In the NT, Slavery is broadly condemned.

[Clare73]

The OP clearly states "IN THE NT." I intentionally avoided the OT. The Scriptures allows us to make this distinction as the civil and ceremonial laws were only applicable to Israel not Christians. Secular slavery whether Roman (societal based) or American (raced based) IS IMMORAL AND NOT ORDAINED BY GOD, as slaves could be considered chattle or worse "non persons" which violates Gen. 1&2.

The slavery ordained by God in the civil law of Israel was not immoral, as God is not immoral, and did not violate God's own word in Ge 1&2.

Your objections do not apply to the slavery ordained by God in the OT, which were the regulations for Christian slave owners.

See post #12 for the slavery ordained by God.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The slavery ordained by God in the civil law of Israel was not immoral

I didn't say it was. I made a distinction between the civil law of Israel and secular slavery of Rome. Israel had all the safeguards of the 10 commandments which protected abuse. Those examples in the OT where abuse occurred are examples of sin.

Rome had no fear of God. Israel and Roman institutions of slavery are not exact duplicates.

 

[Clare73]

I didn't say it was. I made a distinction between the civil law of Israel and secular slavery of Rome. Israel had all the safeguards of the 10 commandments which protected abuse. Those examples in the OT where abuse occurred are examples of sin.

Rome had no fear of God. Israel and Roman institutions of slavery are not exact duplicates.

Then we are agreed, all slavery is not immoral.

 

[All Becomes New]

Then we are agreed, all slavery is not immoral.

I'd feel a lot better about you if you would have worded this as "some slavery is immoral" but there you go, making me think less of you again.

Are you aware that in OT slavery there is pretty much every opportunity as a means to get out of slavery? You act like slavery is a good thing because it was in the Bible but it's like you detach the cultural context and think the Law was completely fine with slavery. The way slavery was done in the OT was to provide a means OUT of slavery.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Your objections do not apply to the slavery ordained by God in the OT, which were the regulations for Christian slave owners.

What? Christian slave owners? As I pointed out, Philemon was written two years before Paul wrote Timothy. We don't know whether or not Paul's advice to Philemon freed his slave was successful. However, Paul's statement two years later in Timothy slams the gavel down hard on your so called "Christian" slave owners. Christians are not to be involved in the slave trade. And receiving "stolen goods" whether in material objects or persons is SIN ITSELF.

The broad outlines of the commandment "do not steal" forbids all Christians to be apart of the slave trade. See OP.

My OP was just about the NT. The next time I post an OP it will have so many caveats in it, I will make it bulletproof to go off in an unwanted direction.

The OT concept of slavery for Israel only..... is DEAD and in the dust bin of history. It has been for over for two thousand years. Pagan and secular slavery IS IMMORAL AND IS NOT ORDAINED BY GOD and does not have God's stamp of approval on it.

 

[Clare73]

No, it means more than just "brother in Christ," which is probably why we are not seeing eye to eye (unless of course, you like the idea of slavery, but I would rather not go there as you have already tarnished your reputation to me as it is).

What could be more than a brother in Christ?

I'd feel a lot better about you if you would have worded this as "some slavery is immoral" but there you go, making me think less of you again.

But, my precious, they are the same statements.

Are you aware that in OT slavery there is pretty much every opportunity as a means to get out of slavery? You act like slavery is a good thing because it was in the Bible but it's like you detach the cultural context and think the Law was completely fine with slavery. The way slavery was done in the OT was to provide a means OUT of slavery.

That is addressed in the last paragraph of my post #12.

Are you sure your issue is not with the word of God, rather than me?

It is regrettable that my agreement with Scripture offends you.

 

[All Becomes New]

That is addressed in the last paragraph of my post #12.

Didn't see you say anything about the significance of calling someone a brother in that post. Besides, the Law is not perfect. Haven't you read that God also ordained divorce because of the hardness of heart? So the same could be true of slavery.

 

[Clare73]

What? Christian slave owners? As I pointed out, Philemon was written two years before Paul wrote Timothy. We don't know whether or not Paul's advice to Philemon freed his slave was successful. However, Paul's statement two years later in Timothy slams the gavel down hard on your so called "Christian" slave owners. Christians are not to be involved in the slave trade. And receiving "stolen goods" whether in material objects or persons is SIN ITSELF.

The slave trade and slavery itself are dealt with in post #12.

The issue here is simply the morality of it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The slave trade and slavery itself are dealt with in post #12.

The issue here is simply the morality of it.

What then is the distinction between the OT and the NT in regards to slavery?

The OT along with classical Greek writings contains no clear-cut mechanisms for abolition of slavery as the NT does. This is a key point.

The central teaching of Jesus as to ‘treating the neighbor as oneself," coupled with the changed hearts of those who came to believe in him, and a renewed understanding of the Seventh Commandment per James 5, would mean over time the eventual death of a system based on treating the slave as a "chattel" and not as a human being worth as much as his master.

Neither Jesus nor His immediate followers owned slaves; nor did Paul, Barnabas or Timothy. So both the example of Jesus and His great concern for the poor really proved to be a challenge for the early Christians. Many early Christian understood this distinction and saw themselves living in a different social-legal environment distinct from Rome and of the OT.

For example, the author of 1 Clem. 55:2 states Christ’s love working through humble spirits has motivated some Christians to sell themselves in order to have money to buy the freedom of others. This truly love working through Christ high admonition, "Take up your cross and follow me." or "whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it." This is love in action to his neighbor.

Charles Elliott (1792-1869), Methodist missionary to the Indians, abolitionist and sometime president of Iowa Wesleyan University, maintained that:

• (1) slaves could not help but hate their oppressors and therefore slavery promoted hate and murderous thoughts – directly contrary to Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Matt. 5:21-22);
• (2) slaveholders break up families and necessarily maltreat little children – one of the most heinous of sins according to Jesus (Matt. 18:2-6; cf. Rev. 18:21);
• (3) slavery keeps the blacks in ignorance, whereas the gospel message requires Christian education (Luke 11:52; John 5:39);
• (4) Christ – in Luke 4 – effectively incorporated into his teaching and expanded upon the Old Testament special year of Jubilee (when slaves were freed), such that he ‘established, in his public administrations, a foundation for the universal emancipation of slaves’; and, most important of all,
• (5) since Jesus redeemed everyone, there can be no justification for one person’s enslaving another:
• (6) All men are redeemed by the same blood of Christ; and therefore, this common and general redemption by the blood of Christ is at variance with slavery... The same great sacrifice has been made for the slave as for the master; and therefore, the soul of the slave is worth as much as the soul of the master.

 

[Clare73]

What then is the distinction between the OT and the NT in regards to slavery?

Biblically, there is none (1 Pe 2:18).

It is in civil law that in time there is a difference.

The OT along with classical Greek writings contains no clear-cut mechanisms for abolition of slavery as the NT does. This is a key point.

There is no recommendation for the abolition of slavery in the NT.
There is only the acknowledgment that it is not desirable.

The central teaching of Jesus as to ‘treating the neighbor as oneself,"

Which doesn't prohibit a slave master from treating his slaves well.

coupled with the changed hearts of those who came to believe in him, and a renewed understanding of the Seventh Commandment per James 5, would mean over time the eventual death of a system based on treating the slave as a "chattel" and not as a human being worth as much as his master.

What is human worth based on?
Does man's position in society determine his worth?
Or is his worth determined by God, apart from man's notions thereof?

No problem with the death of that system, or any other system whose death is not contrary to God.

That is all a secular matter, not a Biblical matter.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Which doesn't prohibit a slave master from treating his slaves well.

Theft of labor (James 5) by definition means a slave master doesn't treat his slaves well. NT is very clear on this.

 

[zippy2006]

In the NT, Slavery is broadly condemned.

No, it is not. You are engaging in eisegesis.

Slavery is condemned broadly under commandment "Thou shall not steal."

No, it is not. And this is a commandment from the Old Testament, which abided just fine alongside slavery.

Theft pertains to property, therefore if you think this commandment applies to people then you are saying people are property.

Secondly, Christians are forbidden to be apart of the slave trade. The Biblical term for this is "men stealing" ἀνδραποδιστής in 1 Timothy 1:10.

A prohibition on kidnapping or slave-trading is not a general prohibition on slavery. It is not even a general prohibition on the obtaining of slaves per @Clare73's point that not all slaves are stolen.

And thirdly in James 5:1-6, slavery is condemned as "theft of labor."

This says nothing about slavery. You are grasping.

Perhaps the reason why the NT doesn’t come out clearly and state slavery is wrong...

That's right: the NT doesn't come out clearly on slavery, and therefore it is not true that, "In the NT slavery is broadly condemned."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Theft pertains to property, therefore if you think this commandment applies to people then you are saying people are property.

That is what slavery is. "People" are considered "chattel" and owned. Duh! Profound ignorance here.

 

[zippy2006]

That is what slavery is. "People" are considered "chattel" and owned. Duh! Profound ignorance here.

The ignorance is beyond profound, and it is yours. "Theft" is the unjust taking of property. Property is something owned. So you cannot steal something that is not owned. Who, pray tell, owns people? Who are they stolen from?

"Thou shalt not steal" was used by slave-owners when abolitionists or other slave-owners took their slaves, and such slave owners had a much clearer understanding of theft than you do. The object of theft is property, and therefore only someone who believes that humans are property can invoke this commandment with respect to slavery.

It's wonderful that you condemn slavery. But it doesn't mean the Bible does. Not everything you condemn is condemned by the Bible.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The ignorance is beyond profound, and it is yours. "Theft" is the unjust taking of property. Property is something owned. So you cannot steal something that is not owned. Who, pray tell, owns people? Who are they stolen from?

Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

chattel noun​

an enslaved person held as the legal property of another

 

[zippy2006]

Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

chattel noun​

an enslaved person held as the legal property of another

The object of theft is property, and therefore only someone who believes that humans are property can invoke this commandment with respect to slavery.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Theft pertains to property

This is how you define the word. The question comes is how does Scripture define the word. Does Scripture only define theft as it pertains to property?

The exact Biblical word for the "slave trade" in the Greek is ἀνδραποδιστής in I Tim. 1:10. This literally means man-stealing or men-stealing. Scripture has a much wider definition than you will allow for.

Meaning in Scripture is derived from how a word is used in its context. Yes, man stealing according to the NT is theft. Deal with it.

 

[Clare73]

This is how you define the word. The question comes is how does Scripture define the word. Does Scripture only define theft as it pertains to property?

The exact Biblical word for the "slave trade" in the Greek is ἀνδραποδιστής in I Tim. 1:10. This literally means man-stealing or men-stealing. Scripture has a much wider definition than you will allow for.

Meaning in Scripture is derived from how a word is used in its context. Yes, man stealing according to the NT is theft. Deal with it.

Man-stealing is forbidden.

The slavery ordained by God is not man-stealing, as demonstrated in post #12.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Theft pertains to property

 

[All Becomes New]

Man-stealing is forbidden.

The slavery ordained by God is not man-stealing, as demonstrated in post #12.

Please address this:

Haven't you read that God also ordained divorce because of the hardness of heart? So the same could be true of slavery.