Should the world have kept slavery? Why or why not?
- Thread starter Neostarwcc
- Start date
- Jul 21, 2015
- 7,547
- 4,171
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You claimed you are a slave of Christ. I do not believe you. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. The truth set people free. A slave was not free. A servant was free to quit and leave if someone else offered better terms of employment.
Upvote
0
- Dec 13, 2015
- 5,255
- 4,227
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
This deserves another
Really? Name a single verse of scripture that says that it's wrong or that we are not allowed to own a slave or that it's a sin even from just ONE verse of scripture and I'll claim your facepalm noteworthy and I'll retract my statement and say that slavery is wrong and that mankind had no right to keep slaves over the years. Otherwise, please kindly keep your mocking and ridicule to yourself. Oh that's right, you can't. So why are you so butthurt over what God said that mankind could have and that mankind has had for well over 5,000 years now?
There was NOTHING wrong with them owning slaves because mankind was given that right by God. I've already named MANY verses in the Bible supporting slavery. I don't have to link them again. But the Bible also taught/teaches that we should treat our slaves with kindness and respect, I've also linked those verses and people for the most part, have obeyed that command throughout history. So therefore, I don't really understand what's wrong with you and why you are attacking me. If you are so angry with what God has said, take it up with him not me.
Upvote
0
- Dec 13, 2015
- 5,255
- 4,227
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
It's not just me, Paul and the apostles claimed it and it's taught throughout the Bible that we were created to obey God as every other creation of God's. What would make mankind any different than the angels or any other creation of God's? We've already provided you with scriptural proof and you're capable of reading, yes?
Sorry, I'm just in a REALLY bad mood this morning and don't have the time nor the patience this morning to argue with people about things that are DIRECTLY stated in the Bible. Again, if you don't like it take it up with God.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
But that's not what the subject was. I was addressing the OP's question about original slavery as shown in the bible.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
We're raised and educated to believe that anything to do with slavery is the ultimate epitome of evil. If I were to judge our history, the popular narrative is to sell a very VERY shallow understanding of slavery.
Just imagine yourself in a apocalyptic world in charge of a number of people. What are you going to pay them with other than food and water. Slavery can be a fair exchange of goods and services.
Upvote
0
Yes, the Mosaic Law permitted chattel slavery of non-Jews by Jews as well as debt slavery of Jews to other Jews.
What I said before was "God did not create Jews to be chattel to other Jews, but He did permit Jews to become indebted to other Jews."
One of the things that should become clear as one contemplates the Mosaic Covenant with the New Testament is that the Mosaic Covenant was the Lord's first formal code for a people who were basically Bronze Age riffraff that had a long way to go before becoming the kind of people the Lord ultimately wanted as His light to the world.
Moses: "I can't bear these people! Lord, if you love me, kill me now!" -- Numbers 11.
God: I have seen these people; the LORD said to Moses; and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation. -- Exodus 32
These were not people that were going to be made into a morally perfect 21st Century Modern Civilization. The Mosaic Law does contain moral compromises. We get an explanation of the moral compromises within the Mosaic Law even from Jesus:
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." -- Matthew 19
Matthew 5 itself is a virtual repudiation of the moral compromises of the Mosaic Law, compromises made because those Bronze Age people were not ready for better behavior.
Compare the Mosaic Law with the earlier law of Hammurabi or the contemporary laws of Egypt, and we see a tremendously more advanced treatment of slaves (as well as women, for that matter) in the Mosaic Law.
So what we see in Leviticus 25 is the same "baby step" we see in Deuteronomy 24 that Jesus referenced with respect to divorce. Their hearts were too hard to become perfect, but they could take a baby step: Don't enslave your fellow Israelite as chattel.
This is called "progressive revelation."
Incidentally, with specific regard to Philemon and Onesimus, even Leviticus 25 was fully valid for Paul to use to direct Philemon to free Onesimus after Paul said "If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me." Even Leviticus 25 was sufficient to declare, at the very least, "Don't enslave your fellow Christian as chattel."
The Church had determined that slavery was prohibited in the first two centuries, and the Church had abandoned it. When Constantine gave the Church a stake an empire that depended on slavery, Church prohibition was blunted in favor of the needs of the empire.
But even in that time, the Church never gave slavery any theological justification. There were Popes who permitted it on the basis of the rights of nations--not theology.
Protestants arrived at the conclusion that slavery was sinful throughout the Protestant world, including the American south by the late 1700s. Even Southerners at the time acknowledged its sinfulness. That changed in the South--and only in the South--with the invention of the cotton gin, which made slavery wildly profitable.
It is only in the American south in the early 1800s that any theological justification has ever been posed by Christians, and that justification was obviously absurd.
"But Jesus didn't preach against slavery!"
Something important to note is that it was not (and is not) the mission of the Church to "fix" the Roman empire. 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.
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.
However, debt bondage in those days 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 and chosen of God.
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 freed person; 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 had an optional component. 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 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. If the slave owner considered the slave his personal property, this verse creates a different relationship. This verse changes everything.
Paul cannot eradicate slavery in the Roman empire, but he did totally change the relationship between masters and slaves within the Body of Christ.
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.
This puts the master/slave relationship into Luke 12.
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 a congregational letter, 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 to 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 to 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 was able to use 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 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...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.
What I said before was "God did not create Jews to be chattel to other Jews, but He did permit Jews to become indebted to other Jews."
One of the things that should become clear as one contemplates the Mosaic Covenant with the New Testament is that the Mosaic Covenant was the Lord's first formal code for a people who were basically Bronze Age riffraff that had a long way to go before becoming the kind of people the Lord ultimately wanted as His light to the world.
Moses: "I can't bear these people! Lord, if you love me, kill me now!" -- Numbers 11.
God: I have seen these people; the LORD said to Moses; and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation. -- Exodus 32
These were not people that were going to be made into a morally perfect 21st Century Modern Civilization. The Mosaic Law does contain moral compromises. We get an explanation of the moral compromises within the Mosaic Law even from Jesus:
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." -- Matthew 19
Matthew 5 itself is a virtual repudiation of the moral compromises of the Mosaic Law, compromises made because those Bronze Age people were not ready for better behavior.
Compare the Mosaic Law with the earlier law of Hammurabi or the contemporary laws of Egypt, and we see a tremendously more advanced treatment of slaves (as well as women, for that matter) in the Mosaic Law.
So what we see in Leviticus 25 is the same "baby step" we see in Deuteronomy 24 that Jesus referenced with respect to divorce. Their hearts were too hard to become perfect, but they could take a baby step: Don't enslave your fellow Israelite as chattel.
This is called "progressive revelation."
Incidentally, with specific regard to Philemon and Onesimus, even Leviticus 25 was fully valid for Paul to use to direct Philemon to free Onesimus after Paul said "If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me." Even Leviticus 25 was sufficient to declare, at the very least, "Don't enslave your fellow Christian as chattel."
The Church had determined that slavery was prohibited in the first two centuries, and the Church had abandoned it. When Constantine gave the Church a stake an empire that depended on slavery, Church prohibition was blunted in favor of the needs of the empire.
But even in that time, the Church never gave slavery any theological justification. There were Popes who permitted it on the basis of the rights of nations--not theology.
Protestants arrived at the conclusion that slavery was sinful throughout the Protestant world, including the American south by the late 1700s. Even Southerners at the time acknowledged its sinfulness. That changed in the South--and only in the South--with the invention of the cotton gin, which made slavery wildly profitable.
It is only in the American south in the early 1800s that any theological justification has ever been posed by Christians, and that justification was obviously absurd.
"But Jesus didn't preach against slavery!"
Something important to note is that it was not (and is not) the mission of the Church to "fix" the Roman empire. 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.
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.
However, debt bondage in those days 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 and chosen of God.
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 freed person; 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 had an optional component. 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 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. If the slave owner considered the slave his personal property, this verse creates a different relationship. This verse changes everything.
Paul cannot eradicate slavery in the Roman empire, but he did totally change the relationship between masters and slaves within the Body of Christ.
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.
This puts the master/slave relationship into Luke 12.
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 a congregational letter, 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 to 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 to 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 was able to use 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 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...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.
Upvote
0
Jesus came TO FREE the captives and oppressed.
New King James Version
“The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
If you are a follower of Christ, you should honor and uphold this ethic.
Upvote
0
If freely approving is even an option in such an apocalyptic world. Look at us today with our views on taxes, we can disapprove of our level of taxation but that doesn't change our circumstances and the available choices we have. So we can no more avoid taxes today than they could avoid slavery in the past.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 10,660
- 5,770
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Oy vey.
It is obvious beyond reason that slavery is inconsistent with the Gospel. The “it’s in the Bible” argument does not work.
So is God-sanctioned genocide.
It is obvious beyond reason that slavery is inconsistent with the Gospel. The “it’s in the Bible” argument does not work.
So is God-sanctioned genocide.
Upvote
0
We either slaves to sin leading to death, or slaves of God leading to life.
No one is free , we all belong to another.
Much better to belong to God, who is love, and a benevolent dictator - tyrant. Dictator - Tyrant means someone who has absolute power, authority over you. Satan is also an evil master. And only God is good.
Romans 6 teaches us about this spiritual slavery.
Upvote
0
