Does the Bible condone slavery?

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm starting this thread after discussion with @AV1611VET and @Tone , who have indicated that they disagree with the me, and that they think the Bible does not endorse the practise of owning humans as property.
I believe that the Bible makes it perfectly clear, both in the Old and New Testaments, that God thoroughly approves of the owning of slaves.

I would like to begin my case by quoting from a Christian, a Pastor Warren. In 1861, he delivered a sermon on slavery and the Bible. While I do not agree with all of his views - on race and geography, for example - when it comes to his assertion that the Bible endorses and encourages slavery, I cannot think of a better way to make the case than to let him speak for himself about how the Bible speaks for itself.

Please read it, and let me know what you think; and if you disagree, please give your reasons why.

Baptists and the American Civil War: January 27, 1861 | Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words

THE SCRIPTURAL VINDICATION OF SLAVERY
by Ebenezer W. Warren

Eph. 5:5-8, “Servants, (bondsmen,) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart as unto Christ; not with eye service as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service as unto the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” I am to present this morning a Bible exposition of the subject of slavery. A sermon on a topic so unusual to a Southern audience, may need a word of explanation to justify it. Two reasons will be sufficient for this purpose:

1. Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible.

God instituted it in the days of Noah, and gave it His sanction again at Mt. Sinai. His Son commended it during his ministry on earth. The holy apostle Paul, exhorted his son Timothy to preach it; and Peter teaches a most important precept as to its obligations.

If God, through Noah, after the flood, and at Sinai, through the Law—if Christ during his ministry, and the apostles in their writings, instituted, regulated and promulgated slavery—it is not less imperative on me, to “declare the whole counsel of God” on this subject, than it is on any other, which the wise and beneficent Creator has seen proper to reveal to man.

...

Slavery Ordained and Perpetuated by God

More than two thousand years before the christian era, slavery was instituted by decree of heaven, and published to the world by Noah, a “preacher of righteousness.” Here is the decree, Genesis 9:25-27, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants, shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” The Jews descended from Shem, the Europeans and Americans from Japheth, the Africans from Ham, the father of Canaan.

To show that the above language was the announcement of heaven’s decree concerning slavery, and that Noah was speaking as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, we have only to refer to its explanation and fulfillment by the descendants of Shem, as recorded in the 25th chapter of Leviticus. God gave to Abraham, a descendant of Shem, and to his seed after him the land of the Canaanites, into the possession of which they came in the days of Joshua. After the children of Israel came into the possession of the land, God gave them the following instruction as to bringing the people into bondage: “Both thy bond men and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you (these were the descendants of Canaan, and hence called Canaanites), of them shall ye BUY BOND MEN AND BOND MAIDS. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for possession; they shall be your bond men forever.” (verses 44-46)

Here is a decree from the Creator, giving to one man the right of holding another in involuntary servitude. Man holding his fellow man as his property, and enjoined to perpetuate that property by inheritance to his children, forever.

Three points are here gained.

1. The establishment of slavery by divine decree.
2. The right to buy and sell men and women into bondage.
3. The perpetuity of the institution by the same authority.

A theocratic government, that is, one in which God, as the ruler, gives immediate direction, was established over the Israelites and continued for about four hundred years. The government was fully organized at Mount Sinai. The Constitution (called the Decalogue) given on that occasion, is considered the basis of all good law, and the standard of moral action, in every age of the world down to the present time – it is as of universal application as the gospel of Christ. It guarantees to the slaveholder the peaceable and unmolested right to his slave property, in language as emphatic as does the Constitution of the United States. Hear its enactment on this subject.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife, nor his MAN SERVANT, not his MAID SERVANT, nor his ox, nor his ass, not anything that is thy neighbor’s”

Is a man entitled to the unmolested occupation of his house? This Divine Constitution guarantees to him the same right to his servants. Has any man the right to interfere with the domestic relation of husband and wife? Equally secure is the relation of master and servant made by this enactment of heaven. Should a man’s right to the exclusive and perpetual possession of his ox, or his ass, or of any other property of which he may be possessed, be secured to him by constitutional enactment? No more so, determined the unerring wisdom of the most high God, than the right of masters to their slaves.

Had God, the Great Law Giver, been opposed to slavery, he would perhaps have said, “thou shalt not hold property in man: thou shalt not enslave thy fellow being, for all men are born free and equal.” Instead of reproving the sin of covetousness, he would have denounced the sin of slavery; but instead of this denunciation, when He became the Ruler of his people, He established, regulated and perpetuated slavery by special enactment, and guaranteed the unmolested rights of masters to their slaves by Constitutional provision.

…

 

[InterestedAtheist]

CHRIST RECONCILED AND SANCTIONED SLAVERY

The blessed Saviour descended from a slave-holder, Abraham. This “father of the faithful,” held as many bondmen, “born in his house and bought with his money,” as perhaps any slaveholder in the South. When he was chosen out, as the one “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” not a word of Divine disapprobation, on account of his being a slave-holder was uttered.

His descendants, the Jews, up to the time of their national dispersion, were as emphatically a slave-holding people as we Georgians are.

The only qualification which is due to this remark, is founded on the captivity and wars which robbed them of much of their property. Such was the case when the Saviour came among them.

He reproved them for their sins. Calling them the works of the flesh and of the devil. He denounced idolatry, covetousness, adultery, fornification, hypocrisy, and many other sins of less moral turpitude, but never once reproved them for holding slaves; though He alluded to it frequently, yet never with an expression of the slightest disapprobation.

Many gospel truths He illustrates most happily by an allusion to the institution, and by implication, endorses and commends it. The following is a case in point:

“Which of you having a servant plowing or feeding the cattle, will say unto him by and by when he is come from the field, go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me till I have eaten and drunken; and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.” – Luke 17:7-9

...

The following language is said by Paul, to be the teachings of our Saviour … Let those whose are under the yoke, as bondmen, esteem their masters worthy of all honor, lest reproach be brought upon the name of God and his doctrine – and let those whose masters are believers, not despise them because they are brethren, but serve them with the more subjection, because they who claim the benefit (of their labor) are believing and beloved. THUS TEACH AND EXHORT.” – 1 Tim. 6:1-3

Here we are taught:

1. That the disciples of Christ held slaves.
2. That this slavery was in accordance with the doctrine or teachings of God.
3. That a failure on the part of they servants to esteem their masters worthy of honor, or obedience, was considered by Christ, a reproach to the name and doctrine of God. Because He had commanded it, and whosoever disobeyed reproached his Maker.
4. That christianity did not oblige the master to liberate his slave, but upon the contrary bound the slave to serve his master with the “more subjection.” …

Lastly, Timothy was enjoined by Paul to explain and enforce in his ministry the above instructions of Christ.

I leave the apostle in the three following verses to give you a graphic portraiture of some communities “North of Mason & Dixon’s line.”

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railing, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth.”

Such is now the sad condition of our country, resulting from the predominant influence of characters just described by the inspired pensman, who have set at naught the doctrine of God, and established the “higher law” that our citizens true to the Divine injunction, have felt that the time has come when “from such they must withdraw themselves.”

PAUL SANCTIONS SLAVERY, BY ENFORCING UPON SERVANTS, OBEDIENCE TO MASTERS – THIS HE DOES BOTH BY EXAMPLE AND PRECEPT

1. By example.

Philemon, an Asiatic christian owned a very wicked and perverse slave, named Onesimus. On a certain occasion, this slave robbed this master of some valuables – and to prevent detection and punishment, ran a way. By some means or other, he reached Rome, where Paul was at that time preaching. A merciful Providence led the wicked fugitive to the house of God, where he was awakened by the word and spirit of God, and converted to the “faith and morality of the gospel.” With unaffected honesty, he confessed to the apostle his wickedness and injustice to his master.

Paul perceived in him the indications of gifts, which fitted him for a more important post than any which he could hold as the slave of Philemon. He wished to keep him in Rome, and employ him in preaching the gospel. His master Philemon, was so devoted a Christian that Paul had heard, even in Rome, of his “love of faith towards Jesus and towards the saints.” His unusual piety was known and spoken of everywhere. Could not Paul on this account venture to keep this reclaimed slave, who had never before been profitable to this master – and especially so, as he desired to make him a missionary? No! Onesimus anxious to repair the wrong he had done his master, and Paul recognizing Philemon’s right to the fugitive slave – without delay, prepares a letter and sends it back by Onesimus stating the facts to the master, asking him to forgive his slave for the past – and assuring him, that now he had embraced the gospel, he would be a profitable servant ….

Here is the example of a holy man of God acting under the influence of the divine teacher – the adoption of which example, had it been considered worthy of imitation by our northern brethren, would have made us one, in the bonds of a fraternal and perpetual union.

Had Paul considered slavery wrong, here was a most appropriate occasion to express that belief. Had it been opposed to the genius and precepts of that holy Christianity, of which he was the inspired expounder, he was bound by the highest obligations ever imposed upon man to declare that fact, And with what great propriety could he have done so, to his excellent and pious brother Philemon. But not the slightest intimation of that sort fell from his lips.

2. Paul’s precepts to slaves are pointed and forcible.

Eph. 6:5-8. Servants, (Bondsmen,) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling with singleness of heart, as unto Christ; not with eye service as men pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as unto the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

These facts are here taught.

1. That slaves are required by their religious obligations, to obey their masters. The master then has a corresponding right to command, else the servant would be under no obligation to obey – slavery is here endorsed as divinely right, because to the master is given the divine right to command.

Then the Divine right to slavery is here expressly given – but God never grants to any man the divine right to sin. Therefore slavery is not sin.

2. That in obeying the master, the slave is obeying Christ. “In singleness of your heart as unto Christ – doing the will of God from the heart!” A cheerful and hearty obedience to the master is a part of the slaves duty to God. His religion enjoins it. But his obligation depends upon his servitude – were there no servitude there would be no obligation. If the servitude is wrong and wicked, then the obligation is of no force, it is only the command of an usurper – who violates the natural rights of man. But God says the servant is bound not alone by the superior will of the master, but by Divine law, to obey from the heart, his masters commandments – God’s law binds no man to sin, or to do wrong at the command of another, but requires him to avoid the very appearance of evil. His commendation of slavery is here found in his enforcement of its obligations.

3. The apostle also teaches the truth here that God will reward the slave for his faithfulness to this master.

So profoundly is Paul impressed with the right of masters to control, and the duty of slaves to obey, that he urges upon Titus, (2:9-10) a young minister, as one of the sacred obligations of his high office, to “exhort servants to be obedient to their own masters, and to please them well in all things, not answering again (i.e. not replying to or questioning the master’s right) not purloining (i.e. not stealing) but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.” It is remarkable that this apostle should invariably conclude his exhortation to servants, by appealing to their obligations to God, as the incentive to obedience and faithfulness to their masters, clearly proving that disobedience to masters is rebellion against God. Hitherto, Paul has not, in so many words, given any instruction as to the duty of servants towards masters whose deportment to them is harsh and oppressive. I refer, therefore, for specific instruction upon this subject, to the writings of another apostle (1 Peter 2:18,19). “Servants, be subject to your masters, with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, for this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God, endure grief and suffering wrongfully.”

Here is the inspired injunction making it the duty of a bondman, which is to be performed in good conscience toward God, to submit quietly to the ill treatment of a churlish or bad tempered master. This obligation of the slave does not rest upon the right of his master thus to treat him, for he has no such right, either moral or legal, but is bound to “give unto them that which is just and equal;” but the servants obligation is derived from the moral and religious duty, which binds him to be faithful to God and man.

I have now proven clearly from the sacred pages of inspiration,

1. That slavery was instituted by God, who accompanied it with his decree making it perpetual.
2. That Christ recognized its existence, enforced its obligations, and regulated its connections.
3. That Paul and Peter, inspired apostles, elaborated upon the subject, and showed the religious obligations under which servants are bound to obey their masters.

I commend the careful study of the New Testament to Masters – that they may be taught of God, the manner in which they should treat their Slaves. I do this with the more pleasure, because I have observed for years past a growing desire among our citizens to do their whole duty conscientiously before God, to their slaves. You will not find in this sacred revelation a single injunction requiring you to emancipate your slaves.

I desire to meet one plausible, but specious objection to slavery, urged by the abolitionists before I take my seat.

It is said that one single passage in the gospel, imperatively requires every master at once to emancipate his slaves. It is recorded in Mat. 7:12. “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.”

it is thought, that if the master would desire liberty, were he a slave, he is bound by this rule, to liberate his slave. But his argument is specious, and this construction, if applied to the various relations of life will subvert all the laws and regulations of society and governments.

A criminal is arraigned, tried and found guilty of a violationof the law – but the judge would not desire to be punished were he in the criminal’s place – is he bound therefore to release him? ….

A desire entertained by a servant to be set at liberty, is an unlawful desire, because its accomplishment, would violate the “law” which enjoins perpetual servitude ….

 

[Tone]

John 15:15
"No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

John 15:15
"No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you."

Who is Jesus speaking to here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, I read the first post. Something I don't ordinarily do, if it's a long one.

This Warren guy has problems.

He seems to not know the difference between servants and slaves.

Was Batman's servant, Alfred, a slave? was Max from Hart to Hart a slave? was Mr. French on Family Affair a slave?

And as far as being forced into servant hood, the alternative, death, was worse.

Warren asks:

Is a man entitled to the unmolested occupation of his house?

Let me make this perfectly clear:

Those in Canaan were squatters; and God in His mercy gave them 400 years to move out or else.

When Joshua showed up, they were given the chance to live as servants; and to be treated humanely.

Paul even refers to himself as a "servant," not a "slave" to Jesus Christ several times.

That tells me that we Christians are servants as well.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thank you for your response, AV. it's bedtime in my time.some and I have a tie tomorrow, but I shall answer you as soon as I can.

 

[Tone]

Those He died for.

John 15:13
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

 

[Aussie Pete]

I'm starting this thread after discussion with @AV1611VET and @Tone , who have indicated that they disagree with the me, and that they think the Bible does not endorse the practise of owning humans as property.
I believe that the Bible makes it perfectly clear, both in the Old and New Testaments, that God thoroughly approves of the owning of slaves.

I would like to begin my case by quoting from a Christian, a Pastor Warren. In 1861, he delivered a sermon on slavery and the Bible. While I do not agree with all of his views - on race and geography, for example - when it comes to his assertion that the Bible endorses and encourages slavery, I cannot think of a better way to make the case than to let him speak for himself about how the Bible speaks for itself.

Please read it, and let me know what you think; and if you disagree, please give your reasons why.

Baptists and the American Civil War: January 27, 1861 | Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words

THE SCRIPTURAL VINDICATION OF SLAVERY
by Ebenezer W. Warren

Eph. 5:5-8, “Servants, (bondsmen,) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart as unto Christ; not with eye service as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service as unto the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” I am to present this morning a Bible exposition of the subject of slavery. A sermon on a topic so unusual to a Southern audience, may need a word of explanation to justify it. Two reasons will be sufficient for this purpose:

1. Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible.

God instituted it in the days of Noah, and gave it His sanction again at Mt. Sinai. His Son commended it during his ministry on earth. The holy apostle Paul, exhorted his son Timothy to preach it; and Peter teaches a most important precept as to its obligations.

If God, through Noah, after the flood, and at Sinai, through the Law—if Christ during his ministry, and the apostles in their writings, instituted, regulated and promulgated slavery—it is not less imperative on me, to “declare the whole counsel of God” on this subject, than it is on any other, which the wise and beneficent Creator has seen proper to reveal to man.

...

Slavery Ordained and Perpetuated by God

More than two thousand years before the christian era, slavery was instituted by decree of heaven, and published to the world by Noah, a “preacher of righteousness.” Here is the decree, Genesis 9:25-27, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants, shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” The Jews descended from Shem, the Europeans and Americans from Japheth, the Africans from Ham, the father of Canaan.

To show that the above language was the announcement of heaven’s decree concerning slavery, and that Noah was speaking as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, we have only to refer to its explanation and fulfillment by the descendants of Shem, as recorded in the 25th chapter of Leviticus. God gave to Abraham, a descendant of Shem, and to his seed after him the land of the Canaanites, into the possession of which they came in the days of Joshua. After the children of Israel came into the possession of the land, God gave them the following instruction as to bringing the people into bondage: “Both thy bond men and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you (these were the descendants of Canaan, and hence called Canaanites), of them shall ye BUY BOND MEN AND BOND MAIDS. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for possession; they shall be your bond men forever.” (verses 44-46)

Here is a decree from the Creator, giving to one man the right of holding another in involuntary servitude. Man holding his fellow man as his property, and enjoined to perpetuate that property by inheritance to his children, forever.

Three points are here gained.

1. The establishment of slavery by divine decree.
2. The right to buy and sell men and women into bondage.
3. The perpetuity of the institution by the same authority.

A theocratic government, that is, one in which God, as the ruler, gives immediate direction, was established over the Israelites and continued for about four hundred years. The government was fully organized at Mount Sinai. The Constitution (called the Decalogue) given on that occasion, is considered the basis of all good law, and the standard of moral action, in every age of the world down to the present time – it is as of universal application as the gospel of Christ. It guarantees to the slaveholder the peaceable and unmolested right to his slave property, in language as emphatic as does the Constitution of the United States. Hear its enactment on this subject.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife, nor his MAN SERVANT, not his MAID SERVANT, nor his ox, nor his ass, not anything that is thy neighbor’s”

Is a man entitled to the unmolested occupation of his house? This Divine Constitution guarantees to him the same right to his servants. Has any man the right to interfere with the domestic relation of husband and wife? Equally secure is the relation of master and servant made by this enactment of heaven. Should a man’s right to the exclusive and perpetual possession of his ox, or his ass, or of any other property of which he may be possessed, be secured to him by constitutional enactment? No more so, determined the unerring wisdom of the most high God, than the right of masters to their slaves.

Had God, the Great Law Giver, been opposed to slavery, he would perhaps have said, “thou shalt not hold property in man: thou shalt not enslave thy fellow being, for all men are born free and equal.” Instead of reproving the sin of covetousness, he would have denounced the sin of slavery; but instead of this denunciation, when He became the Ruler of his people, He established, regulated and perpetuated slavery by special enactment, and guaranteed the unmolested rights of masters to their slaves by Constitutional provision.

…

Slavery was permitted but not as is defined in the modern era. It was a way of paying off debts. A time limit was set. Slaves who were happy with their lot could elect to be "bondslaves", which was for life but entirely voluntary.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Those He died for.

John 15:13
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Wrong. Jesus was speaking to his disciples, just before he left them. The passage you quoted isn't about Jesus saying "it is wrong to hold slaves," it's about him saying, "I shall leave you soon; but fear not, you are strong enough now to carry on without me."

 

[Tone]

Wrong. Jesus was speaking to his disciples, just before he left them. The passage you quoted isn't about Jesus saying "it is wrong to hold slaves," it's about him saying, "I shall leave you soon; but fear not, you are strong enough now to carry on without me."

John 15:13 is right before John 15:15. Context my friend.

 

[dzheremi]

Paul even refers to himself as a "servant," not a "slave" to Jesus Christ several times.

That tells me that we Christians are servants as well.

I'm sorry, but no. Or at least no on this basis. If you take a look at a Greek-English interlinear of Romans 1:1 (where St. Paul calls himself a servant) and compare it to one of Galatians 4:7 (where St. Paul says "You are no longer a slave, but a son"), you'll see that the same word is used for what is translated as "servant" in the former and "slave" in the latter: δοῦλος (doulos). So this distinction is not made in the original, only in translation.

Don't get me wrong, I personally believe that this is an entirely correct and justifiable distinction in context, but the fact remains that the distinction is not there at the level of word choice in the original. And in Semitic languages like the one that the Savior actually spoke natively, this distinction likewise doesn't exist at this level. Neo-Aramaic (and its classical predecessor, Syriac) and Arabic both have 'abd which means both 'slave' and 'servant' (again, which you will choose in translation will vary depending on context), and it's very common to find that as a constituent element in Christian names in these languages, like 'Abdelmasih (servant/slave of the Messiah -- i.e., Jesus), 'Abdisho (servant/slave of Jesus; this is Syriac), 'Abdelnour (servant/slave of the Light; this one you can find among both Christians and Muslims, since el Nour/the Light is a theophoric name in both Christianity and Islam), etc.

I believe in Hebrew, the cognate for this is 'ebed, as in Deutronomy 5:15.

 

[Par5]

John 15:15
"No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you."

I don't think Jesus was talking about slaves.
Exodus 21:21 says it all for me. It refers to what should happen to the slave owner if he beats his slave, but the slave survives a couple of days before he dies, or if he doesn't die, is able to stand. In such a case no action is to be taken against the slave owner. The various bibles agree on this, and all say it is because the slave is the property or money of the master. Some even go as far as to say that the slave owner has been punished enough because he has lost the use of his slave.
There is a lot more that can be discussed regarding biblical slavery which I am sure will come up as this thread progresses.
It certainly seems very clear to me that the bible does indeed endorse slavery.
Treating people as your property is as wrong as it gets!

 

[AV1611VET]

...

Where the King James differs from the originals, the originals are wrong.

 

[Amittai]

You are allowed to be a Warrenist!

In everybody else's real world Scripture is not "thorough" in the way you suggested influenced by Warren.

Its meaning is oblique, unlike how the Kuhlmannists and Falwellists insist.

Unlike other nations it told the Hebrews to free their slaves in the seventh year. In New Testament times its goal is to demonstrate principles for spiritual living and it is up to all human beings to improve society and politics for the better. The NT is the size of a short novel and both parts together no bigger than a long one. The meanings are meant to accompany it.

 

[cvanwey]

I've engaged in this topic plenty. Here is my take-away, thus far...

If the Bible never mentioned slavery at all, then Christians might have a 'leg' to stand on.... Meaning, Christians could state the Bible is against slavery practices. But, not only does the Bible mention slavery, in both the OT and NT, the Bible gives specifics upon how to do so.

It is beyond me, how any Bible believing Christian, whom has actually read the Bible, can continue to 'rationalize' that the Bible does NOT endorse or condone slavery practices?

 

[cvanwey]

Slavery was permitted but not as is defined in the modern era.

When Jesus came along, He never abolishes slavery practices either. When Jesus speaks directly about slavery, or when passages are said to be written upon His behalf, He instead reinforces/reaffirms such actions.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;6 not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.

1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.

9 Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back,10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

etc etc etc..............

It was a way of paying off debts. A time limit was set.

In some cases yes, others, NO:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Slaves who were happy with their lot could elect to be "bondslaves", which was for life but entirely voluntary.

Only sometimes:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

Please also reference post #15

 

[AV1611VET]

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;

Either that, or it says this ...

Ephesians 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;

 

[cvanwey]

Either that, or it says this ...

Ephesians 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;

I'll cut to the chase here...

Does the Bible endorse and condone slavery practices? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your answer is (yes), then a logical follow up question might be... Do [you] inherently think slavery is 'good'?

If your answer is (no), please demonstrate accordingly?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does the Bible endorse and condone slavery practices?

No.

If your answer is (no), please demonstrate accordingly?

You will not find the word "slavery" in the Bible.

Off the record: Are you a Navy vet?

 

[cvanwey]

No.You will not find the word "slavery" in the Bible.

Interesting....?

You will not find the word "slavery" in the Bible.

I find your rationale lacking... Here's why...

Many languages exist. And sure, words may also change meaning over time. Yet, the Bible is there to instruct humans about absolute 'right' and 'wrong'.

Regardless of IF the word 'slavery' was written, what does this placeholder term indicate or mean?

Well, looks pretty darn clear that the Bible looks to distinguish between two 'sects' of individuals. The free and the not free.... The Bible also further instructs what one 'sect' can do to other 'sect', as apparently instructed by God Himself.

And what does the Bible instruct, which is allowable? Looks as though one 'sect' is allowed to own another 'sect', sometimes for life.

Let me guess... Do we need to also go over the semantics of the words 'money', 'property', 'beat', 'strike', 'life', etc?

Are you a Navy vet?

no