Is slavery immoral

[RDKirk]

I am using what the Bible defines slavery as, so if you disagree with it, then you disagree with the Biblical term. When someone was captured from a military action they were a slave, or killed. That is no different than the state making you clean up roads. The only difference is one committed a civil violation and one happened to be on the wrong side of a war.

There has been a whole New Testament since the Mosaic Law. The fact that you assert the bible never equates divorce to sin makes me wonder if you read the New Testament.

The details and practices of what they called slavery in Monarchical Israel are only marginally relevant to us. What we see in the Mosaic Law is a progression away from the human practice of slavery. For instance, among the Gentiles, a man was in the "slave class" from birth by decree of the gods, and he could never leave the "slave class." Even if he was given legal freedom, he had to still be identified as a "freedman" rather than "free born"--he was always still a member of the "slave class." The God of Abraham did not decree any man to be a member of a "slave class." A person was born a Jew or could become a Jew, and there was no "slave class"--nobody decreed from birth by God to be a slave--in Judaism.

In the Church Era, there are two forms of human bondage: Debt slavery and "manstealing." That was true in the first century, it's still true today. Debt slavery is the consequence of one's own deliberate actions; being made a slave by force is unwilling.

Paul instructed Christians not to make themselves slaves of men, meaning debt slavery because it would be inane to instruct people not to be kidnapped into forced labor. Paul also condemned "manstealing" (the forced slave trade) as a sin.

That's pretty much all we in the Church Age need to discuss about slavery. Stay out of debt, pay workers their fair due, and don't force anyone into labor that is not the consequence of their own willful actions.

 

[RDKirk]

You can't quote Bible verses that show God considers slavery just and moral. God created mankind and gave them individual free will thus an institution that robs them of that goes against God's original plan as do so many other things.

Regulation, again, does not equate to justification. Simply because God regulated an existing practice does not mean he justified it as moral. You have to prove that point.

Divorce being a case in point.

 

[Hawkins]

Slavery is immoral, God has said a thousand times to the Jews that Hebrews are not allowed to actually enslave another Hebrew. If slavery is moral then God should have encouraged the opposite.

That said. The Hebrew slavery system is just a labor system to help out the poor who have to sell themselves as slaves. If such a labor system doesn't exist then they may have to sell themselves to the secular slavery system where, take the Egyptians as an example the Jews may be killed simply because they are an issue population.

However God has a reason not to mention it more clearly since it's a world practice from which God needs to save humans from. He's not here to condemn the world. It's also said that "lust is a sin", there's no law for this besides verbally illustrated by Jesus. It's so because it's no point to condemn those who lust as even the most decent people do this. It's more like a world practice here.

God's job is to separate the saved from the unsaved instead of setting an absolute, as it is already said that under an absolute no one is righteous not even one.

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.

 

[RDKirk]

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

Paul had to tread a line. Remember that it was his mission to preach the gospel and give guidance to Christian believers. It was not his mission to fix the Roman Empire. Unbelievers did not fall under Paul's authority, as he said in 1 Corinthians 5. Thus, we need to see how Paul taught Christians to live and determine how slavery would fit into all he said.

If you read 1 Peter, you see that the Body of Christ operates as a "diplomatic mission" to the nations of the world, representing the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter also tells us that unbelievers do not fall under our authority, as he warns us not to meddle in their affairs.

The "slavery" permitted within the culture of believers, both OT and NT, was debt bondage, not chattel slavery. God did not create Jews to be chattel to other Jews, but He did permit Jews to become indebted to other Jews. Debt bondage is the same thing any of us might enter as an "unsecured loan." Like debt bondage in ancient times, that unsecured loan debt can be bought and sold by its owners (notice how when banks fail, your money disappears but your debts don't).

However, debt bondage in the Mosaic Law had distinct and severe limits to prevent a "slave class" from ever occurring among Jews. As well, even while in debt bondage, the debtor could not be treated as chattel, but still was recognized as a Jew, one of God's chosen people.

This continued in the New Testament. It was not the mission of the Body of Christ to "fix" the Roman Empire. The Body of Christ is a diplomatic mission to the nations of this world, and as any diplomatic mission, it must obey the laws of the host nation outside its gates. However, within the gates of the diplomatic mission, the laws of the home nation prevail.

That is how it is with the Body of Christ. Outside the context of the Body of Christ and its members, the host nation laws prevail. Within the context of the Body of Christ and its members, the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven prevail (this is referenced in practical detail in 1 Corinthians 5).

Before we get to the letter to Philemon, there are some other points to note. Slavery in the Roman empire occurred in two ways:

1. As a person kidnapped or taken as a war prisoner into slavery, becoming a chattel slave.
2. A freeborn man entering debt bondage or becoming a slave as a penalty for theft.

Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you; although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. -- 1 Corinthians 7

Paul speaks of slavery as though it were an option. That was possible for debt bondage. It was not possible for chattel slavery. Paul could say, "Don't go into debt." Paul could not say, "Don't be kidnapped."

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 -- 1 Timothy 1

Thus, the slave trade of kidnapping is made illegal within the Body of Christ, but going into debt is permitted. And let's not pretend that there is any innocence in purchasing that which is known to be illegal to sell.

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

To a Christian who had slaves this verse is a jaw dropper. This verse absolutely changes the entire secular master-slave relationship for believers. This verse changes everything.

If the slave owner considered the slave his personal property, this verse creates a different relationship. Both persons are actually the slaves of the Lord. That makes the "slave" no longer the property of the "master," but his responsibility under the one who is the Master of both of them--for the Master sees no difference between them--they are both His property, both bought for a price. At this point, Luke 12:42-46 comes into play, and terrible woe be unto the servant-steward who failed to have treated his fellow servants well.

Now, to Paul's letter to Philemon. The first question to ask: What is the purpose of this letter? Latter apologists for slavery and those who wish to accuse Christianity of condoning slavery both claim the letter is nothing more than a plea from Paul for Philemon merely to be nice to Onesimus.

One would have to explain, though, why a mere "be nice" letter would have been cherished, preserved, copied, and shared among the early Christians and eventually considered of such significant doctrinal importance to have been included as part of the Canon.

The tone and deep emotion of the letter also belies the claim that its purpose is so shallow. If the point were merely "be nice," it's more likely Paul would have included it as a closing point to the congregational letter Paul wrote to the Colossians (because that's where Philemon was), such as he did to Euodia and Syntyche at the end of the letter to the Philippians.

No, this letter clearly has a singular and very important message personally to Philemon and doctrinally for the Body of Christ. It's purpose was to secure the freedom of Onesimus, and as preserved by the early Christians for doctrine, it was recognized as directive onto the entire early church.

Indeed, history indicates that slavery among Christians had died out until Christianity became the national religion of the Empire...which depended economically on slavery. At that point, the empire used the Church to validate all of its actions.

On to Philemon:

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.

Translation: I have a big stick, but I'm going to speak softly.

It is as none other than Paul, an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus

Translation: You know me--I am your elder and I suffer even now for the Body in which you are a member.

that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains....I am sending him, who is my very heart, back to you.

Translation: I consider Onesimus my own son--which is about the most important familial relationship possible in this society. Men value their sons more than they value their wives. Just want you to know how serious this is to me.

I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.

Translation: But there is a legal matter I need you to attend to.

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

Translation: What part of "no longer as a slave" is hard to understand? "No longer as a slave" does not mean "be nice to him as a slave." "No longer as a slave" actually means "no longer as a slave."

If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.

Translation: He was a slave because of a debt he owed you (which is the only bondage we allow among Christians)--so put that debt on my tab. That makes him completly free.

I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back, not to mention that you owe me your very self.

Translation: Oh, and by the way, I won't mention that you owe me a whole lot more. Well, maybe I did mention it...so that cancels whatever Onesimus owed you...and you're still in debt to me.

Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

Translation: Capish? Good. I expect you to do it.

And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.

Translation: I'm going to drop by soon to make sure you did what I--ahem--"asked" you to do. Notice that I didn't even say, "Please."

 

[createdtoworship]

There has been a whole New Testament since the Mosaic Law. The fact that you assert the bible never equates divorce to sin makes me wonder if you read the New Testament.

So God sinned in Jeremiah 3:8?

Let me know if you wish for me to reply to your other points, but I thought I would address this first.

 

[createdtoworship]

The "slavery" permitted within the culture of believers, both OT and NT, was debt bondage, not chattel slavery. God did not create Jews to be chattel to other Jews, but He did permit Jews to become indebted to other Jews. Debt bondage is the same thing any of us might enter as an "unsecured loan." Like debt bondage in ancient times, that unsecured loan debt can be bought and sold by its owners (notice how when banks fail, your money disappears but your debts don't).

I don't think debt bondage, or chattel in either instance should be differentiated from slavery, albeit they are different forms of slavery. In the bible for instance God gives instruction on how to purchase other humans with money, and make them your property. That sir is a very valid form of slavery.

However, debt bondage in the Mosaic Law had distinct and severe limits to prevent a "slave class" from ever occurring among Jews. As well, even while in debt bondage, the debtor could not be treated as chattel, but still was recognized as a Jew, one of God's chosen people.

again arbitrary distinctions. It's good they were recognized as God's people but according to our current definition of slave as found in modern dictionaries these all qualify as various forms of slavery.

Before we get to the letter to Philemon, there are some other points to note. Slavery in the Roman empire occurred in two ways:

1. As a person kidnapped or taken as a war prisoner into slavery, becoming a chattel slave.
2. A freeborn man entering debt bondage or becoming a slave as a penalty for theft.

so here you admit both forms, are various terms for slavery, that was all I was saying.

Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you; although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. -- 1 Corinthians 7

Paul speaks of slavery as though it were an option. That was possible for debt bondage. It was not possible for chattel slavery. Paul could say, "Don't go into debt." Paul could not say, "Don't be kidnapped."

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 -- 1 Timothy 1

good stuff, interesting study on slaves in the new testament.

Thus, the slave trade of kidnapping is made illegal within the Body of Christ, but going into debt is permitted. And let's not pretend that there is any innocence in purchasing that which is known to be illegal to sell.

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

To a Christian who had slaves this verse is a jaw dropper. This verse absolutely changes the entire secular master-slave relationship for believers. This verse changes everything.

Yes with grace came human rights, which in the old testament were sketchy or non existent. But still the human rights of the new testament are primitive. I agree entirely with the newtestament, but for a progressive christian to look at slavery even in the new testament, they would be disappointing that slavery was not outlawed by Christ. I don't disagree. But I believe the christian sanctifying of the slavery process led eventually to other christians abolishing slavery (william wilberforce and others).

If the slave owner considered the slave his personal property, this verse creates a different relationship. Both persons are actually the slaves of the Lord. That makes the "slave" no longer the property of the "master," but his responsibility under the one who is the Master of both of them--for the Master sees no difference between them--they are both His property, both bought for a price. At this point, Luke 12:42-46 comes into play, and terrible woe be unto the servant-steward who failed to have treated his fellow servants well.

yes this would be a change, as I mentioned the old testament fully endorsed purchasing other humans as slaves, and as property.

Now, to Paul's letter to Philemon. The first question to ask: What is the purpose of this letter? Latter apologists for slavery and those who wish to accuse Christianity of condoning slavery both claim the letter is nothing more than a plea from Paul for Philemon merely to be nice to Onesimus.

One would have to explain, though, why a mere "be nice" letter would have been cherished, preserved, copied, and shared among the early Christians and eventually considered of such significant doctrinal importance to have been included as part of the Canon.

The tone and deep emotion of the letter also belies the claim that its purpose is so shallow. If the point were merely "be nice," it's more likely Paul would have included it as a closing point to the congregational letter Paul wrote to the Colossians (because that's where Philemon was), such as he did to Euodia and Syntyche at the end of the letter to the Philippians.

No, this letter clearly has a singular and very important message personally to Philemon and doctrinally for the Body of Christ. It's purpose was to secure the freedom of Onesimus, and as preserved by the early Christians for doctrine, it was recognized as directive onto the entire early church.

Indeed, history indicates that slavery among Christians had died out until Christianity became the national religion of the Empire...which depended economically on slavery. At that point, the empire used the Church to validate all of its actions.

interesting stuff, thanks for posting it.

On to Philemon:

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.

Translation: I have a big stick, but I'm going to speak softly.

It is as none other than Paul, an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus

Translation: You know me--I am your elder and I suffer even now for the Body in which you are a member.

that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains....I am sending him, who is my very heart, back to you.

Translation: I consider Onesimus my own son--which is about the most important familial relationship possible in this society. Men value their sons more than they value their wives. Just want you to know how serious this is to me.

I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.

Translation: But there is a legal matter I need you to attend to.

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

Translation: What part of "no longer as a slave" is hard to understand? "No longer as a slave" does not mean "be nice to him as a slave." "No longer as a slave" actually means "no longer as a slave."

If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.

Translation: He was a slave because of a debt he owed you (which is the only bondage we allow among Christians)--so put that debt on my tab. That makes him completly free.

I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back, not to mention that you owe me your very self.

Translation: Oh, and by the way, I won't mention that you owe me a whole lot more. Well, maybe I did mention it...so that cancels whatever Onesimus owed you...and you're still in debt to me.

Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

Translation: Capish? Good. I expect you to do it.

And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.

Translation: I'm going to drop by soon to make sure you did what I--ahem--"asked" you to do. Notice that I didn't even say, "Please."

again human rights were not what they should have been in the time of christ and soon afterward. But I believe just as theology evolved for hundreds of years so to human rights evolved as well, usually by moral types of people like Christians. But yeah, at this point instead of saying....'put him on my tab.' that would be a great opportunity for God to say, he slavery is wrong. So again God has His reasons for not bucking the cultural norms, I noticed He didn't give women the right to vote until the 1900's and women in the days of Jesus were not full citizens I think, not even counted in census's (at least in old testament). So I noticed that Christ did not buck the cultural norms, but focussed His ministry on doctrine, and that doctrine would slowly permeate culture over the years and allow more human rights.

 

[RDKirk]

But yeah, at this point instead of saying....'put him on my tab.' that would be a great opportunity for God to say, he slavery is wrong. So again God has His reasons for not bucking the cultural norms, I noticed He didn't give women the right to vote until the 1900's and women in the days of Jesus were not full citizens I think, not even counted in census's (at least in old testament). So I noticed that Christ did not buck the cultural norms, but focussed His ministry on doctrine, and that doctrine would slowly permeate culture over the years and allow more human rights.

It was not Paul's mission to fix the Roman Empire.

It is not our mission to fix the Roman Empire.

To "slowly permeate culture" is not Jesus' intent or the mission of His body.

Creating a new Christian subculture that is in the world but not of the world is what Jesus intends us to do.

 

[Semper-Fi]

National Human & Sex Trafficking Statistics
National Human & Sex Trafficking Statistics (2019) | Geoffrey G. Nathan Law Boston

Global Slavery Index

 

[createdtoworship]

It was not Paul's mission to fix the Roman Empire.

It is not our mission to fix the Roman Empire.

To "slowly permeate culture" is not Jesus' intent or the mission of His body.

Creating a new Christian subculture that is in the world but not of the world is what Jesus intends us to do.

thanks brother, I highly disagree. But don't feel remotely inclined to fight with others over my views. Take care. I think Jesus whole ministry was to culture.

 

[createdtoworship]

National Human & Sex Trafficking Statistics
National Human & Sex Trafficking Statistics (2019) | Geoffrey G. Nathan Law Boston

Global Slavery Index

thanks brother, do you mind adding that information to a few of my trafficking threads? It's cool if you don't.

Human Trafficking- what to do to battle this problem

 

[BroRoyVa79]

yes, they were not to kidnap, but they certainly owned slaves that were purchased, it was all over the old testament in dozens of places even abraham had hired slaves...

"But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones."
Exodus 12:44‭-‬46 NKJV

so how do you justify verses like this, with a God who is just and loving toward all human beings? Again my solution answers this type of biblical difficulty. There is a moral type of slavery and an immoral type of slavery.

Again, you are conflating the practice then with chattel slavery that we think of whenever this subject arises. Yes, Abraham had hired servants but these were servants who were ultimately considered part of the family according to that culture. For instance, Eliezer of Damascus was chosen by Abraham to be an heir and was taken in as a son. (Genesis 15:2). Another example, Hagar would be considered a woman who was given a marriage contract, she served as a servant to Sarai/Sarah and then was given as a wife to Abraham. After becoming a wife, she was no longer a servant.

Show me in chattel slavery where a woman has a child with the master and is free and equal to the master's first wife?

Nuances, nuances, as I said. Again, you are too busy trying to focus on the similarities to make superficial connections and not the nuanced differences. We both admitted that in ancient times people could sell themselves into service to be taken care of. God's regulation of this does not mean it's justified, or part of God's standards. In other words, God recognizing that humans will do something wrong and regulates it does not mean that wrong thing is right.

God said murder was wrong, but He regulated how to deal with the murderer. Does that mean murder is right?

Edited

 

[RDKirk]

So God sinned in Jeremiah 3:8?

Let me know if you wish for me to reply to your other points, but I thought I would address this first.

Divorce always involves sin because "it was not that way in the beginning." Sometimes the sin is in both parties, sometimes the sin is in only one party.

Don't think that the sin is always, however, in the party that takes the actual legal action.

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, you are conflating the practice then with chattel slavery that we think of whenever this subject arises. Yes, Abraham had hired servants but these were servants who were ultimately considered part of the family according to that culture. For instance, Eliezer of Damascus was chosen by Abraham to be an heir and was taken in as a son. (Genesis 15:2). Another example, Hagar would be considered a woman who was given a marriage contract, she served as a servant to Sarai/Sarah and then was given as a wife to Abraham. After becoming a wife, she was no longer a servant.

Show me in chattel slavery where a woman has a child with the master and is free and equal to the master's first wife?

Nuances, nuances, as I said. Again, you are too busy trying to focus on the similarities to make superficial connections and not the nuanced differences. We both admitted that in ancient times people could sell themselves into service to be taken care of. God's regulation of this does not mean it's justified, or part of God's standards. In other words, God recognizing that humans will do something wrong and regulates it does not mean that wrong thing is right.

God said murder was wrong, but He regulated how to deal with the murderer. Does that mean murder is right?

Edited

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

Divorce always involves sin because "it was not that way in the beginning." Sometimes the sin is in both parties, sometimes the sin is in only one party.

Don't think that the sin is always, however, in the party that takes the actual legal action.

So did God sin or not sin in Jeremiah 3:8.

 

[RDKirk]

So did God sin or not sin in Jeremiah 3:8.

Israel sinned. The scripture clearly says that.

The sin is not always with the party that takes the legal action.

 

[createdtoworship]

Israel sinned. The scripture clearly says that.

The sin is not always with the party that takes the legal action.

let me help you out.....
If divorce is unilaterally a sin like you said then when God divorced Israel in Jeremiah 3:8 then He must have sinned according to your view, and that is wrong the Bible says "I sin not" in other scriptures. Thus the ONLY conclusion is that divorce is not unilaterally a sin. It's a sin if done wrong, but not a sin if done right. Although it's not in God's perfect will.

 

[RDKirk]

let me help you out.....
If divorce is unilaterally a sin like you said then when God divorced Israel in Jeremiah 3:8 then He must have sinned according to your view, and that is wrong the Bible says "I sin not" in other scriptures. Thus the ONLY conclusion is that divorce is not unilaterally a sin. It's a sin if done wrong, but not a sin if done right. Although it's not in God's perfect will.

I did not say that divorce was unilaterally a sin.

I said:

Divorce always involves sin because "it was not that way in the beginning." Sometimes the sin is in both parties, sometimes the sin is in only one party.

Don't think that the sin is always, however, in the party that takes the actual legal action.

Or maybe you don't understand what "unilaterally" means.

 

[createdtoworship]

I did not say that divorce was unilaterally a sin.

I said:



Or maybe you don't understand what "unilaterally" means.

So if you don't think divorce is sin unilaterally speaking then it does not relate to slavery being sin which was what this whole conversation is about after all and divorce simply becomes off topic at that point. Thanks for the debate.

 

[RDKirk]

So if you don't think divorce is sin unilaterally speaking then it does not relate to slavery being sin which was what this whole conversation is about after all and divorce simply becomes off topic at that point. Thanks for the debate.

You keep using that word "unilaterally," but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Divorce is on topic inasmuch as it is another case in which God regulates a situation that is not His will for His people. He does not intend for His people to divorce or be divorced nor does He intend for His people to be slaves or enslave others. His regulation of sins that men practice "because of the hardness of your hearts" is not an endorsement of those actions. As another example, the same goes for polygamous marriage."

 

[createdtoworship]

You keep using that word "unilaterally," but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Divorce is on topic inasmuch as it is another case in which God regulates a situation that is not His will for His people. He does not intend for His people to divorce or be divorced nor does He intend for His people to be slaves or enslave others. His regulation of sins that men practice "because of the hardness of your hearts" is not an endorsement of those actions. As another example, the same goes for polygamous marriage."

there is not a single verse signifying that slavery is wrong in the Bible accept small hints in the new testament after grace came. Although there is for polygamy and divorce. So again these illustrations do not follow.