He Gets Us campaign

[Clare73]

Right. And your assertions so far have no merit. Mine easily do. Very easily.

Guess I missed the Biblical demonstrations. . .could you point me to one?

 

[Clare73]

Even in Israel, God commanded that any period of slavery would end within seven years, unless it was voluntary.

Check it again. . .there were two sets of laws for slaves, one for Hebrew slaves and one for Gentile slaves.
You are referring to Hebrew slaves.

 

[Lukaris]

Keeping in mind that "validity in present society" has no bearing on Biblical morality, a good example thereof being abortion.

Scripture, which is my authority for faith and morals, does not present slavery as immoral, but to the contrary in Lev 25:44-46, Eph 6:5,
1 Ti 6:1, Tit 2:9, 1 Pe 2:18, not to mention it is everywhere presented as a type of our relationship to Christ (Ro 1:1, 6:16, 19, 1 Co 7:21-23, 2 Co 4:5, Php 1:1, 1 Pe 2:16, 2 Pe 1:1, Jude 1).

Let's not be holier than God.

Likewise, keeping in mind that while slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

Keeping in mind that "validity in present society" has no bearing on Biblical morality, a good example thereof being abortion.

Scripture, which is my authority for faith and morals, does not present slavery as immoral, but to the contrary in Lev 25:44-46, Eph 6:5,
1 Ti 6:1, Tit 2:9, 1 Pe 2:18, not to mention it is everywhere presented as a type of our relationship to Christ (Ro 1:1, 6:16, 19, 1 Co 7:21-23, 2 Co 4:5, Php 1:1, 1 Pe 2:16, 2 Pe 1:1, Jude 1).

Let's not be holier than God.

Likewise, keeping in mind that while slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

The thing is the jubilee called for the freeing of slaves among the Hebrews. Gentiles would be those who could be kept indefinitely but believers are now all one body ( 1 Corinthians 12:11-14). There were slaves originally in the body of Christ but how could believers continue to accept slavery in light of this? I don’t see St. Paul approving slavery but he didn’t support secular revolution either. He also preached the Second Coming as his first priority. How could slavery continue to be acceptable in light of Romans 13:1-14?

 

[RDKirk]

Check it again. . .there were two sets of laws for slaves, one for Hebrew slaves and one for Gentile slaves.
You are referring to Hebrew slaves.

With regard to Philemon and Onesimus, we are talking about slavery within the Body of Christ--all "children of Abraham" by faith-- so the Mosaic Law for Gentile slaves are even irrelevant at that point.

 

[RDKirk]

The thing is the jubilee called for the freeing of slaves among the Hebrews. Gentiles would be those who could be kept indefinitely but believers are now all one body ( 1 Corinthians 12:11-14). There were slaves originally in the body of Christ but how could believers continue to accept slavery in light of this? I don’t see St. Paul approving slavery but he didn’t support secular revolution either. He also preached the Second Coming as his first priority. How could slavery continue to be acceptable in light of Romans 13:1-14?

Yes, considering we're talking about Philemon and Onesimus and the teachings of Jesus and Paul to believers.

 

[Clare73]

With regard to Philemon and Onesimus, we are talking about slavery within the Body of Christ--all "children of Abraham" by faith-- so the Mosaic Law for Gentile slaves are even irrelevant at that point.

Becoming a spiritual child of Abraham through being in Christ (as did Onesimus, in becoming Christian, Gal 3:29) did not exempt Onesimus from the law of the land (Ro 13:1-7), including the laws of slavery,
which is why Paul, in submission to the law of the land, sent Onesimus back to his legal owner, Philemon (Phm 12),
with the plea not to punish him for his theft and running away,
as Philemon had the legal right to do under Roman law,
but rather to receive Onesimus as a slave who is also a brother in Christ, and forgive him,
with Paul offering to make good on what Onesimus had stolen.

Sending Onesimus back to his owner as a brother in Christ is not about negating Philemon's legal ownership of his slave,
it is about not punishing him as a slave because now he was Philemon's brother in Christ.

You are handling the word of God loosely, distorting its meaning (2 Pe 3:16).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Guess I missed the Biblical demonstrations. . .could you point me to one?

I already told you where you can find them. Do you expect me to do all of your homework for you, Clare?

I think I see what's happening. Your local pastor is your "biblical commentary," isn't he? And he's the only one you trust, right?

 

[Clare73]

I already told you where you can find them. Do you expect me to do all of your homework for you, Clare?

I think I see what's happening. Your local pastor is your "biblical commentary," isn't he? And he's the only one you trust, right?

Get much exercise jumping to conclusions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Get much exercise jumping to conclusions?

You're stalling, Clare.

Let me jog this up for you by asking this: if we look at 1 Corinthians 5:13, and if we make an intertexual analysis of it and refer to the O.T to supply its meaning, what would a "literal" interpretation of the O.T. references imply the Corinthians should have done to the "sinning man"?

 

[Clare73]

You're stalling, Clare.

Let me jog this up for you by asking this: if we look at 1 Corinthians 5:13, and if we make an intertexual analysis of it and refer to the O.T to supply its meaning, what would a "literal" interpretation of the O.T. references imply the Corinthians should have done to the "sinning man"?

Apples and oranges. . .idolatry and sexual immorality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Apples and oranges. . .idolatry and sexual immorality.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here, Clare.

Are you implying that sexual immorality was never penalized as a capital offense in the O.T.?

 

[FameBright]

The thing is the jubilee called for the freeing of slaves among the Hebrews.

Jubilee called for the freeing of slaves but it didn't call for the ending of slavery. If it did, what would be the point of jubilee occurring every 50th year?

Gentiles would be those who could be kept indefinitely but believers are now all one body ( 1 Corinthians 12:11-14). There were slaves originally in the body of Christ but how could believers continue to accept slavery in light of this?

"slaves originally in the body of Christ"... what do you mean how could believer continue to accept slavery? Apparently, there's a form of slavery in the spirit as well.

How could slavery continue to be acceptable in light of Romans 13:1-14?

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities". -very first sentence. Why? Because all authority essentially comes from God.

"The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

 

[Rose_bud]

Hi RB

I thought your question to be rather interesting. Slavery in the OT was suppose to be different than what it was or is. The OT gave opportunities for slaves to become permanent property of their masters. But man is sinful and the cruelity that exist under slavery was never meant to be, even under OT law.

If you could lift someone out of poverty, provide for them, watch after them and take care of them, all on the condition that they would be your "slave", helping you in your various tasks, wouldn't that be best for them and you instead of leaving them in poverty? I say all of this, because that is precisely what God has done for us. We are now "slaves to Christ". He is our provider.

Many translations today have changed the Greek word "doulos" from slave to servant to make it less offensive. However, I'm happy to be called a slave to God.

Hey there

Hope you are good.

I hope you read the other posts so you could understand why I posed the question to Clare73, who has not responded. It was a simple no or yes question.

But since the question intrigued you. My understanding of OT laws and slavery and everything that God required from Israel at the time is best compared to the how the surrounding nations responded to the laws that governed them, eg. Hammurabi Code, even the Abraham calling Sarah his half sister has similarities with the information provided in the Nuzi clay tablets, putting the customs and practices in perspective eg, a view on why Rebecca stole the household Gods or what was the fuss with the birthrights.

God speaks to people in there context, always have... Jesus came at the right time, born of a women, under the law. (which makes it even more humbling, that He condescended to our space and time) but that aside. The context and culture of ancient Israel didn't change immediately, He was progressively revealing Himself to a people that did not know Him. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery Exodus 20:1 (the Creator was revealing Himself to his creation in their context), How to respond to Him and the each other …. (enter the commandments)... and we know they missed that part because they started worshipping a golden calf. The laws was holy (set apart) providing the guidance to how they should respond Him and each other, how to be humane. He didn't just make a claim to be their God then leave them to figure the rest out on their own. He gave them laws for their context, instructions on how to live on earth in their time as a holy community, Id venture to say that in their context they had to be radically counter-cultural. eg, while some surrounding nations were offering child sacrifices, they were not too. Gods laws when read in its historical context, upholds the dignity of humanity. Slavery in their context as one poster said was a "necessary evil" of their time, mistreatment never so... Hagar in Genesis 16 speaks volumes about the God who sees.

As for keeping someone a "slave" to help them out of poverty for our context is illegal. We offer them reasonable employment for a reasonable wage.

As for being a "bond servant" it is voluntary. God never forces us to be His "slaves". And like you, I am gladly His bond-servant, but also His child.

 

[Lukaris]

Jubilee called for the freeing of slaves but it didn't call for the ending of slavery. If it did, what would be the point of jubilee occurring every 50th year?

"slaves originally in the body of Christ"... what do you mean how could believer continue to accept slavery? Apparently, there's a form of slavery in the spirit as well.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities". -very first sentence. Why? Because all authority essentially comes from God.

"The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

I was making references to the Jubilee in that it only applied to Jews in servitude. Then I referred to the fact that believers are ( hopefully) all people and in light of the commandments, no man should enslave another. Slavery to Jesus Christ is an entirely different matter in our personal state of discipleship. I realize that slavery existed in St. Paul’s time, it was a functional, social necessity ( I had said “necessary evil”). St. Paul preached salvation in Jesus Christ and did not support secular revolution. The ruling authorities ( those of Romans 13:1-7) when they acknowledged God realized the slavery around them was wrong in light of the Lord’s commandments in Romans 13:8-10. There was dispute and war but apparently God willed for it’s end.


Slavery today is supported mainly by unbelievers. God permitted it as He once did divorce. We still have divorce & cannot secularly penalize it but God allows us to confess our sinful failings also ( 1 John 1:5-10, Matthew 7:12 per Matthew 7:1-12).

 

[Clare73]

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here, Clare.

Are you implying that sexual immorality was never penalized as a capital offense in the O.T.?

Your reference regarding oranges refers to apples.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your reference regarding oranges refers to apples.

And how do you know this?

 

[HarleyER]

Hey there

Hope you are good.

I hope you read the other posts so you could understand why I posed the question to Clare73, who has not responded. It was a simple no or yes question.

But since the question intrigued you. My understanding of OT laws and slavery and everything that God required from Israel at the time is best compared to the how the surrounding nations responded to the laws that governed them, eg. Hammurabi Code, even the Abraham calling Sarah his half sister has similarities with the information provided in the Nuzi clay tablets, putting the customs and practices in perspective eg, a view on why Rebecca stole the household Gods or what was the fuss with the birthrights.

God speaks to people in there context, always have... Jesus came at the right time, born of a women, under the law. (which makes it even more humbling, that He condescended to our space and time) but that aside. The context and culture of ancient Israel didn't change immediately, He was progressively revealing Himself to a people that did not know Him. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery Exodus 20:1 (the Creator was revealing Himself to his creation in their context), How to respond to Him and the each other …. (enter the commandments)... and we know they missed that part because they started worshipping a golden calf. The laws was holy (set apart) providing the guidance to how they should respond Him and each other, how to be humane. He didn't just make a claim to be their God then leave them to figure the rest out on their own. He gave them laws for their context, instructions on how to live on earth in their time as a holy community, Id venture to say that in their context they had to be radically counter-cultural. eg, while some surrounding nations were offering child sacrifices, they were not too. Gods laws when read in its historical context, upholds the dignity of humanity. Slavery in their context as one poster said was a "necessary evil" of their time, mistreatment never so... Hagar in Genesis 16 speaks volumes about the God who sees.

As for keeping someone a "slave" to help them out of poverty for our context is illegal. We offer them reasonable employment for a reasonable wage.

As for being a "bond servant" it is voluntary. God never forces us to be His "slaves". And like you, I am gladly His bond-servant, but also His child.

What we do now and what the Israelite did back then is, as you stated, must be put into the cultural context of the times. If anything slavery has taught us, it is how evil and wicked man is in the way we treat, not only God, but others. The various laws in the OT, like laws of divorce, were meant to curb the evil and hardness of people's hearts. By the time we get to Nehemiah, Jews were enslaving Jews in horrible fashion.

I'm not suggesting we establish slavery to keep them out of poverty. I'm suggesting that slavery as portrayed in the OT (and even in Philemon), is an illustration of our relationship to God and His tender provision and care over His slaves (doulos).

As far as a "bond servant" (which is also wrongly translated from the root word doulos) being "voluntary", there are no examples in scriptures on volunteering our services to God. Instead, you have God calling Moses out of the burning bush, David fashioned in his mother's womb (Psalms 22), Samuel being called as a boy (1 Samuel 3), Samson being given to Manoah (Judges 13), Matthew sitting at his tax booth called to follow Christ (Matt 9), Paul experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9), and on and on and on. God always comes to us and declares us righteous not based upon anything we do, but based upon His will. And you can see this in the testimony of every true believer. It is always the same, "I was heading this way BUT God..." God appoints us to His Kingdom.

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed.​

God doesn't force anything. God calls and we follow. It's that simple. People just want to make it so complicated.

 

[Clare73]

And how do you know this?

From your texts.

 

[Rose_bud]

Thank you HarleyER, for your thoughtful response.

What we do now and what the Israelite did back then is, as you stated, must be put into the cultural context of the times. If anything slavery has taught us, it is how evil and wicked man is in the way we treat, not only God, but others. The various laws in the OT, like laws of divorce, were meant to curb the evil and hardness of people's hearts. By the time we get to Nehemiah, Jews were enslaving Jews in horrible fashion.

I'm glad that we agree that we don't just cut and paste OT passages, without considering the context.

I'm not suggesting we establish slavery to keep them out of poverty. I'm suggesting that slavery as portrayed in the OT (and even in Philemon), is an illustration of our relationship to God and His tender provision and care over His slaves (doulos).

Good to know that I misunderstood, and that you don't believe that slavery is a means to address poverty. I can understand why you would consider slavery in the OT as to be an illustration of Gods care, when compared to the OT context and compared to the existing laws of their time. As for NT, Paul to had his difficulty with the Greco-Roman law, and once more the law of Christ was counter-cultural and had to be exercised with wisdom. He appeals to Philemon that Onesimus was to be regarded as a brother to Paul and Philemon, not a slave, they all were fellow-slaves of God. He alone had ownership of there lives.

As far as a "bond servant" (which is also wrongly translated from the root word doulos) being "voluntary", there are no examples in scriptures on volunteering our services to God. Instead, you have God calling Moses out of the burning bush, David fashioned in his mother's womb (Psalms 22), Samuel being called as a boy (1 Samuel 3), Samson being given to Manoah (Judges 13), Matthew sitting at his tax booth called to follow Christ (Matt 9), Paul experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9), and on and on and on. God always comes to us and declares us righteous not based upon anything we do, but based upon His will. And you can see this in the testimony of every true believer. It is always the same, "I was heading this way BUT God..." God appoints us to His Kingdom.

I think you misunderstood me here, I was never implying that we "volunteer" to be slaves of God, rather we yield and surrender our lives in response to the call which you rightly pointed out. But rather I stated this as an illustration of the slave that chooses to remain a slave because of love (Deut 15:16). If you read some of my other posts you would understand I don't believe in a works salvation.

God doesn't force anything. God calls and we follow. It's that simple. People just want to make it so complicated.

Agree, He calls us to love Him and love others...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From your texts.

Ok, Clare. Before we get too far down the road in talking past each other, let's bring this discussion up to shore. I'm tired of rowing.

The main point I'm attempting to get to is that: A number of Biblical scholars think Paul was quoting/citing a verse from Deuteronomy as a command to move the Corinthians to temporarily ex-communicate the man who was having the incestuous relationship. The catch is, though, that the verse in Deuteronomy always carries the connotation of the death penalty, not a mere conditional ex-communication.

So, why didn't Paul tell the Corinthians to kill the man since THAT is what the Law of Moses required? They didn't, and Paul didn't want them to. Why?

And just in case anyone else here is wondering if what I'm saying is correct, they can look at various Bible commentaries to see that what I'm saying is indeed the case. Two of my references here are:

Keener, Craig S. The IVP bible background commentary: New Testament. InterVarsity Press, 2014.​

​

Mays, James L. "Harper's Bible Commentary." (1991).​

And for those who want to see the evidence, here's a link to the various places from Deuteronomy where Paul cites to the Corinthians the following formula of denunciation: "So you shall eliminate the evil from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:13)

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: you shall eliminate

www.biblegateway.com