Discussion Jesus' Teaching About Slavery

[Aldebaran]

Wow, doesn't that make slavery sound nice! I think I want to be a slave now!

Do you understand that slavery in the OT wasn't based on skin color, etc.? People often became slaves to someone when they weren't able to repay a debt in any other way. They would become the person's slave until the debt was paid. Today, we call it becoming employed.

 

[Ajflyguy7]

Do you understand that slavery in the OT wasn't based on skin color, etc.? People often became slaves to someone when they weren't able to repay a debt in any other way. They would become the person's slave until the debt was paid. Today, we call it becoming employed.

I think it's a little different, since you could beat your slaves as long as they didn't die within a day or two. I'd probably have to consult with my HR department, but I'm pretty sure that isn't allowed by my employer. Additionally, there were ways for the slave to permanently become the property of his master. Don't forget about this great piece of advice, "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) I guess all slaves weren't just repaying a debt or as we call it today, becoming unemployed.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think it's a little different, since you could beat your slaves as long as they didn't die within a day or two. I'd probably have to consult with my HR department, but I'm pretty sure that isn't allowed by my employer. Additionally, there were ways for the slave to permanently become the property of his master. Don't forget about this great piece of advice, "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) I guess all slaves weren't just repaying a debt or as we call it today, becoming unemployed.

In order to be purchased, they would have had to be owned by someone else in the first place. It would be the same as someone today selling a debt to another person.

 

[Ajflyguy7]

In order to be purchased, they would have had to be owned by someone else in the first place. It would be the same as someone today selling a debt to another person.

I don't see it that way. Either way, the beating seems less than humane or moral. Oh well, doesn't matter to me, I don't worship that god. Justify it however you need to.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't see it that way. Either way, the beating seems less than humane or moral. Oh well, doesn't matter to me, I don't worship that god. Justify it however you need to.

I thought we were mainly talking about what slavery was.

 

[Ajflyguy7]

I thought we were mainly talking about what slavery was.

Sure, I would say that slavery was and still is immoral.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I don't see it that way. Either way, the beating seems less than humane or moral. Oh well, doesn't matter to me, I don't worship that god. Justify it however you need to.

As I wrote before, there are no foreigners under Christ. And in Christ all are brethren and outsiders are ones we are commanded to be wise in regards to. That means we want them to believe and do not beat them...

 

[Aldebaran]

Sure, I would say that slavery was and still is immoral.

To be specific, we were talking about the definition of it rather than individual opinions about it.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Respectfully... does it matter? They are all dead, they were a product of their culture... and they cannot give an answer for themselves as this time.

It does matter in a sense, because the products of the products of that culture are alive today attempting to justify the paradigms of American, European and Asian slavery.

The gag is that unless you were born with gold and silver, you are a slave. You have to work for a wage, which is what Hebrew "slavery" was. Every single person that has to work to make money to get the goods they need is a technical slave; we jusy use "employeed, and employer" to misrepresent a classic slave/master relationship. Men morphed it into a monstrosity, erased the purpose, and applied their own justifications.

Today is a result of that twisting.

 

[Ken Rank]

It does matter in a sense, because the products of the products of that culture are alive today attempting to justify the paradigms of American, European and Asian slavery.

The gag is that unless you were born with gold and silver, you are a slave. You have to work for a wage, which is what Hebrew "slavery" was. Every single person that has to work to make money to get the goods they need is a technical slave; we jusy use "employeed, and employer" to misrepresent a classic slave/master relationship. Men morphed it into a monstrosity, erased the purpose, and applied their own justifications.

Today is a result of that twisting.

Well said. Just to be clear.. the "what does it matter" from my point is only coming from the sense that we can't indict and prosecute the dead, Scripture does not give us that ability. So whereas the teaching of the dead might linger today and need to be addressed (well done in bringing that point out, Ygrene) we still can't place the focus on the dead PERSON, which is what many do. Let me give an example... in the circles I tend to find myself religiously, there are many who go on anti-Constantine rants. They indict and persecute and convict him (usually without the proper context... not that I am defending him) when the focus should be on what is correct and then taking THAT and living it as a witness for truth rather than digging up and beating a dead man who may or may not have done most of what is attributed to him.

Just trying to differentiate between the person and the teaching.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Well said. Just to be clear.. the "what does it matter" from my point is only coming from the sense that we can't indict and prosecute the dead, Scripture does not give us that ability. So whereas the teaching of the dead might linger today and need to be addressed (well done in bringing that point out, Ygrene) we still can't place the focus on the dead PERSON, which is what many do. Let me give an example... in the circles I tend to find myself religiously, there are many who go on anti-Constantine rants. They indict and persecute and convict him (usually without the proper context... not that I am defending him) when the focus should be on what is correct and then taking THAT and living it as a witness for truth rather than digging up and beating a dead man who may or may not have done most of what is attributed to him.

Just trying to differentiate between the person and the teaching.

Ah, makes perfect sense now.

I agree; I don't speak about the dead - period - and, I am not being funny. I think there is a lot of deception in 1) believing and 2) "actually" speaking to/about the dead. You are right; it is futility to speak about dead people as if we are owed something, or that we have the ability to judge the trajectory of spirits ("hell, or heaven.")

 

[LinkH]

I wonder what the Confederate Christians used to justify slavery.

Abraham and Isaac had slaves. Abraham was justified by faith. Philemon loved the brethren. He owned a slave. Paul did not say he was a sinner for owning a slave. Paul told Christian slavemasters to not threaten their slaves and to be aware that God was not a respecter of persons. Paul wrote about Philemon's love for the brethren. Philemon owned a slave. Paul tried to persuade him to allow Onesimus to stay with Paul and help him. He may have wanted Philemon to free Onesimus, depending on how you read it. But his argument was not that owning a slave was a sin.

Of course, American slavery had it's own peculiar features. Slavery was very much associated with skin color, at least in the 1800s. Slaves were uneducated, and there were various other differences.