Slavery, a Guide

[Tom 1]

Ok, then god could have created us in the afterlife to begin with and sin would have been eliminated. Or is this not a power god has?

I don't know? It's a bit of a big question. How would that work? Would we still be human?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don't know? It's a bit of a big question. How would that work? Would we still be human?

God is planning an afterlife for believers correct? So whatever afterlife he has planned would be what it is like. All I am saying is that begin creation at that point avoiding all the pain and suffering now and include everyone in the afterlife. No one would be excluded.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well yes I suppose one solution to problems in the ancient world or modern world would be not to have any world at all. Life doesn't seem all that bad to me, a lot of bad things happen but a lot of good things do also.

That seems a bit myopic. There are many people in this world starving, being exploited, enslaved, raped, beaten everyday, tortured. Many would rather kill themselves than continue living.

If your idea is that everything should have been done completely differently from the start then it would be interesting to hear what your plan would be in more detail, just out of curiosity.

My plan is simply whatever God has planned for the afterlife start creation there. Include everyone in heaven, people would not suffer or sin against each other or god. Isn't that what heaven is supposed to be like? Just move the afterlife up to include all people. Seems simple to me. It would be the exact same experience without all this suffering on earth.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You are applying your own views and definitions to the past. I have no idea what it was like back then. If God said slavery was bad would people have listened? Maybe he could see that regardless of his word we were going to do it anyway. Idk.

He said murder was bad but people did not listen and did it anyway. Do you think it was ever moral to forcibly enslave another human being as property?

No I don't approve of lazy people owning another. Most people didn't, that's why it was abolished.

It was not abolished by God. Please show me where God said slavery should not be done.

 

[Tom 1]

Many would rather kill themselves than continue living.

Where did you get that bit of data from?

 

[Tom 1]

My plan is simply whatever God has planned for the afterlife start creation there. Include everyone in heaven, people would not suffer or sin against each other or god. Isn't that what heaven is supposed to be like? Just move the afterlife up to include all people. Seems simple to me. It would be the exact same experience without all this suffering on earth.

I'm not seeing how just randomly making things up adds up to an argument, unless you are just sharing your ideas for some other reason.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Where did you get that bit of data from?

800,000 people commit suicide each year in the world.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Come on you made an actual point in one post, don't go off again into lala land.

You're the one who's refusing to engage the issue, and I can only assume it's because the evidence that God is in favour of slavery is so clear that you are unwilling to engage with it.

You presented Warren's arguments and claim they are in the bible - you can go through his claims one at a time then and show me where they are in the bible.

Did you actually read them? If you had, you would have noticed that he showed exactly where his arguments were in the Bible, citing chapter and verse to back up his answers. At the end of this post, I shall be happy to give you examples, but I really would encourage you to read the excerpts from his sermon.

Then you could address the other points you have ignored in an equally coherent way.

If you were to read the sermon I posted - and at this point, I have to assume that you have not done so - you will see that it lays out a clear case for the Bible proving God's approval of slavery.

The bible describes the practice of slavery as was common at the time, it neither approves or disapproves.

I'm afraid that is quite incorrect; and at the end of this post, I shall show you why. Although, as I said, I wouldn't have to if you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, as he already showed overwhelmingly that the Bible does indeed approve of slavery, contrary to what you seem to think.

Slavery was a given, the rules are about how people should behave towards their slaves.

All you're showing is that you're not familiar with what the Bible says. Before entering a debate of this nature, you should at least have a passing familiarity with it.

To have any kind of argument to make you need to demonstrate how a cohesive, functioning society in the 2-3rd Millennium BC would have been possible without some form of slavery, how it would have been formed and maintained over many centuries, how those people who lived in bondage to others might have been able to fend for themselves otherwise and so on.

Why on earth do you imagine I "need" to do that? The only reason I can imagine you'd say that is as a red herring to divert the conversation so you can avoid addressing the issues.
In fact, all I need to do to win the argument is point out how God is in favour of slavery. As in, actively promotes and encourages it, and considers it to be a good thing. If you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, you would have seen that he has done this already, in a compelling and convincing manner that you have, so far, not even tried to rebut.

No short cuts and excuses allowed, you are an adult after all so please think like one.

I think this is breaking the forum rules about being polite. Engage with the arguments, please, not personal remarks.

Yes, you claim that Warren's views are in the bible. He makes several references to specific things he says are in the bible, he's your 'witness', it should be a simple matter for you to identify the passages he claims are in the bible and present them here.

Again: did you actually read what he said? Warren backs up all of his points with clear references to the Bible.

Neither your nor I read ancient Greek, if you want to look into that you'll find that there are almost always differing opinions on what this or that term means.

This is a quite inadequate response. Presented with evidence that you're wrong - ie, that the Bible does mean "slaves" in many of the cases in which it refers to "servants" - all you're going to do is hand-wave it away and say, "Well, who knows?"
Not good enough, I'm afraid. The Bible is talking about slaves. If it were talking about servants, it wouldn't tell you to beat them mercilessly and to to keep them and their children your property forever.

Here's the bit you're going to ignore - Christians are called to behave as Christ did, Paul argues this point as delicately as he can over Onesimus, a runaway slave he sheltered for a period of time, recognising that dedicating himself to a slave revolt would go against his broader calling

Why do you think I'll ignore it? Paul returned a runaway slave to his master. Yes, he entreated his master to free him, but had no guarantees that he would. For all Paul knew, he was sending Onesimus to his death. Hardly evidence that Paul, God or Christianity is anti-slavery. In fact, rather the opposite. He asked Onesimus's master to free him because Onesimus was now a Christian and a friend, not because he was opposed to slavery. There's no evidence that Paul, or anyone in the Bible including Jesus, actually saw slavery as a bad thing.

Now, let's get back to the key point: is the Bible pro-slavery, or is it not? I contend that it is, and will back up what I am saying. If you disagree, let's see your arguments.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
So we see, the Bible gives clear directions on how to keep a slave with you forever, by holding his family hostage.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Apparently the Bible is quite okay with you beating a slave to within an inch of his or her life. Just don't actually kill him.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
If a child is born to a slave, that child is born into slavery.

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
See? God is just fine with people buying slaves. He tells them how to enslave others.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Slave rebellion? Not a Christian idea at all. If you're a slave, it is your Christian duty to obey your master.

If you're really sincere in wanting to find the truth, you will engage with the verses I've shown. If you don't want to find the truth, you'll try to dodge them, or ignore them, or divert the conversation away from what the Bible says about slavery.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm not seeing how just randomly making things up adds up to an argument, unless you are just sharing your ideas for some other reason.

I am not randomly making things up. I answered the question many times.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I am not randomly making things up. I answered the question many times.

You certainly did. You and I are making the same point: if God had actually been as opposed to slavery, as any morally decent person is today, then He would have condemned it. As you said:

He said murder was bad but people did not listen and did it anyway. Do you think it was ever moral to forcibly enslave another human being as property?

Exactly. @Tom 1 seems to think that God was opposed to slavery, but couldn't do anything to stop it. This, of course, is nonsense, as people could clearly see in 1861! As Pastor Warren said:
"He (Jesus) 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."

It was not abolished by God. Please show me where God said slavery should not be done.

Yes, @Tom 1 , please do show where God condemns slavery.

 

[Tom 1]

I am not randomly making things up. I answered the question many times.

Sure ok, you see it like that so fair enough. Is it a realistic idea though? Things are what they are, change is slow, the rip it up and start again approach had been tried many times in the political sense and it doesn’t often run smoothly.

 

[Tom 1]

800,000 people commit suicide each year in the world.

Suicide is tragic, but given around 50-60m people die every year I’m not sure if less than 2% of that figure counts as ‘many’. Maybe you should travel more? The majority of people find life worth living. It may be a stereotype but I have found it to be generally true that people from the US have a very distorted view of what life is like in other countries.

 

[Tom 1]

You're the one who's refusing to engage the issue, and I can only assume it's because the evidence that God is in favour of slavery is so clear that you are unwilling to engage with it.

Did you actually read them? If you had, you would have noticed that he showed exactly where his arguments were in the Bible, citing chapter and verse to back up his answers. At the end of this post, I shall be happy to give you examples, but I really would encourage you to read the excerpts from his sermon.

If you were to read the sermon I posted - and at this point, I have to assume that you have not done so - you will see that it lays out a clear case for the Bible proving God's approval of slavery.

I'm afraid that is quite incorrect; and at the end of this post, I shall show you why. Although, as I said, I wouldn't have to if you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, as he already showed overwhelmingly that the Bible does indeed approve of slavery, contrary to what you seem to think.

All you're showing is that you're not familiar with what the Bible says. Before entering a debate of this nature, you should at least have a passing familiarity with it.

Why on earth do you imagine I "need" to do that? The only reason I can imagine you'd say that is as a red herring to divert the conversation so you can avoid addressing the issues.
In fact, all I need to do to win the argument is point out how God is in favour of slavery. As in, actively promotes and encourages it, and considers it to be a good thing. If you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, you would have seen that he has done this already, in a compelling and convincing manner that you have, so far, not even tried to rebut.

I think this is breaking the forum rules about being polite. Engage with the arguments, please, not personal remarks.

Again: did you actually read what he said? Warren backs up all of his points with clear references to the Bible.

This is a quite inadequate response. Presented with evidence that you're wrong - ie, that the Bible does mean "slaves" in many of the cases in which it refers to "servants" - all you're going to do is hand-wave it away and say, "Well, who knows?"
Not good enough, I'm afraid. The Bible is talking about slaves. If it were talking about servants, it wouldn't tell you to beat them mercilessly and to to keep them and their children your property forever.

Why do you think I'll ignore it? Paul returned a runaway slave to his master. Yes, he entreated his master to free him, but had no guarantees that he would. For all Paul knew, he was sending Onesimus to his death. Hardly evidence that Paul, God or Christianity is anti-slavery. In fact, rather the opposite. He asked Onesimus's master to free him because Onesimus was now a Christian and a friend, not because he was opposed to slavery. There's no evidence that Paul, or anyone in the Bible including Jesus, actually saw slavery as a bad thing.

Now, let's get back to the key point: is the Bible pro-slavery, or is it not? I contend that it is, and will back up what I am saying. If you disagree, let's see your arguments.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
So we see, the Bible gives clear directions on how to keep a slave with you forever, by holding his family hostage.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Apparently the Bible is quite okay with you beating a slave to within an inch of his or her life. Just don't actually kill him.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
If a child is born to a slave, that child is born into slavery.

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
See? God is just fine with people buying slaves. He tells them how to enslave others.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Slave rebellion? Not a Christian idea at all. If you're a slave, it is your Christian duty to obey your master.

If you're really sincere in wanting to find the truth, you will engage with the verses I've shown. If you don't want to find the truth, you'll try to dodge them, or ignore them, or divert the conversation away from what the Bible says about slavery.

I’m at a loss to understand why you think this is an argument. You keep quoting some guy who delivered some of his opinions on the matter a couple of centuries ago, and for some reason you take them to be ‘what’s in the bible’ without any coherent attempt to explain why. Simply repeating things does not an argument make. How can you think it makes sense to discuss slavery without identifying and understanding the context in which slavery occurred? How does that make any sense?

Perhaps you need a parallel example you are able to think about more clearly. Something like the nuclear bomb, e.g ‘it was right/wrong to use nuclear weapons against Japan because...’. Or some other topic. An exercise like that will help you to understand that a string of random assertions is not an argument.

 

[Tom 1]

Exactly. @Tom 1 seems to think that God was opposed to slavery, but couldn't do anything to stop it.

.

I've been going on the assumption that you have a basic grasp of what is in the bible, as you said something like that at some point if I remember rightly. If not, we can do a walk-through. If you want to know what God approves of, you can look at the beginning and end of the bible, which makes it clear. In the middle is a species of damage limitation spanning several millennia, with a decision early on to end it all because it was so awful which then gave way to an intent to see it through regardless with an end point, conveniently also included in the same book, in mind. If you are unable to formulate an argument of your own about it and the relevant contexts, we can go through it step by step, after that you should be able to.

Nb there is no requirement to believe that anything the bible says is 'true' in any kind of supernatural, God exists sense.

 

[Tom 1]

You're the one who's refusing to engage the issue, and I can only assume it's because the evidence that God is in favour of slavery is so clear that you are unwilling to engage with it.

Did you actually read them? If you had, you would have noticed that he showed exactly where his arguments were in the Bible, citing chapter and verse to back up his answers. At the end of this post, I shall be happy to give you examples, but I really would encourage you to read the excerpts from his sermon.

If you were to read the sermon I posted - and at this point, I have to assume that you have not done so - you will see that it lays out a clear case for the Bible proving God's approval of slavery.

I'm afraid that is quite incorrect; and at the end of this post, I shall show you why. Although, as I said, I wouldn't have to if you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, as he already showed overwhelmingly that the Bible does indeed approve of slavery, contrary to what you seem to think.

All you're showing is that you're not familiar with what the Bible says. Before entering a debate of this nature, you should at least have a passing familiarity with it.

Why on earth do you imagine I "need" to do that? The only reason I can imagine you'd say that is as a red herring to divert the conversation so you can avoid addressing the issues.
In fact, all I need to do to win the argument is point out how God is in favour of slavery. As in, actively promotes and encourages it, and considers it to be a good thing. If you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, you would have seen that he has done this already, in a compelling and convincing manner that you have, so far, not even tried to rebut.

I think this is breaking the forum rules about being polite. Engage with the arguments, please, not personal remarks.

Again: did you actually read what he said? Warren backs up all of his points with clear references to the Bible.

This is a quite inadequate response. Presented with evidence that you're wrong - ie, that the Bible does mean "slaves" in many of the cases in which it refers to "servants" - all you're going to do is hand-wave it away and say, "Well, who knows?"
Not good enough, I'm afraid. The Bible is talking about slaves. If it were talking about servants, it wouldn't tell you to beat them mercilessly and to to keep them and their children your property forever.

Why do you think I'll ignore it? Paul returned a runaway slave to his master. Yes, he entreated his master to free him, but had no guarantees that he would. For all Paul knew, he was sending Onesimus to his death. Hardly evidence that Paul, God or Christianity is anti-slavery. In fact, rather the opposite. He asked Onesimus's master to free him because Onesimus was now a Christian and a friend, not because he was opposed to slavery. There's no evidence that Paul, or anyone in the Bible including Jesus, actually saw slavery as a bad thing.

Now, let's get back to the key point: is the Bible pro-slavery, or is it not? I contend that it is, and will back up what I am saying. If you disagree, let's see your arguments.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
So we see, the Bible gives clear directions on how to keep a slave with you forever, by holding his family hostage.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Apparently the Bible is quite okay with you beating a slave to within an inch of his or her life. Just don't actually kill him.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
If a child is born to a slave, that child is born into slavery.

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
See? God is just fine with people buying slaves. He tells them how to enslave others.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Slave rebellion? Not a Christian idea at all. If you're a slave, it is your Christian duty to obey your master.

If you're really sincere in wanting to find the truth, you will engage with the verses I've shown. If you don't want to find the truth, you'll try to dodge them, or ignore them, or divert the conversation away from what the Bible says about slavery.

Lol the truth according to...? You appear to be incapable of an objective reading of the text, so the only solution is a thorough walkthrough of the whole thing, although I don't hold out hope that you will demonstrate any ability or willingness to take an objective stance, going on the evidence so far. Where you get some of the notions of what you think I think I don't know - the bible quite plainly (nb you should also consider using a more reliable and up-to-date translation, the language seems to be confusing you, unless that is a deliberate choice) treats slavery as a basic element of life, it neither approves nor disapproves in any overall sense. Why might that be? Perhaps - wait - wow perhaps it is because slavery was a normal part of life for the entire period we know about of human history until very recently. Whudda thunk it? You appear to believe that something is actually achieved or demonstrated by you or I stating 'slavery is bad' or 'war is bad' or whatever else you want. This achieves literally nothing at all, and the sole thing it demonstrates is when and where we were born and grew up. That's it, nothing more. So, back to reality, let's take a look at the whole picture and see if you can formulate an actual argument without relying on the unsupported ramblings of some fella from the 1800s.

 

[Tom 1]

Why on earth do you imagine I "need" to do that? The only reason I can imagine you'd say that is as a red herring to divert the conversation so you can avoid addressing the issues.

Those are the issues - discussing slavery is a red herring to avoid discussing slavery? ? ? What?

 

[Tom 1]

This is a quite inadequate response. Presented with evidence that you're wrong - ie, that the Bible does mean "slaves" in many of the cases in which it refers to "servants" - all you're going to do is hand-wave it away and say, "Well, who knows?"
Not good enough, I'm afraid. The Bible is talking about slaves. If it were talking about servants, it wouldn't tell you to beat them mercilessly and to to keep them and their children your property forever.

Your understanding of this whole period and related issues is so basic I'm unsure why you engage in debate other than to ask questions.

 

[Tom 1]

Warren backs up all of his points with clear references to the Bible.

Nope, not at all. As I've asked you to do several times, him being your witness, please cite the relevant verses and your understanding of why they support his views. No more KJV please.

 

[Tom 1]

If you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, you would have seen that he has done this already, in a compelling and convincing manner that you have, so far, not even tried to rebut.

Suuuuurreee. Soooo convincing . Convincing in the way 2+2=5 would be to someone who didn’t know what numbers are. As you don’t seem able to explain why you find good old Pastor Warren’s argument so convincing, and you’ve taken to quoting sections of the Mosaic law, you can start with your views on the differences between God’s law and Mosaic law. If you’re not sure what those are I’d suggest Mainmonides and Philo to get you acquainted, then you can come back and explain why you think the Mosaic and related laws were not of their time. No dishonest selective quoting please, speak from your understanding of the division of laws and what that means in regard to your ‘god wrote it’ ideas.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Suuuuurreee. Soooo convincing . Convincing in the way 2+2=5 would be to someone who didn’t know what numbers are. As you don’t seem able to explain why you find good old Pastor Warren’s argument so convincing, and you’ve taken to quoting sections of the Mosaic law, you can start with your views on the differences between God’s law and Mosaic law. If you’re not sure what those are I’d suggest Mainmonides and Philo to get you acquainted, then you can come back and explain why you think the Mosaic and related laws were not of their time. No dishonest selective quoting please, speak from your understanding of the division of laws and what that means in regard to your ‘god wrote it’ ideas.

You say that it's "so convincing" sarcastically. But it looks pretty empty if you can't back it up. Because in fact, I think Pastor Warren does indeed make a very convincing case for the Bible and God being pro-slavery. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you just point out his errors for me?
Direct question: did you read the parts of Pastor Warren's sermon that I posted? If you didn't, then here they are again.
Of course, if his arguments are really as convincing as 2+2=5, I'm sure you'll have no trouble debunking them. I await your attempts with interest...

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.

…

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.
...
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 ….