Is slavery immoral

BroRoyVa79 · Feb 27, 2020

createdtoworship said:
But it's still slavery. They could not leave and go as they pleased. So human rights were a work in progress over the 1000s of years of scripture. Onesimus had to be purchased by the apostle to be free. Yet we see no command in scripture to free a slave without money or redemption. So that proves slavery was still in an unrefuted state. Roman war was never condemned by Jesus either. In this day and age Christ could have commanded all slavery to stop. But that would have conflicted with roman rule. Rome was not the nicest group in fact I think rome was the only group strong enough to break alexander the greats kingdom that split into his four generals. Greece was very successful only rome could compete.

You're still conflating here.

Eliezer of Damascus was a servant, but became the heir to Abraham until God provided a child. After that, he remained as the chief servant as part of the family according to cultural practices of that time. If you equate becoming an heir, meaning he'd be taking over for Abraham as meaning he still was enslaved, I don't know what to say here.

Edited to add the following:
Onesimus and the Philemon letter is an indication that ultimately the problem of humans enslaving humans was an issue for Christians. Paul implored Philemon to do the right thing. This kind of goes against your claim that the Bible doesn't deal with the problem when Paul is asking for Onesimus to be freed.

As Hawkins posted, Paul also went a step further and said slavers were among those that should be considered ungodly, sinful, unholy, lawbreakers, rebels, and irreligious:

Hawkins said:
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NIV2011)
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

That's how Paul put that the slave traders are criminals but he didn't mention the owners.

The Greek word here is andrapodistēs and it includes those who kidnap and enslave and those who reduce people to slavery, there's a good argument there that it also includes the owners.

As to slaves being freed. One example we see in scripture that if a slave is mistreated, harmed and injured then they go free:

Exodus 20: 26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. (ESV)

I've studied this topic and regulations for slaves, servants, etc. in the Bible give them far more freedom and rights than regulations found elsewhere in the Ancient Near East.

End of Edited additions.

Overall, you are trying to make a weak moral argument from silence: "God did not say a bad thing about a bad thing therefore that bad thing must not be bad."

It's a weak argument when you apply other things God said about other things (value of human life for example) to that bad thing (slavery in this case) and reason about it.

You're trying to argue that because God has allowed humanity to be corrupt to achieve His end goal and He doesn't say a condemning thing about this or that therefore that this or that thing may be or is morally justified.

This ignores:
1) God's moral standards are far beyond our moral standards.
2) God's wisdom is far beyond ours.
3) As emphasized in the Bible, post-Fall, God's priority is for the redemption of Humanity. He works towards this according to His prerogative.

2a) That means with humanity's existing corruption, some things had to be worked with. (Otherwise we'd be wiped out again by now) Those things that were worked with aren't necessarily morally justified (according to God's standards) such as polygamy, divorce, etc. Divorce, for example as has been pointed out. Jesus specifically said Moses and by extension God allowed divorce because human's were wicked at heart and Moses knew they would try to do something to end a marriage.

4) Regulation of an existing thing is not justifying that existing thing.

You're going to be hard pressed to find a passage that says "slavery is okay" or one that says "slavery is bad" versus passages that say or at least carry the theme or message that "if you practice slavery, and I know you will then you must do this according to these rules." See the difference.

Edited to add: Ultimately there are things that would hinder God's plan to bring the promised seed such as idolatry which He was very serious about in the OT and other things. Then there were things He allowed for whatever reason. I think there's explanatory power that He allowed these things because He knew it was inevitable Israel would do them, but things like serving other Gods, outright disobeying Him, etc. was the cut off point.

Overall, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think you're making a hasty conclusion based on an argument from silence.

createdtoworship · Feb 27, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
You're still conflating here.

Eliezer of Damascus was a servant, but became the heir to Abraham until God provided a child. After that, he remained as the chief servant as part of the family according to cultural practices of that time. If you equate becoming an heir, meaning he'd be taking over for Abraham as meaning he still was enslaved, I don't know what to say here.

Edited to add the following:
Onesimus and the Philemon letter is an indication that ultimately the problem of humans enslaving humans was an issue for Christians. Paul implored Philemon to do the right thing. This kind of goes against your claim that the Bible doesn't deal with the problem when Paul is asking for Onesimus to be freed.

As Hawkins posted, Paul also went a step further and said slavers were among those that should be considered ungodly, sinful, unholy, lawbreakers, rebels, and irreligious:

The Greek word here is andrapodistēs and it includes those who kidnap and enslave and those who reduce people to slavery, there's a good argument there that it also includes the owners.

As to slaves being freed. One example we see in scripture that if a slave is mistreated, harmed and injured then they go free:

Exodus 20: 26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. (ESV)

I've studied this topic and regulations for slaves, servants, etc. in the Bible give them far more freedom and rights than regulations found elsewhere in the Ancient Near East.

End of Edited additions.

Overall, you are trying to make a weak moral argument from silence: "God did not say a bad thing about a bad thing therefore that bad thing must not be bad."

It's a weak argument when you apply other things God said about other things (value of human life for example) to that bad thing (slavery in this case) and reason about it.

You're trying to argue that because God has allowed humanity to be corrupt to achieve His end goal and He doesn't say a condemning thing about this or that therefore that this or that thing may be or is morally justified.

This ignores:
1) God's moral standards are far beyond our moral standards.
2) God's wisdom is far beyond ours.
3) As emphasized in the Bible, post-Fall, God's priority is for the redemption of Humanity. He works towards this according to His prerogative.

2a) That means with humanity's existing corruption, some things had to be worked with. (Otherwise we'd be wiped out again by now) Those things that were worked with aren't necessarily morally justified (according to God's standards) such as polygamy, divorce, etc. Divorce, for example as has been pointed out. Jesus specifically said Moses and by extension God allowed divorce because human's were wicked at heart and Moses knew they would try to do something to end a marriage.
4) Regulation of an existing thing is not justifying that existing thing.

You're going to be hard pressed to find a passage that says "slavery is okay" or one that says "slavery is bad" versus passages that say or at least carry the theme or message that "if you practice slavery, and I know you will then you must do this according to these rules." See the difference.

Edited to add: Ultimately there are things that would hinder God's plan to bring the promised seed such as idolatry which He was very serious about in the OT and other things. Then there were things He allowed for whatever reason. I think there's explanatory power that He allowed these things because He knew it was inevitable Israel would do them, but things like serving other Gods, outright disobeying Him, etc. was the cut off point.

Overall, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think you're making a hasty conclusion based on an argument from silence.

Ok so I guess the burden of proof lies on yourself to prove that a slave is mutually exclusive from say a servant. Acording to MODERN dictionaries a slave is someone who does not have Freedom to go home, is someone's property, and/or does not have equal rights of 'free' individuals. All those apply to every single one of the dozens of verses mentioning slaves. Yes they were ommanded to be treated better. But they were never to be commanded to be freed without redemption. Indicating the possession aspect of the slave. They were commodities in the ancient world. Tools.like a screwdriver. Not an equal. Now since the new testament came Jesus taught a primitive human rights campaign that all are to be loved and respected. But it was primitive. Slaves would not be freed for over another 1500 years. Now again I don't have a problem with slavery. God created us from dirt to me freedom isn't free, it has to be fought for. And that was a battle that had to be fought militarily (civil war.) Jesus was not about to arm his followers to eradicate slavery from the romans. Jesus was first and foremost about freedom from sin, not freedom from employers or slave masters. I think we do the bible.injustice not to take slavery literal in the bible. Again the God of the old testamentry did not view unbelievers with a basic right of life. He literally flooded all wicked of the world out. And annihilated thousand of Israel's enemies in the old testament, closed a sea on an Egyptian army. Opened a canyon in exodus to swallow hundreds of disobedient hebrews, so to saY you take exception with slavery is sort of odd. One day God will destroy this earth with fire. All the wicked with die miserable deaths. God is holy, He can do whatever the heck He pleases and I for one won't stop Him or question His will. I Have.the utmost fear and reverence for Him.

createdtoworship · Feb 27, 2020

Duplicate

createdtoworship · Feb 27, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
You're still conflating here.

Eliezer of Damascus was a servant, but became the heir to Abraham until God provided a child. After that, he remained as the chief servant as part of the family according to cultural practices of that time. If you equate becoming an heir, meaning he'd be taking over for Abraham as meaning he still was enslaved, I don't know what to say here.

Edited to add the following:
Onesimus and the Philemon letter is an indication that ultimately the problem of humans enslaving humans was an issue for Christians. Paul implored Philemon to do the right thing. This kind of goes against your claim that the Bible doesn't deal with the problem when Paul is asking for Onesimus to be freed.

As Hawkins posted, Paul also went a step further and said slavers were among those that should be considered ungodly, sinful, unholy, lawbreakers, rebels, and irreligious:

The Greek word here is andrapodistēs and it includes those who kidnap and enslave and those who reduce people to slavery, there's a good argument there that it also includes the owners.

As to slaves being freed. One example we see in scripture that if a slave is mistreated, harmed and injured then they go free:

Exodus 20: 26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. (ESV)

I've studied this topic and regulations for slaves, servants, etc. in the Bible give them far more freedom and rights than regulations found elsewhere in the Ancient Near East.

End of Edited additions.

Overall, you are trying to make a weak moral argument from silence: "God did not say a bad thing about a bad thing therefore that bad thing must not be bad."

It's a weak argument when you apply other things God said about other things (value of human life for example) to that bad thing (slavery in this case) and reason about it.

You're trying to argue that because God has allowed humanity to be corrupt to achieve His end goal and He doesn't say a condemning thing about this or that therefore that this or that thing may be or is morally justified.

This ignores:
1) God's moral standards are far beyond our moral standards.
2) God's wisdom is far beyond ours.
3) As emphasized in the Bible, post-Fall, God's priority is for the redemption of Humanity. He works towards this according to His prerogative.

2a) That means with humanity's existing corruption, some things had to be worked with. (Otherwise we'd be wiped out again by now) Those things that were worked with aren't necessarily morally justified (according to God's standards) such as polygamy, divorce, etc. Divorce, for example as has been pointed out. Jesus specifically said Moses and by extension God allowed divorce because human's were wicked at heart and Moses knew they would try to do something to end a marriage.
4) Regulation of an existing thing is not justifying that existing thing.

You're going to be hard pressed to find a passage that says "slavery is okay" or one that says "slavery is bad" versus passages that say or at least carry the theme or message that "if you practice slavery, and I know you will then you must do this according to these rules." See the difference.

Edited to add: Ultimately there are things that would hinder God's plan to bring the promised seed such as idolatry which He was very serious about in the OT and other things. Then there were things He allowed for whatever reason. I think there's explanatory power that He allowed these things because He knew it was inevitable Israel would do them, but things like serving other Gods, outright disobeying Him, etc. was the cut off point.

Overall, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think you're making a hasty conclusion based on an argument from silence.

Again while Jesus said to love all, He was not as concerned about 'human rights' even in the new testament. I accept that He is God and He can do whatevery the heck God wants. He has a plan in it all and I don't have to know what that plan is entirely about right now, I just trust there is a plan. Here Jesus uses a cultural evil like slavery to give illustration to His incarnation. Instead of rebuking it, He used it as an illustration.

createdtoworship · Feb 28, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
You're trying to argue that because God has allowed humanity to be corrupt to achieve His end goal and He doesn't say a condemning thing about this or that therefore that this or that thing may be or is morally justified.

If Jesus didn't conflate the term slave regarding His own life, and regarding His will for His disciples I would agree with you. He asks us to be slaves of God in a host of verses. Not to follow our will, but His. That is a slave. And we have joy to do it. I think He allows the principles of slavery to exist in our history possibly for that one simple reason. It's not justifying the bad versions of slavery, but it's saying you can be a voluntary slave. Meaning that SOME slavery is morally acceptable. And I wanted to add this article about human rights in the Bible. It's good, and reveals some aspects of human rights in the Bible. I have another thread now, regarding freedom. Freedom is not really free.

Freedoms, libertarianism versus the Bible

but here is the human rights in the Bible:

As an example, on the way to Canaan, God tells his people through Moses that the alien, or foreigner, among them should not be oppressed (Exodus 23:9). The reason given is fascinating: the people of Israel know in their hearts how it feels to be oppressed! —The word translated “alien” is not the same as slave, but the experience of the Israelites in Egypt was certainly that of slaves— Thus, we see the first statement on human rights: the alien was to be treated as a citizen; in fact, he was to be loved as one of their own (Leviticus 19:33-34). Even when Hebrew law and custom shared in the common heritage of the ancient world, there is a unique care in God’s Name for those people who by status were not considered people—something absent from the codes of Babylon and Assyria.

The New Testament further gives us a paradigm to interpret Old Testament practices. In one of their notorious fault-finding missions, the Pharisees test Jesus on the subject of divorce (Matthew 19:1-9; Mark 10:2-9). He initially appears to play into their hands, asking what Mosaic Law has to say on the subject. When they gleefully quote the permission of Moses to divorce one’s wife, Jesus lays down a method of interpretation that has to be taken very seriously. He makes it clear that certain Old Testament commandments were to be understood as concessions to the hardness of the human heart rather than as expressions of God’s holy character. He goes on to reference how this was not the state of affairs in the beginning—that is, before the fall.

The regulation of slavery should therefore be seen as a practical step to deal with the realities of the day resulting from human fall. The aberrations that lead to alienation among individuals, races, and nations are the result of a fundamental broken relationship between humankind and God. Within this tragic scenario, Scripture comes as a breath of fresh air as it seeks to redeem the situation and sets us on a path of ever-increasing amelioration of our predicament. While the Bible does not reject slavery outright, the conclusion that it actually favours slavery is patently wrong. Scripture does reveal that slavery is not ideal, both in Old Testament laws forbidding the enslavement of fellow Israelites, the law of jubilee, and in New Testament applications of Christ. In fact, the Bible teaches that the feeling of superiority in general is sin (Philippians 2:1-8)! The abolition of slavery is thus not only permissible by biblical standards, but demanded by biblical principles. The pre-fall statement that should guide and ultimately abolish such (and any) practices of superiority is the declaration that all humans—men and women—are made in the image of God.

On this principle, the Bible even lays the foundation for progressing far beyond what was possible in New Testament times by addressing the very economic discrimination and favouritism of which slavery is the worst expression (James 2:1-9; 5:1-6). Of course, lamentably, it must be admitted that the Church has taken many centuries to live out what Scripture taught long ago, and no doubt we continue to drag our feet. The time delay between the Word of Scripture and its implementation in society is often due to the “holy huddle” mentality prevailing among Christians who are largely unconcerned about issues outside of their immediate periphery. Another reason many Christians continue to remain silent in the face of injustice is the platonic view of the cosmos we have adopted, implying that life in the hereafter is the only issue to be addressed, while we watch the world go by in its destructive way. Both mentalities are sadly misguided.

Those of us who say that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God have to raise our level of awareness and involvement regarding social issues. Having failed to do so, we have let these issues pass into the hands of those who may not be Christians, but are better informed about social injustice and concerned enough to fight wrong practices through legal means. While they have no logical basis to do what they are doing, the real tragedy is that we who do have a basis to address these issues remain largely indifferent. May the Lord of Scripture open our eyes to see that God is interested in the redemption of the whole of creation and not just disembodied souls and spirits!"

above from :

Does the Bible Condone Slavery? | Zacharias Trust | RZIM Europe

BroRoyVa79 · Feb 28, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Ok so I guess the burden of proof lies on yourself to prove that a slave is mutually exclusive from say a servant.

In ancient times a slave and a servant were similar in function but different in other concepts. I've been saying this and pointed out with Abraham and Eliezer, in ANE (Ancient Near East) sometimes a servant was considered part of the family and sought after for that purpose. Sometimes a husband and wife couldn't have a son so they brought one from a family that couldn't afford to take care of their son. That is entirely different function and ultimate purpose for the servant-to-be-son-and-heir from Atlantic-Slave-Trade chattel slavery where the human being was only considered as property similar to live stock.

The problem today is that even in academic circles people wrongly use slave and servant interchangeably in these cases furthering the misconception that the two things were the same.

For instance, to say the institution of indentured servitude was the same as the institution of slavery is mishandling the subject and the institutions of that time.

I don't know how else to put this to you.

createdtoworship said:
Acording to MODERN dictionaries a slave is someone who does not have Freedom to go home, is someone's property, and/or does not have equal rights of 'free' individuals.

This is your problem. You're taking a modern understanding of something and trying to apply it to an ancient understanding of something. That's called presentism. Which is judging and trying to redefine history by the moral and ethical standards of modernity without taking into account the moral and ethical standards of the historical time, culture, etc.

createdtoworship said:
All those apply to every single one of the dozens of verses mentioning slaves.

In some ways they do, in some ways they do not. Yes, there was chattel slavery in ancient times, but not necessarily in the form of chattel slavery in the Colonial times or in the Islamic Slave Trade of equal time. Some concepts were there, but some weren't. Nuances as I said.

You can take a simplistic view of this "slavery is slavery" or you can take a broader view of this "Abraham, for example, had a servant whom he thought of as family and was planning to make said servant his heir. Effectively which would have made said servant Not-a-Slave in the Fashion We Think of the Concept."

createdtoworship said:
Yes they were ommanded to be treated better. But they were never to be commanded to be freed without redemption. Indicating the possession aspect of the slave.

I just showed you a passage in which if a slave was injured they were freed. There are passages in the Bible in which if a slave is fatally wounded then the person who did it, even the owner, is put to death so although the slave is in servitude, the slave has the same value as a free person who, if murdered, the murderer is put to death. In other ANE laws such as the code of Hammurabi, the owner is never wrong for what they do to a slave as opposed to the Bible.

Again, you can take a simplistic view of this or you can look at it deeper.

createdtoworship said:
They were commodities in the ancient world. Tools.like a screwdriver. Not an equal.

This is not true for every ancient culture. Again, you are performing the error of presentism. You are projecting an idea that we've come to think of when we think of slavery to institutions of ancient times where again, for example, someone who couldn't afford to take care of themselves sold themselves to a family as a servant knowing they would be considered part of that tribe, that family. That is entirely different than Colonial and Islamic slavery that we think of when we think about this.

createdtoworship said:
Now since the new testament came Jesus taught a primitive human rights campaign that all are to be loved and respected. But it was primitive.

Jesus' ultimate goal when He walked the Earth was the salvation of humanity, not social justice issues or liberation issues in the physical sense. He was working towards freeing all Humanity from something far more oppressive than man vs. man issues. While many of the principles "love thy neighbor, for instance, all human beings are created equal by God, for another example," apply to dealing with slavery, it was not Jesus' ultimate goal at the time.

createdtoworship said:
Slaves would not be freed for over another 1500 years.

Slaves have been freed by various cultures and rebellions all throughout history. Again, you show that you are only thinking of what we in the West tend to think of.

All cultures had some type of manumission worked into the institution including the Colonial slave institution.

Still, even today, slavery exists only the name has changed to human trafficking. But it is still slavery, and it crosses skin color groups, so it is no longer a dark skin color group thing. Never was to be fully truthful about it, which, again, shows the bias brought to the subject from a modern Western or post-Colonial, post-Islamic slave trade perspective, although the latter, the Islamic Slave Trade is never really talked about. I digress...

createdtoworship said:
Now again I don't have a problem with slavery. God created us from dirt to me freedom isn't free, it has to be fought for. And that was a battle that had to be fought militarily (civil war.)

God didn't create Adam and Eve enslaved. They were free to pluck from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and disobey God. They weren't robots without the will to do what they want or the ability to act on it.

It is human institutions that restrict our freedoms. I'm not an Anarchist, but that's the reality of the situation all humans are born into from ancient times past to the future. Humans congregate together and establish freedom restricting rules and order because we lost God's order at the Fall.

Still, God had and has rules and orders and standards and humanity is free to break them. Freedom to act on free will does not mean there won't be consequences of those actions.

createdtoworship said:
Jesus was not about to arm his followers to eradicate slavery from the romans. Jesus was first and foremost about freedom from sin, not freedom from employers or slave masters. I think we do the bible.injustice not to take slavery literal in the bible. Again the God of the old testamentry did not view unbelievers with a basic right of life. He literally flooded all wicked of the world out. And annihilated thousand of Israel's enemies in the old testament, closed a sea on an Egyptian army. Opened a canyon in exodus to swallow hundreds of disobedient hebrews, so to saY you take exception with slavery is sort of odd. One day God will destroy this earth with fire. All the wicked with die miserable deaths. God is holy, He can do whatever the heck He pleases and I for one won't stop Him or question His will. I Have.the utmost fear and reverence for Him.

Yes, Jesus' ultimate goal when He came and now is freedom from sin and redemption and rebuilding the bridge between God and humans who accept Jesus as the only way to do this.

You say we do the Bible injustice not to take slavery literal. I do, within its historical and cultural context, not within modern Western post-institution of slavery in the West context. There's a difference.

Yes, God punished disobedient humans and wicked world in the past. That has very little to do with God's value of human life and how we should value human life. We should value it enough to not want our countries to embrace wicked institutions that would bring the wrath of God upon us among other things. How God handles things is up to Him to do it. Sometimes He brings His wrath, sometimes He works it out through other means. Entirely up to him, I agree.

BroRoyVa79 · Feb 28, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Again while Jesus said to love all, He was not as concerned about 'human rights' even in the new testament. I accept that He is God and He can do whatevery the heck God wants. He has a plan in it all and I don't have to know what that plan is entirely about right now, I just trust there is a plan. Here Jesus uses a cultural evil like slavery to give illustration to His incarnation. Instead of rebuking it, He used it as an illustration.

View attachment 272530

You're still applying a modern understanding to the term and the idea. The idea is simply to give your entire self over to God as a servant would his/her Master by choice. The metaphor is obviously talking about those who do so by choice like the people who couldn't afford to feed themselves and gave themselves over to someone else as a service so they could be taken care of.

BroRoyVa79 · Feb 28, 2020

createdtoworship said:
If Jesus didn't conflate the term slave regarding His own life, and regarding His will for His disciples I would agree with you. He asks us to be slaves of God in a host of verses. Not to follow our will, but His. That is a slave. And we have joy to do it. I think He allows the principles of slavery to exist in our history possibly for that one simple reason. It's not justifying the bad versions of slavery, but it's saying you can be a voluntary slave. Meaning that SOME slavery is morally acceptable. And I wanted to add this article about human rights in the Bible. It's good, and reveals some aspects of human rights in the Bible. I have another thread now, regarding freedom. Freedom is not really free.

Freedoms, libertarianism versus the Bible

Already covered this.
Even if we take your view of Jesus' use of the term, it is still metaphorical in the sense that one should give themselves totally over to God. That metaphorical concept alone defeats your argument about freedom. God wants you to give yourself to Him, to make a choice. That means you have the freedom to do so.

createdtoworship said:
but here is the human rights in the Bible:

As an example, on the way to Canaan, God tells his people through Moses that the alien, or foreigner, among them should not be oppressed (Exodus 23:9). The reason given is fascinating: the people of Israel know in their hearts how it feels to be oppressed! —The word translated “alien” is not the same as slave, but the experience of the Israelites in Egypt was certainly that of slaves— Thus, we see the first statement on human rights: the alien was to be treated as a citizen; in fact, he was to be loved as one of their own (Leviticus 19:33-34). Even when Hebrew law and custom shared in the common heritage of the ancient world, there is a unique care in God’s Name for those people who by status were not considered people—something absent from the codes of Babylon and Assyria.

The New Testament further gives us a paradigm to interpret Old Testament practices. In one of their notorious fault-finding missions, the Pharisees test Jesus on the subject of divorce (Matthew 19:1-9; Mark 10:2-9). He initially appears to play into their hands, asking what Mosaic Law has to say on the subject. When they gleefully quote the permission of Moses to divorce one’s wife, Jesus lays down a method of interpretation that has to be taken very seriously. He makes it clear that certain Old Testament commandments were to be understood as concessions to the hardness of the human heart rather than as expressions of God’s holy character. He goes on to reference how this was not the state of affairs in the beginning—that is, before the fall.

The regulation of slavery should therefore be seen as a practical step to deal with the realities of the day resulting from human fall. The aberrations that lead to alienation among individuals, races, and nations are the result of a fundamental broken relationship between humankind and God. Within this tragic scenario, Scripture comes as a breath of fresh air as it seeks to redeem the situation and sets us on a path of ever-increasing amelioration of our predicament. While the Bible does not reject slavery outright, the conclusion that it actually favours slavery is patently wrong. Scripture does reveal that slavery is not ideal, both in Old Testament laws forbidding the enslavement of fellow Israelites, the law of jubilee, and in New Testament applications of Christ. In fact, the Bible teaches that the feeling of superiority in general is sin (Philippians 2:1-8)! The abolition of slavery is thus not only permissible by biblical standards, but demanded by biblical principles. The pre-fall statement that should guide and ultimately abolish such (and any) practices of superiority is the declaration that all humans—men and women—are made in the image of God.

On this principle, the Bible even lays the foundation for progressing far beyond what was possible in New Testament times by addressing the very economic discrimination and favouritism of which slavery is the worst expression (James 2:1-9; 5:1-6). Of course, lamentably, it must be admitted that the Church has taken many centuries to live out what Scripture taught long ago, and no doubt we continue to drag our feet. The time delay between the Word of Scripture and its implementation in society is often due to the “holy huddle” mentality prevailing among Christians who are largely unconcerned about issues outside of their immediate periphery. Another reason many Christians continue to remain silent in the face of injustice is the platonic view of the cosmos we have adopted, implying that life in the hereafter is the only issue to be addressed, while we watch the world go by in its destructive way. Both mentalities are sadly misguided.

Those of us who say that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God have to raise our level of awareness and involvement regarding social issues. Having failed to do so, we have let these issues pass into the hands of those who may not be Christians, but are better informed about social injustice and concerned enough to fight wrong practices through legal means. While they have no logical basis to do what they are doing, the real tragedy is that we who do have a basis to address these issues remain largely indifferent. May the Lord of Scripture open our eyes to see that God is interested in the redemption of the whole of creation and not just disembodied souls and spirits!"

above from :

Does the Bible Condone Slavery? | Zacharias Trust | RZIM Europe

I have to wonder if you actually read the article you posted about. In the article Simon Edwards says many of the exact same things I and others have said to you about this and defeats what you seem to be implying in this post. I'll pull some of the statements out, emphasis mine:

"As an example, on the way to Canaan, God tells his people through Moses that the alien, or foreigner, among them should not be oppressed (Exodus 23:9). The reason given is fascinating: the people of Israel know in their hearts how it feels to be oppressed! —The word translated “alien” is not the same as slave, but the experience of the Israelites in Egypt was certainly that of slaves— Thus, we see the first statement on human rights: the alien was to be treated as a citizen; in fact, he was to be loved as one of their own (Leviticus 19:33-34)."

This ultimately shows God commented on the practice of enslaving humans but ultimately knew His people would do it so He regulated it, as I said. Here is another statement made by Mr. Edwards in line with what I and others have said here. Again, emphasis mine:

"The regulation of slavery should therefore be seen as a practical step to deal with the realities of the day resulting from human fall. The aberrations that lead to alienation among individuals, races, and nations are the result of a fundamental broken relationship between humankind and God. Within this tragic scenario, Scripture comes as a breath of fresh air as it seeks to redeem the situation and sets us on a path of ever-increasing amelioration of our predicament. While the Bible does not reject slavery outright, the conclusion that it actually favours slavery is patently wrong. Scripture does reveal that slavery is not ideal, both in Old Testament laws forbidding the enslavement of fellow Israelites, the law of jubilee, and in New Testament applications of Christ. In fact, the Bible teaches that the feeling of superiority in general is sin (Philippians 2:1-8)! The abolition of slavery is thus not only permissible by biblical standards, but demanded by biblical principles. The pre-fall statement that should guide and ultimately abolish such (and any) practices of superiority is the declaration that all humans—men and women—are made in the image of God."

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Regulation of slavery is not a justification of it. It is a regulation because the human heart is evil and we have fallen alway from God's original standard.

What I disagree with is that the Bible is a social justice guideline book in the sense of social justice today. The principles can be applied, correctly I might add, to liberate people, but you also have to balance these liberties with what God said his preferable standard is for people.

createdtoworship · Feb 28, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
In ancient times a slave and a servant were similar in function but different in other concepts. I've been saying this and pointed out with Abraham and Eliezer, in ANE (Ancient Near East) sometimes a servant was considered part of the family and sought after for that purpose. Sometimes a husband and wife couldn't have a son so they brought one from a family that couldn't afford to take care of their son. That is entirely different function and ultimate purpose for the servant-to-be-son-and-heir from Atlantic-Slave-Trade chattel slavery where the human being was only considered as property similar to live stock.

The problem today is that even in academic circles people wrongly use slave and servant interchangeably in these cases furthering the misconception that the two things were the same.

For instance, to say the institution of indentured servitude was the same as the institution of slavery is mishandling the subject and the institutions of that time.

I don't know how else to put this to you.

again you have no evidence the principles do not overlap, you cannot say a slave is not servant and vice versa. They are both slaves and servants. The term is basically synonymous, and if I search greek and hebrew dictionaries and fairly sure translations use them synchronously. You want me to check?

This is your problem. You're taking a modern understanding of something and trying to apply it to an ancient understanding of something. That's called presentism. Which is judging and trying to redefine history by the moral and ethical standards of modernity without taking into account the moral and ethical standards of the historical time, culture, etc.

I am not using modern definitions of words and forcing the biblical interpretation based on english dictionaries, I am saying that as we currently define slavery, God never condemned it anywhere in scripture.

In some ways they do, in some ways they do not. Yes, there was chattel slavery in ancient times, but not necessarily in the form of chattel slavery in the Colonial times or in the Islamic Slave Trade of equal time. Some concepts were there, but some weren't. Nuances as I said.

You can take a simplistic view of this "slavery is slavery" or you can take a broader view of this "Abraham, for example, had a servant whom he thought of as family and was planning to make said servant his heir. Effectively which would have made said servant Not-a-Slave in the Fashion We Think of the Concept."

again according to modern dictionaries they are all slaves. You say I am taking the simplistic approach, I say you are over thinking this.

I just showed you a passage in which if a slave was injured they were freed. There are passages in the Bible in which if a slave is fatally wounded then the person who did it, even the owner, is put to death so although the slave is in servitude, the slave has the same value as a free person who, if murdered, the murderer is put to death. In other ANE laws such as the code of Hammurabi, the owner is never wrong for what they do to a slave as opposed to the Bible.

that is because they are a useless commodity at that time. Again according to exodus a slave is the 'property' of the owner. If they are hurt, the nice thing to do is set them free. Sort of like how we have disability. What I am saying is that no where are slaves set free without redemption, because they are property. Free labor was a commercial thing. It made the ancient world run.

Again, you can take a simplistic view of this or you can look at it deeper.

or you can overthink it.

This is not true for every ancient culture. Again, you are performing the error of presentism. You are projecting an idea that we've come to think of when we think of slavery to institutions of ancient times where again, for example, someone who couldn't afford to take care of themselves sold themselves to a family as a servant knowing they would be considered part of that tribe, that family. That is entirely different than Colonial and Islamic slavery that we think of when we think about this.

we are talking biblical culture not every culture, this is a red herring. Exodus says they were property.

Jesus' ultimate goal when He walked the Earth was the salvation of humanity, not social justice issues or liberation issues in the physical sense. He was working towards freeing all Humanity from something far more oppressive than man vs. man issues. While many of the principles "love thy neighbor, for instance, all human beings are created equal by God, for another example," apply to dealing with slavery, it was not Jesus' ultimate goal at the time.

I agree but I didn't see any verses saying 'we are created equal." We are, don't get me wrong, it can be implied, but there is no direct verse saying that in fact we see it said rather, instead of a servant being equal to their master, we see that no servant is greater than their master and that is a different concept: John 13:16

Slaves have been freed by various cultures and rebellions all throughout history. Again, you show that you are only thinking of what we in the West tend to think of.

sir again we are talking the Bible I don't care about the rest of history.

All cultures had some type of manumission worked into the institution including the Colonial slave institution.

Still, even today slavery exists only the name has changed to human trafficking. But it is still slavery and it crosses skin color groups so it is no longer a dark skin color group thing. Never was to be fully truthful about it which, again, shows the bias brought to the subject from a modern Western or post-Colonial, post-Islamic slave trade perspective although the latter, the Islamic Slave Trade is never really talked about. I digress...

Yes trafficking is not the only modern slavery, forced labor affects millions globally, or child sweat shops.

It is human institutions that restrict our freedoms. I'm not an Anarchist, but that's the reality of the situation all humans are born into from ancient times past to the future. Humans congregate together and establish freedom restricting rules and order because we lost God's order at the Fall.

it's not human institutions, but sin that causes slavery. But only some slavery, other slavery is not immoral.

Still, God had and has rules and orders and standards and humanity is free to break them. Freedom to act on free will does not mean there won't be consequences of those actions.

You say we do the Bible injustice not to take slavery literal. I do, within its historical and cultural context, not within modern Western post-institution of slavery in the West context. There's a difference.

again not taking slavery literal in scripture violates text.

createdtoworship · Feb 28, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
Already covered this.
Even if we take your view of Jesus' use of the term, it is still metaphorical in the sense that one should give themselves totally over to God. That metaphorical concept alone defeats your argument about freedom. God wants you to give yourself to Him, to make a choice. That means you have the freedom to do so.

so God only metaphorically want you to obey Him? Thats what a slave does, obeys.

I have to wonder if you actually read the article you posted about. In the article Simon Edwards says many of the exact same things I and others have said to you about this and defeats what you seem to be implying in this post. I'll pull some of the statements out, emphasis mine:

"As an example, on the way to Canaan, God tells his people through Moses that the alien, or foreigner, among them should not be oppressed (Exodus 23:9). The reason given is fascinating: the people of Israel know in their hearts how it feels to be oppressed! —The word translated “alien” is not the same as slave, but the experience of the Israelites in Egypt was certainly that of slaves— Thus, we see the first statement on human rights: the alien was to be treated as a citizen; in fact, he was to be loved as one of their own (Leviticus 19:33-34)."

This ultimately shows God commented on the practice of enslaving humans but ultimately knew His people would do it so He regulated it, as I said. Here is another statement made by Mr. Edwards in line with what I and others have said here. Again, emphasis mine:

"The regulation of slavery should therefore be seen as a practical step to deal with the realities of the day resulting from human fall. The aberrations that lead to alienation among individuals, races, and nations are the result of a fundamental broken relationship between humankind and God. Within this tragic scenario, Scripture comes as a breath of fresh air as it seeks to redeem the situation and sets us on a path of ever-increasing amelioration of our predicament. While the Bible does not reject slavery outright, the conclusion that it actually favours slavery is patently wrong. Scripture does reveal that slavery is not ideal, both in Old Testament laws forbidding the enslavement of fellow Israelites, the law of jubilee, and in New Testament applications of Christ. In fact, the Bible teaches that the feeling of superiority in general is sin (Philippians 2:1-8)! The abolition of slavery is thus not only permissible by biblical standards, but demanded by biblical principles. The pre-fall statement that should guide and ultimately abolish such (and any) practices of superiority is the declaration that all humans—men and women—are made in the image of God."

Yeah it's a good article, but no article is perfect.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Regulation of slavery is not a justification of it. It is a regulation because the human heart is evil and we have fallen alway from God's original standard.

Yes but God 'could have' corrected the view of slavery thousands of years ago and did not do it. I am not blaming Him, again He flooded an entire world. In part I think He allows certain controversies to exist in scripture to test us. So that those with a weak conscience get tested and fail the test.

What I disagree with is that the Bible is not a social justice guideline book in the sense of social justice today. The principles can be applied, correctly I might add, to liberate people, but you also have to balance these liberties with what God said his preferable standard is for people.

I have another thread on freedoms, some freedoms are not biblically promised. We are not promised not to be a slave for example. Which is a bad thing, but not all of it. Some forms of slavery are good, while other forms of modern slavery are abhorred. Trafficking, forced labor and such

BroRoyVa79 · Feb 28, 2020

createdtoworship said:
again you have no evidence the principles do not overlap, you cannot say a slave is not servant and vice versa. They are both slaves and servants. The term is basically synonymous, and if I search greek and hebrew dictionaries and fairly sure translations use them synchronously. You want me to check?

Definitions are not simply their dictionary meanings. You have to apply literary, historical, and cultural context to them as well if they are ancient words. In this sense, there were slaves that were considered property and servants who were considered part of the family, the tribe. The two are not the same although translations use the terms interchangeably. Diving into a historical study on the topic will teach you otherwise. Again, don't know how else to put this to you. You're starting to be willfully obtuse on this.

createdtoworship said:
I am not using modern definitions of words and forcing the biblical interpretation based on english dictionaries, I am saying that as we currently define slavery, God never condemned it anywhere in scripture.

again according to modern dictionaries they are all slaves. You say I am taking the simplistic approach, I say you are over thinking this.

You actually just admitted, again, that you're doing the very thing you're claiming you're not. Don't start being disingenuous.

createdtoworship said:
that is because they are a useless commodity at that time. Again according to exodus a slave is the 'property' of the owner. If they are hurt, the nice thing to do is set them free. Sort of like how we have disability. What I am saying is that no where are slaves set free without redemption, because they are property. Free labor was a commercial thing. It made the ancient world run.

or you can overthink it.

As said above, there were slaves thought of as property as covered in Exodus and servants thought of as family. The two are not the same.

createdtoworship said:
we are talking biblical culture not every culture, this is a red herring. Exodus says they were property.

Was the Bible not written in history among existing cultures? Were the people of the Bible not part of existing cultures in history?

createdtoworship said:
I agree but I didn't see any verses saying 'we are created equal." We are, don't get me wrong, it can be implied, but there is no direct verse saying that in fact we see it said rather, instead of a servant being equal to their master, we see that no servant is greater than their master and that is a different concept: John 13:16

Covered Jesus' use of the servant metaphor. From God's perspective, He is the ultimate master. The metaphor is not used to justify slavery, it's used to imply that humans should choose to give themselves over to God entirely.

createdtoworship said:
sir again we are talking the Bible I don't care about the rest of history.

Again, the Bible was written within a historical context. Not caring about history will lead one to misinterpret scripture.

createdtoworship said:
Yes trafficking is not the only modern slavery, forced labor affects millions globally, or child sweat shops.

I agree. However, Human trafficking includes forced labor. Also, to further emphasize a few points, in some very low economic situations, a child working may be the only way a severely poor family can survive. I'm not saying it's right, but these working children might be part of a family business:

Notice the one young boy who said his father is dead and the family needs him to work to survive. Notice the blind man unable to work and has to depend on his children, his daughter-in-law, and grandchildren for all of them to survive.

Painting with an overly simplistic broad brush of "villainy" would place these unfortunate people in the category of "evil" if you don't pay attention to the nuances. This is not to say all of this is right or to try to morally justify it, it's to say the issue of child labor is a bit more complicated when you cross over into other, poorer cultures, etc. Swooping in and ending it all for everyone involved, like these people without other alternatives for them may not be the simple answer.

Now apply this to ancient times as well and you may gain some understanding why God, Jesus, Prophets, and the Apostles didn't just swoop in and end it all at that time as well.

Edited to add: Also conflating these unfortunate people with participating in your understanding of slavery is also incorrect. So, here you have a modern example of how you do damage to the topic when you conflate to over simplify.

createdtoworship said:
it's not human institutions, but sin that causes slavery. But only some slavery, other slavery is not immoral.

You're replying to a reply that I gave about your statements about freedom. No where in that reply did I even insinuate that it was applied to slavery. Although I agree that sin causes slavery. In the context of that specific statement in the topic, I said human institutions, such as government, restrict what we would consider the liberty to do whatever we want in some form or fashion.

createdtoworship said:
again not taking slavery literal in scripture violates text.

No. Applying modern concepts to the text does violence to the text.

BroRoyVa79 · Feb 28, 2020

createdtoworship said:
so God only metaphorically want you to obey Him? Thats what a slave does, obeys.

So no one in the Bible taught things through metaphors, there aren't entire books of the Bible (Psalms, Proverbs) that teach things through figurative language? Jesus never conveyed a message through metaphor (Parables), neither did the Apostles or Prophets?

I suspect you're being disingenuous here.

createdtoworship said:
Yeah it's a good article, but no article is perfect.

The article is fine. You linked it, it defeats your argument.

createdtoworship said:
Yes but God 'could have' corrected the view of slavery thousands of years ago and did not do it. I am not blaming Him, again He flooded an entire world. In part I think He allows certain controversies to exist in scripture to test us. So that those with a weak conscience get tested and fail the test.

He could have, yes. That doesn't mean it's a morally justified institution. God could stop humans from murdering other humans, He said it was wrong, but His not stopping it doesn't make murder a morally justified act.

createdtoworship said:
I have another thread on freedoms, some freedoms are not biblically promised. We are not promised not to be a slave for example. Which is a bad thing, but not all of it. Some forms of slavery are good, while other forms of modern slavery are abhorred. Trafficking, forced labor and such

You're still conflating. Again, in ancient times a person could sell themselves to a family knowing they would be part of that family. That.Is.Not.Slavery.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You're being willfully obstinate on the subject.

createdtoworship · Feb 29, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
Definitions are not simply their dictionary meanings. You have to apply literary, historical, and cultural context to them as well if they are ancient words. In this sense, there were slaves that were considered property and servants who were considered part of the family, the tribe. The two are not the same although translations use the terms interchangeably. Diving into a historical study on the topic will teach you otherwise. Again, don't know how else to put this to you. You're starting to be willfully obtuse on this.

You actually just admitted, again, that you're doing the very thing you're claiming you're not. Don't start being disingenuous.

As said above, there were slaves thought of as property as covered in Exodus and servants thought of as family. The two are not the same.

Was the Bible not written in history among existing cultures? Were the people of the Bible not part of existing cultures in history?

Covered Jesus' use of the servant metaphor. From God's perspective, He is the ultimate master. The metaphor is not used to justify slavery, it's used to imply that humans should choose to give themselves over to God entirely.

Again, the Bible was written within a historical context. Not caring about history will lead one to misinterpret scripture.

I agree. However, Human trafficking includes forced labor. Also, to further emphasize a few points, in some very low economic situations, a child working may be the only way a severely poor family can survive. I'm not saying it's right, but these working children might be part of a family business:

Notice the one young boy who said his father is dead and the family needs him to work to survive. Notice the blind man unable to work and has to depend on his children, his daughter-in-law, and grandchildren for all of them to survive.

Painting with an overly simplistic broad brush of "villainy" would place these unfortunate people in the category of "evil" if you don't pay attention to the nuances. This is not to say all of this is right or to try to morally justify it, it's to say the issue of child labor is a bit more complicated when you cross over into other, poorer cultures, etc. Swooping in and ending it all for everyone involved, like these people without other alternatives for them may not be the simple answer.

Now apply this to ancient times as well and you may gain some understanding why God, Jesus, Prophets, and the Apostles didn't just swoop in and end it all at that time as well.

Edited to add: Also conflating these unfortunate people with participating in your understanding of slavery is also incorrect. So, here you have a modern example of how you do damage to the topic when you conflate to over simplify.

You're replying to a reply that I gave about your statements about freedom. No where in that reply did I even insinuate that it was applied to slavery. Although I agree that sin causes slavery. In the context of that specific statement in the topic, I said human institutions, such as government, restrict what we would consider the liberty to do whatever we want in some form or fashion.

No. Applying modern concepts to the text does violence to the text.

well it's pretty straightforward disproving what is said here, one merely need to look up 'slave' or servant' and see if they are synonomous..

Strongs says of the first occurance of slave in the Bible that is is translated servant in KJV but slave in NKJV:

The KJV translates Strong's H5650 in the following manner: servant (744x), manservant (23x), bondman (21x), bondage (10x), bondservant (1x), on all sides (1x).

again in the NKJV which is slightly more accurate it's translated slave in some more cases.

Here a greek scholar in His translation of romans 6:15-20 says that just as we are slaves of sin, that we should be slaves of righteousness. (so again instead of reproving the idea of slavery, it uses a common cultural term for a theological purpose)

"What then? Shall we sin occasionally, because we are not under law but under grace? Away with the thought. Do you not know that to whom you put yourselves at the disposal of as slaves resulting in obedience, slaves you are to whom you render habitual obedience, whether slaves of the sinful nature resulting in death, or obedient slaves [of Christ] resulting in righteousness? But God be thanked, that [whereas] you were slaves of the evil nature, you obeyed out from the heart as a source a type of teaching into which you were handed over. And having been set free once for all from the sinful nature, you were constituted slaves to righteousness. I am using an illustration drawn from human affairs because of the frailties of your humanity. For just as you placed your members as slaves at the disposal of uncleanness and lawlessness resulting in lawlessness, thus now place your members as slaves at the disposal of righteousness resulting in holiness. For, when you were slaves of the sinful nature, you were those who were free with respect to righteousness."

createdtoworship · Feb 29, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
I suspect you're being disingenuous here.

so since the debate is not going your way, now you are accusing me of dishonesty? This is an ad hominem attack. And I don't entertain rudeness in debates, the first offense is a warning, the second offense is a conversation ended, and the third offense is blocking.

so since you are accusing me of dishonesty I will not reply to this particular comment and will ignore it.

RDKirk · Feb 29, 2020

createdtoworship said:
so since the debate is not going your way, now you are accusing me of dishonesty? This is an ad hominem attack. And I don't entertain rudeness in debates, the first offense is a warning, the second offense is a conversation ended, and the third offense is blocking.

so since you are accusing me of dishonesty I will not reply to this particular comment and will ignore it.

The real wonder is why you find a need to justify slavery.

createdtoworship · Feb 29, 2020

RDKirk said:
The real wonder is why you find a need to justify slavery.

because Jesus says we are slaves, God says we are slaves in half a dozen verses. In fact no verse of the Bible condemns either the owning of a slave or being a slave, it gives rules for the owners and rules for the slave, but no rules that it is wrong. I know God is not evil, so therefore instead of Him appearing like a 16th century anglo saxon in charge of a slave plantation, I depict Him as a perfect being, without error. And that means tackling this issue of slaver, and dissecting it. Which parts were moral and which parts were immoral. The other poster takes exception with abraham's servant eliezar and mentions how he was like a son. That may be fine, accept he was a son, who could not leave the house and go and have a life of his own, he did not have sovereignty over his actions, according to all current dictionaries that is a slave.

RDKirk · Feb 29, 2020

createdtoworship said:
because Jesus says we are slaves, God says we are slaves in half a dozen verses. In fact no verse of the Bible condemns either the owning of a slave or being a slave, it gives rules for the owners and rules for the slave, but no rules that it is wrong. I know God is not evil, so therefore instead of Him appearing like a 16th century anglo saxon in charge of a slave plantation, I depict Him as a perfect being, without error. And that means tackling this issue of slaver, and dissecting it. Which parts were moral and which parts were immoral. The other poster takes exception with abraham's servant eliezar and mentions how he was like a son. That may be fine, accept he was a son, who could not leave the house and go and have a life of his own, he did not have sovereignty over his actions, according to all current dictionaries that is a slave.

That only means we are slaves to God, not that God's slaves can be slave to anyone else.

Clearly, if we are God's slaves, then we cannot be the slaves of any man.

createdtoworship · Feb 29, 2020

RDKirk said:
That only means we are slaves to God, not that God's slaves can be slave to anyone else.

Clearly, if we are God's slaves, then we cannot be the slaves of any man.

you don't get it. Yes I understand the spiritual implications of being a slave of God, but yes, in fact many slaves were on fire christians, there was an entire generation of on fire black slaves during the period of american slavery, so YES we can be a slave of man AND a slave of God, again freedom is not a Biblical promise. Freedom is something you intercede for, something you fight for, something you purpose and pursue. But anyway, what I was saying is that slavery is spoken of in the Bible as something that is not bad. What I am getting at is you read it as if it happens every day and it's just a normal mode of operation. And while yes, it was normal. Jesus is God, Jesus knew there would be a civil war and an eradication of slavery and a rise in quality of life for every human not just whites, or the rich but everyone. He knew that would happen and yet He doesn't speak of slavery as wrong. No where in the Bible is it spoken of as wrong, again the Bible addresses slave owners to be nice, and slaves to be obedient, as "unto God." That is why I likened slavery to a job, in post one. I use that verse "be obedient to your masters as unto Christ." And I use it to encourage me to be a better employee. I don't think I am doing damage to the text to state so. I think slavery still exists in some forms, mainly acceptible forms of slavery. I mention in the OP how a hispanic can come into a house cleaning position for little or no pay, or the same on a harvest season on a farm. They don't have benefits, or high compensation, I am pretty sure they are paid under the table. That is not much different than some types of slavery, again the other poster makes this diffrentiation that there were servants and slaves, and again as I proved, the Bible translates servant and slave as a synonom. One is a servant, a house made for little pay, or a harvester or whatever, working under the table. It's a subtle type of slavery, while yes they can come and go, and they are not owned persay by the farmer, they are still servants. Another publically acceptible form of slavery now days is for example say you avoid paying taxes and the governement puts you in jail and as part of a reduced sentence you must clean up the road ways in a forced labor situation. THATS A SLAVE! You cannot come and go as you please. And many times in the Bible this type of slavery existed. Moral types. Yes many of the types of slavery in the Bible was not moral, for instance owning another human and buying and selling them like a commodity. But that would change, and as I have posted with the coming of grace, there was a paradigm shift in human rights. Women who had NO RIGHTS, Jesus focussed on, talked to in public, and honored. Christians would be the first to oppose slavery. But free labor was a big enterprise and composed of lots of revenue. In order to eradicate it, a war needed to ensue. Wherever there is immodest gain, typically it ends at the point of someone breaking the law. And slavery became illegal, and it took military action to stop it. Jesus did not want his followers armed and part of a rebellion against rome, but used the greek language as a vessel of communication throughout all the continent of the middle east. The romans brought the greek language and God used that pagan culture to spread His word. In fact the greek language was so well known that you could go anywhere in the middleast among several dialects and greek was the most well known language, that is why the new testament is written in greek. But anyway, my point being that with the coming of grace some human rights were starting to take form, but the Bible is not a book of social evils and their cures, the Bible is about salvation. It took me for a loop a few days ago why God would NOT use the Bible to promote social good. But He doesn't. And there is a reason for that. While loving one's enemy is the highest point of social good, and is a more pure form of love than any religion or non religion has ever come up with, the Bible is silent on things like slavery and a good part of womens rights, and also the right to life as found in the old testament at the eradication of the pagan. Jesus would change a lot of it, but not all of it. Slavery was the one thing that didn't change. But I presume it's because of the theological connotations like I said, being a slave of righteousness, and also that some moral types of slavery still exist. But the hardness of this topic and many topics we mention here, social evils in the Bible for instance.

createdtoworship · Mar 1, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
So no one in the Bible taught things through metaphors, there aren't entire books of the Bible (Psalms, Proverbs) that teach things through figurative language? Jesus never conveyed a message through metaphor (Parables), neither did the Apostles or Prophets?

so here the metaphor was applied to being a slave of God. A slave obeys, so I said 'does that mean God only wants us to metaphorically obey Him?'

then you reply with'so no one in the Bible taught things through metaphors."?

again you can believe it's a metaphor but you must believe God does not really want us to obey, because a slave obeys. If God only metaphorically wants us to obey then yes God only metaphorically wants us to be a slave. Scripture certainly does not teach obedience only to be metaphorical. Else all the commands of scripture would be allegorized there would be no law, and without law we would be sinless. And we know that is not the case.

(If I missed any of your points you will have to repost them)

createdtoworship · Mar 2, 2020

BroRoyVa79 said:
So no one in the Bible taught things through metaphors, there aren't entire books of the Bible (Psalms, Proverbs) that teach things through figurative language? Jesus never conveyed a message through metaphor (Parables), neither did the Apostles or Prophets?

I suspect you're being disingenuous here.

The article is fine. You linked it, it defeats your argument.

He could have, yes. That doesn't mean it's a morally justified institution. God could stop humans from murdering other humans, He said it was wrong, but His not stopping it doesn't make murder a morally justified act.

You're still conflating. Again, in ancient times a person could sell themselves to a family knowing they would be part of that family. That.Is.Not.Slavery.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You're being willfully obstinate on the subject.

so if you are done debating that is fine, I thought I would reach out to you one more time just to make sure. I don't mind debating you, I just don't like being insulted or accused of dishonesty. So again if you desire to debate still, just let me know.

Is slavery immoral

Active Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Active Member

Active Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

In the grip of grace

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Similar threads