food laws, and then try to make that normative for today is to miss something crucial about the nature of Scripture.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Larry Parsons]

Besides other problems, I think you are seriously idealizing biblical slavery and trying to make it something it wasn't.


Ex 21:20 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21:21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

So you can kill a slave as long as you do not beat him/her to death all at once. This is very, very far from humane treatment.


Ex 21:26 When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. 21:27 If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth.

While there is redress for the slave, the fact that this was necessary says that there was often violence associated with slavery.


Ex 21:28 When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 21:29 If the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not restrained it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. . . . 21:32 If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall pay to the slave-owner thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

This rather graphically shows that a slave was not valued as much as a free person.


Lev 25:39 If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 25:40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. . . .

This passage clearly distinguishes between a slave and an indentured servant.

Deuteronomy 21 outlines the parameters under which foreign women captured in war can be forced to become wives of their captors.

In Joshua 9 the deception of the Gibeonites led to their enslavement to the Israelites.

In 1 Kings 9, Solomon enslaved surrounding peoples for the work of building the temple:


1 Kings 9:20 All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel-- 9:21 their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the Israelites were unable to destroy completely--these Solomon conscripted for slave labor, and so they are to this day. 9:22 But of the Israelites Solomon made no slaves

So to say that "The Mosic law did not allow the Israelite to kidnapped their slaves" is not quite accurate.

These and other passages tell us that slavery even under torah was not the humane thing that you and others here are claiming. And as I have said several times in this thread, there is no good slavery, especially by our modern standards of individual liberty and justice. We simply live in a different world than tenth century BC Israel or first century AD Rome. To try to take Scripture that comes from those contexts and deals with such highly historically and culturally conditioned practices as slavery, the treatment of women, or food laws, and then try to make that normative for today is to miss something crucial about the nature of Scripture.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.
Dennis,Why couldn't we compare our prison system here in America to Israel slave system. Isn't it fact that our state and federal prisons are nothing more than slaves camps. the prisoners are force to work with little pay or none at all. They are told when to wake up and when to go to bed and when and what to eat. In fact most America's are for state slavery and I beleive most naz netter are for slavery if we put this way. I think Isreal may have had the same set up except for the fact it was family that own the slaves instead of the state. I don't think we can prove it but I don't see any reason why the gentile slave that was being bought by the Israelite couldn't be prisoners from other nations and during the time war the enemy soldiers who were capture also became slaves. I don't know why anyone would camparing Israel slave sytem to black slave trade system of the south they are complete different .
Shouldn't the word "When" in Exodus 21: 20-21 let us know that a killing of a slave wasn't a everyday thing but when it did happen the slave owner was punish by death.
Concerning the idea of kidnpping I think I'm still right about that because we in Exodus 21: 16 ... and he who kidnaps or steals a man, whether he sells him or not..he shall be put to death.

Thanks

Larry P.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis,Why couldn't we compare our prison system here in America to Israel slave system. Isn't it fact that our state and federal prisons are nothing more than slaves camps. the prisoners are force to work with little pay or none at all. They are told when to wake up and when to go to bed and when and what to eat. In fact most America's are for state slavery and I beleive most naz netter are for slavery if we put this way.

Being punished for a crime is not remotely comparable to slavery.


I don't know why anyone would camparing Israel slave sytem to black slave trade system of the south they are complete different.

But that's the point. They are very comparable, as the passages I quoted, and many others, suggest. And you still seem to be ignoring the simple fact that there is no good form of slavery by any standards of ethics we hold today. Trying to contend that American slavery was a bad form of slavery and Israelite slavery was a good form of slavery ignores the reality of what slavery is. Today, most of the world would not even accept the idea of indentured service as a good thing, nor enslavement for failure to pay debts, both of which were allowed in Israel. We do not even allow imprisonment for failure to pay debts. To argue that it's OK because it's in the BIble seriously misses the point.


Shouldn't the word "When" in Exodus 21: 20-21 let us know that a killing of a slave wasn't a everyday thing but when it did happen the slave owner was punish by death.

No. The "when" is a literary form in which law codes are cast. Besides, it would be like arguing that a law that says "When a man speeds, he will pay a fine" lets us know that speeding is not an everyday thing. And this ignores that the other passages taken together, or even that they are necessary, suggest that violence toward slaves was not that rare.


Concerning the idea of kidnpping I think I'm still right about that because we in Exodus 21: 16 ... and he who kidnaps or steals a man, whether he sells him or not..he shall be put to death.

I already gave passages that say differently. Besides, Deuteronomy 24:7 restricts kidnapping for the purpose of enslavement to Israelites; it does not exclude taking foreigners.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Larry Parsons]

Deuteronomy 21 outlines the parameters under which foreign women captured in war can be forced to become wives of their captors. Dennis I don't see a forcible possession here. In fact it wasn't allow even in this case. She went home with him and shave her head because she was renoucing her religion to become a Jew.
Thanks
Larry

[Todd Erickson]

You are seeing what you want to see in the bible, and refusing to listen to any contrary opinion by people who have spent their lives studying this, Larry. I'm not sure that anybody is doing you any favors by continuing this.

[Larry Parsons]

Being punished for a crime is not remotely comparable to slavery.



But that's the point. They are very comparable, as the passages I quoted, and many others, suggest. And you still seem to be ignoring the simple fact that there is no good form of slavery by any standards of ethics we hold today. Trying to contend that American slavery was a bad form of slavery and Israelite slavery was a good form of slavery ignores the reality of what slavery is. Today, most of the world would not even accept the idea of indentured service as a good thing, nor enslavement for failure to pay debts, both of which were allowed in Israel. We do not even allow imprisonment for failure to pay debts. To argue that it's OK because it's in the BIble seriously misses the point.



No. The "when" is a literary form in which law codes are cast. Besides, it would be like arguing that a law that says "When a man speeds, he will pay a fine" lets us know that speeding is not an everyday thing. And this ignores that the other passages taken together, or even that they are necessary, suggest that violence toward slaves was not that rare.



I already gave passages that say differently. Besides, Deuteronomy 24:7 restricts kidnapping for the purpose of enslavement to Israelites; it does not exclude taking foreigners.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Being punished for a crime is not remotely comparable to slavery. What the difference?
They are very comparable, as the passages I quoted, and many others. The scripture that you quoted like Ex.20:20-21 doesn't prove that beating and killing slave was on going thing in other words it didn't happen everyday. When it did happen the slave owner was punish. This was not true of the slave owner of the old south. If God was against slavery then why didn't he make it clear at Mt Sinia when he gave the 10 commandments. Notice what Ex,20:17 He is the children of Israel that itwas ok to have slaves but not covet the other mans slaves. I believe you are wrong when you say that you compare the slave system that God intented for the Jews to use with the old black slve system of old south. I agree the bible does comdeem old south slave trade system but God didn't condeem the old testament slave system.
Thanks
Larry

[Larry Parsons]

You are seeing what you want to see in the bible, and refusing to listen to any contrary opinion by people who have spent their lives studying this, Larry. I'm not sure that anybody is doing you any favors by continuing this.
Todd, I hear what people are saying here you but that does mean I will alway agree. When I disagree in most case I told the reason why! Can you share with me a book on the subject of Biblical Theology of Slavery that was written by someone here on the net. People here are doing me a favors I'm being challenge andit make me dig deeper.
Thanks
Larry

[Todd Erickson]

Larry...if we are disciples of Christ, then we follow and emulate Christ.

Please tell me what about emulating Christ supports the enslaving of other beings who are also made in the image of Christ?

[John Brickley]

I for one vote for the closure of this thread. It is obvious that everything useful that can be said has been said and it is also obvious that Larry is not going to move an inch and continues to hold to what is a very strange and in my opinion frightening position. I think this thread (especially Larry's arguments) is becoming an embarrasement to NazNet.

[Hans Deventer]

I for one vote for the closure of this thread. It is obvious that everything useful that can be said has been said and it is also obvious that Larry is not going to move an inch and continues to hold to what is a very strange and in my opinion frightening position. I think this thread (especially Larry's arguments) is becoming an embarrassment to NazNet.

Let me once again inform everyone that even the NazNet hosts don't read each and every post immediately. To contact them the best way is either to report a post, or to PM them. I've PM'd them. (nice verb)

Other than that, I totally agree and in fact feel that the thread should not be only closed, but deleted.

[Hans Deventer]

Larry...if we are disciples of Christ, then we follow and emulate Christ.

Please tell me what about emulating Christ supports the enslaving of other beings who are also made in the image of Christ?

Let's put it this way, if we can do that, we might as well drop the word "Christlikeness" from our Articles of Faith for it would have lost any meaning whatsoever.