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.”
This seems to be a missquote, the relevant passages, instructions for slaves and masters, are in the next chapter:
'slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, obey them not only (etc) but as slaves of Christ...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 favouritism with him.'
Slavery itself is not questioned. It would be surprising if it had been, slavery was as much taken for granted at the time the letter was written as child labour for developed world conveniences still is today.
The Christian teaching, as you may be aware, is of an inner kingdom, as here:
Galations 3:23-ff
'Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith...there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus...Abraham's seed'.
You can read Hebrews if you want to know what is meant by being Abraham's seed (hint - it has nothing to do with slave-owning).
As you can see the law (Mosaic law) was intended as a temporary state, a significant element in the development of Israel as a nation that both reflects and to some limited extent defines the times and customs it developed within. Christ preached a fulfilment of the law (God's law) and in part by means of mosaic law given greater expression, an ideal, as in the beatitudes and the story of the good Samaritan, for individual commitment to the way of love for your neighbour. It is a high ideal indeed, and while far less prescriptive in detail than mosaic law, it is much broader in scope - the 'go and do likewise' appended to the story of the good Samaritan, the division of the sheep and the goats - very few people live up to this spirit of the law to the fullest extent standard. Whether or not a person was a slave, or a slave owner, or of this ethnicity or that or this gender or that are not considered relevant, this is an ultimate standard set for all individuals to interpret within the context of their own life.
This also is temporary, a staging post on the way to the ultimate fulfilment of God's plan, as we could call it, in a return to a state of harmony in which any considerations of the ancient or modern world and how to live in them become irrelevant.
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.
Er no. What? Where?
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.
This is just random nonsense. The 10 commandments (Sinai) mention none of this, the story of Noah mentions none of this. Christ and his apostles no more instituted slavery than they instituted the wearing of clothes or making bread, neither did they promulgate it, encourage or discourage it, or anything of the sort, beyond the exhortation to each individual to consider the circumstances of his or her life in the light of the gospel. A couple of his apostles did regulate it in a very limited sense, although certainly not in the sense implied here of them being in some way involved in the regulation of the laws of the land, but to call slaves to be obedient and slave-owners not to threaten or treat slaves badly, as above. Warren's view on this is thoroughly misleading.
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.
Uh, no. All Semitic peoples descended from Shem. This is a Southern Baptist notion of history, taking elements of Jewish theology and history and bending them to fit other scenarios. Whoever 'instituted' slavery it happened way, way before the writing of the book of genesis. Really if you want to understand this passage you'll need to read a lot more widely, as there are far too many relevant points to summarise here. For a modern take you can familiarise yourself with the work of David Rosenberg (there's a partial introduction to his work here:
In the Beginning) but really if you want to understand any of this there's no substitute for reading Philo and Maimonides. That way you get what was meant by Jewish people writing about Jewish law and culture rather than the views of some pompous character with an agenda.
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.”
This is just garbage. The linking of this idea directly to canaanites 'because they lived there', as if this were some homogeneous group, is a total fabrication, as are the other random speculations about descent. The Hebrews, as they were variously taken captive and enslaved at various points, also took slaves from various other cultures and small communities at different times, as did every other culture. For the clearest picture of what this would have looked like a reasonably comprehensive idea can be taken from the long periods of conflict both within early Mesopotamia and later conflicts between the Sumerians and the Edomites, and the rise of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires. To state it again: yes the Hebrew nation, like every other nation known of from the time, practised slavery. Warren's trite notions about Canaanites (etc) however only reveal an ignorance of history.
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.
1. Nope
2. Yes
3. By Mosaic law
The government was fully organized at Mount Sinai.
No, it wasn't. If we follow Warren's logic to its actual conclusion, then we could say that 'the government' (in reality a loose conglomerate of individual clans and families with some people appointed to resolve disputes) was organised decades after Sinai, shortly before Moses passed on. The reality of the situation however is much more complicated, the coming together of it into what we recognise today as the identity of the early Jewish nation didn't happen until the period of exile in Babylon, and Philo and Maimonides (among others) were still codifying and interpreting the mosaic laws centuries later. Warren's basic notions aren't worth writing down on toilet paper.
It guarantees to the slaveholder the peaceable and unmolested right to his slave property
Yes, slavery was a common practice throughout the entire period in which the OT and NT were written, although unmolested is not entirely true under the NT. Christians are required to search their own conscience, and through 'constant use' work out what is good and what is bad. It's pretty unlikely that anyone living in the ANE would have considered slavery an abomination per se, but it is also likely that on an individual level some would have given freedom to a Christian brother or sister for personal reasons.
On a related issue, something you have sort of alluded to, yes both the Hebrew nation and the Church are/were concerned with the Hebrew nation and the Church. These things are the business of the Hebrew Nation and the Church, the invitation to become part of the church is as open to all as was the possibility to become part of the Hebrew nation before that. What the rest of the world does is what it does - neither Judaism or Christianity ever concerned itself with the laws of other empires or states or whatever before Christianity became part of the state, beyond promoting charity and so on, which happened under Judaism (see Philo) as it has under Christianity and Christian-influenced states, and in the waging of war (and other actions) against other nations in Jewish history and under 'Christian' authorities, which at times led to the temporary imposition of (generally relatively humane) laws over other groups.
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.
It's certainly possible Abraham owned some slaves, however the idea that anywhere outside of Game of Thrones a force of trained fighting men and herdsmen responsible for huge flocks would be roles assigned to slaves is codswallop. There's a lot you can look into on this, but if you've ever served in the military or farmed you will/would understand how absurd this idea is, particularly given Abraham's mobile lifestyle. These are not things that were entrusted to slaves, but this is where the term 'bondsmen' is perhaps the most useful, i.e. people who essentially lived their whole lives to provide service to a patron who in exchange provided food, shelter, protection and status etc. Some skilled artisans, scribes, independent traders etc had more options but for many average persons committing your life and welfare to a wealthy patron was the best available option.
He alluded to it frequently
Where?
