Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Slavery begins to end in Philemon (below) in the New Testament, which is the inevitable application of the radical "in everything" in Matthew 7:12. (Interesting to see the verses before and after this one, and I recommend to you the NIV
I'll quote it with nearby verses:

11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

-- Jesus, our Savior, the Christ, in Matthew 7 ESV

Notice the 2 different outcomes in verses 13 and 14! (Some may need to read the entire chapter again, with a listening attitude, so that they absorb for example verses 7: 21-27) Only some 'Christians' (it's not enough to pretend to believe for social advantage, etc.) are going to make it into the narrow gate He tells us. The others go to the other outcome.

Here's the (very short) 1-page letter to Philemon:
Philemon 1 NIV

Before freedom, instead of leaving immediately, Paul and Peter had written earlier to slaves to stay and show their masters Christ in the slave's actions, so as to help convert and save those very same slave owners.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
And it's on this EXACT point that you flounder in that, from my perspective of Critical Realism, ALL engagement with a text, of any kind, requires various acts of 'interpretation.' There is no 'reading' without an accompanying evaluation of the symbols of communication and an act of 'interpretation.'

What other way would [you] 'interpret' to beat for life, have as property for life, etc..?

So, my problem with your whole project is not so much centered upon the Bible itself but in what I think is your deficient praxis by which you handle ANY text, and not just the Bible. And until we can agree on the epistemology involved (and from what I've seen so far, I'm not sure we can), we're at a logger-heads BEFORE we even flip-open something like the Bible to peer into its statements about "slavery."

Please answer above? It's pretty simple. I think, if we are both honest, that the Bible allows slavery, practically in any form, as aforementioned. If you would just admit this, and also reconcile the fact this seems to be at direct odds with the said 'Golden Rule', we can then move forward attempting 'interpretation' of the many other topics :)
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And notice how in Philemon our Onesimus, the former slave, is now the full social equal (not half way, but total) to his former master Philemon.

Even today in America, only some Americans treat the poor or disadvantaged as our full equals.

Only some Americans do Matthew 7:12 fully -- more than just when it's pleasant or easy or fits our worldly interests, but all the time.

In fact Onesimus would go on to become a bishop in the church

Saint Onesimus --
Onesimus - Wikipedia

 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
And notice how in Philemon our Onesimus, the former slave, is now the full social equal (not half way, but total) to his former master Philemon.

Even today in America, only some Americans treat the poor or disadvantaged as our full equals.

Only some Americans do Matthew 7:12 fully -- more than just when it's pleasant or easy or fits our worldly interests, but all the time.

In fact Onesimus would go on to become a bishop in the church

Saint Onesimus --
Onesimus - Wikipedia

Such responses remind me of the movie "Gladiator'. 'A slave has become more powerful than the emperor!'

What be the reason for 'God' allowing the beating of slaves for life? If one is to be a slave, for life, how are they later considered an equal???? Slaves are, by no means, 'equal'. Quite the contradiction you raise :)
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
ah! It will help to know the scripture tells us mankind has evil as well as good tendencies, in our 'hearts' (nature). They are totally unavoidable.

That is, we are in true freedom, but since we have a fleshly body, animal, we can hurt others as we strive for what we think is our own gain.

So, how would a situation of humans who are naturally both good and evil, and have universal slavery around the world, all nations -- and by the way, which continues in the shadows in the world today in most all nations in 2019 -- how would slavery be ended?

Not by giving a Law so high past where our culture is that we would just ignore it (and consider: how many ignore Matthew 7:12 even now?....).

Instead, baby steps were needed -- a progression, over time, to change us.

Until the ultimate revolution was ready, and came. The One Who can transform even the worst sinner (wrong doer) that has been years in their wrongdoing ( such as taking advantage of others in a hundred different little ways for instance) -- and radically change them from the inside out.

See? God would actually end slavery in actual outcome over time. (because the real outcome of this life is actually on the individual level on the Day of accounting all will face after this brief existence here).

Not make an empty law that would be ignored like others were.

God didn't want to merely make an advanced new Law that would be ignored, as even the 10 commandments were ignored and broken by Israel.

Broken over and over and over, until some where just entirely discarded in actual practice.

No.

God was going to, and has accomplished, forming a Way to truly change us, so that instead of ignoring what is Good, we might begin to live towards what is Good, from inside ourselves.

The only way that can work for most people.


But I'm not. 'Slavery of 'good.' :)

One of my points is that it is the 'Christians' which seem to speaking out of both sides of their proverbial mouths.

You can test this in two simple ways...

1. Compare the 'Golden rule' to the said slavery passages.
They are in stark contrast to one another, as I would assume (you) as well, would not enjoy being beaten for life, treated as property for life, and passed down as property for life (allowed and approved by your God all mighty). But maybe you are into that sort of thing? Which I then ask, why aren't you then seeking such an arrangement? Unless I'm mistaken and you are? Because I doubt it would be very hard to arrange as such, would it?

2. If slavery was 'good', I would not have stirred up a 'hornet's nest' in attempted 'defense' of the topic :) You would just role your eyes, and consider me ignorant; like a small child whom makes an unwarranted claim you simply dismiss as naive.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Such responses remind me of the movie "Gladiator'. 'A slave has become more powerful than the emperor!'

What be the reason for 'God' allowing the beating of slaves for life? If one is to be a slave, for life, how are they later considered an equal???? Slaves are, by no means, 'equal'. Quite the contradiction you raise :)

Because this life is short and temporary, God tells us, and there is an eternal Life coming where all wrongs will be made right, and all the captives free.

But not all will be ready for that eternal Life. This world is a place of selection in effect. Almost like a course, with a test (it's not quite enough metaphor, it's too simple, but it's part of it). But the Teacher helps the sincere student profoundly, to qualify and become ready for that kind of Life.

Having talked in the other response just above about the key question of what is the practical way to end the historical universal slavery (that would actually work, instead of doing nothing) -- to end slavery over time in the world in all regions (under the constraint of the condition of human free will, instead of only making an empty law that would be ignored --

There was a progression of laws in the Old Testament -- baby steps.

Because, evidently, only baby steps work.

Let's pause here. Can you see that? One way to see it is to look at secular law today in the U.S. It is very much like Old Testament Law -- incrementally progressing, and very detailed.

With notable progression of steps like this one just below that instructed Israel to do things that no other nation did normally (and it's not just optional, but Law from God, Himself):

15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."
Deuteronomy 23 ESV

Some commentaries:
Deuteronomy 23:15-16.--REFUGEES.
Thou shalt not deliver . . . the servant.--Even on Israelitish ground the escaped slave was free. Rashi adds, "Even a Canaanitish slave who has escaped from abroad into the land of Israel."
----
Verses 15, 16. - A slave that had escaped from his master was not to be given up, but allowed to dwell in the land, in whatever part he might choose. The reference is to a foreign slave who had fled from the harsh treatment of his master to seek refuge in Israel, as is evident from the expression, בְאַחַד שְׁעָרֵיך, "in one of thy gates," i.e. in any part of thy land. Onkelos, עֲבִד עַמְמִין, "a slave of the Gentiles."
----
from: Deuteronomy 23:15 Do not return a slave to his master if he has taken refuge with you.

We can expect this had some corrosive effect on slavery in the entire region. :)

God set up an Underground Railway in effect.

But about 3,500 years before the Northern Abolitionists (many Christians) did here in the U.S.

But human nature isn't easy to change!

Think on that just a moment -- it's not easy to change human nature.

This is why Christ had to come, to change us from the inside out.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Isn't this what I implied in my post to InterestedAtheist (i.e. #47 above)? I understand what you're saying; but really, your interjection here is beside the point since, if slavery isn't right or wrong, then the 'moral complaint' against it--in whatever form it may take--is a moot one. No, the interior axiom that is provoking the vitriol on all sides here is the assumption that: slavery is wrong at all times, at all places, in all forms, no matter what.
Well, I get why we should all do some work to understand why it is we don’t think slavery is ever acceptable, but the OP was careful to make that a separate issue to the point of the thread. Unlike atheists, Christians are beholden to scriptures, so it is a fair point to ask Christians where their contempt for slavery comes from when it is accepted in scriptures, and it is a red herring to ask an atheist the same thing in response.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God's law is forever. Where in the NT does it then state, in the future, to no longer own slaves? Jesus never mentions as such. He instead tells slaves to obey their masters.

Furthermore, owning someone as property, is owning someone as property. Especially when you are also given 'carte blanche' to beat them, just short of death, (as long as they are not Hebrew). So yes, it would appear the Bible too 'may' present racism, in the sense that if you are not a Jew, all bets are off.

The NT forbids capturing people as slaves and also commands against selling oneself into slavery (which were the two methods slaves were made at the time).

It also outlines a treatment and consideration of the slaves one may already have had when one became a Christian that makes slavery incompatible with a Christian life.

Kind of the way the NT does not explicitly condemn abortion, but early Christians had realized by the second century that both slavery and abortion were incompatible with a Christian life as given by the NT.

It does not command waging war against Rome to end the Roman institution of slavery.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry, but this entire response is nonsense.

God has no problem telling humans not to murder, not to steal, not to trespass, not to lie, etc.... Again, if God simply told humans not to ever own other humans as property, or never mentioned 'slavery' as such at all, we would not be having this discussion.... Yes, people might still take slaves, just like people, whom are believers in the Bible, still choose to kill, steal, lie, etc, in spite of Biblical instruction not to do so...

However, I find your response rather comical, in the sense that you are stating God wanted humans to 'progress'. If this were true, He would not have laid down the law, from the jump, about many other topics ;)

Why 'slavery' specifically? I'll tell you one reason why... Because I reckon such slavery passages were ultimately written by men whom asserted 'cosmic justification' for their actions of owning other humans as property. "God allows it, so I'm justified.'

I think that's an issue to be taken up in Jewish forums.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, I get why we should all do some work to understand why it is we don’t think slavery is ever acceptable, but the OP was careful to make that a separate issue to the point of the thread. Unlike atheists, Christians are beholden to scriptures, so it is a fair point to ask Christians where their contempt for slavery comes from when it is accepted in scriptures, and it is a red herring to ask an atheist the same thing in response.

I think a better investigation is how and when Christians started relying on the OT to justify slavery, when the early Christians had never done so before and had abandoned it in the first two centuries.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What other way would [you] 'interpret' to beat for life, have as property for life, etc..?
In what other way would I interpret that passage? Well, you ask this as if there is only one way to interpret that passage, but there are several ways to do so in today's world, but since we're so far removed from the time, place, persons and culture of the person who wrote these verses, I tend to think that not all of these ways are entirely correct in and of themselves; on the other hand, neither do I think the obverse of this: that all of these ways are completely wrong in and of themselves on all points.

For instance, I could take up said passage in Exodus 21 and then just read it as you seem to do, just arbitrarily off the page in an “excised” manner. Or, I could respectfully approach the text, realize that I don't have ownership over it, that it belongs “elsewhere and elsewhen” and in the realization that I'm displaced from it person, place, time and culture, seek to under the passage as best I can as a Modern Day American, Liberally Educated, white-man [...that's "white-man," with a little 'w' by the way, or more accurately, just caucasian man, little "c," in case you're interested.].

Of course, that's just the trick, isn't it? We're gathered here today over the union of text and textual interpreter due to your own inquiry, so this whole issue of “slavery as ordained in the Bible,” as it is presented in your thread, is pre-contextualized socially by what you bring to it in your reading and, indirectly, by your own experiences of bigotry you've had in your own life. And I say this not even knowing whether or not you are, as your avatar seems to imply, an African-American man. Perhaps you are; perhaps you aren't.

How am I going to interpret Exodus 21, you ask? I'm going to it by taking into account the varied perspectives I've gleaned from different interpreters, not all of whom will share my preferences for interpretation. So, while on one hand, I'll readily adopt the principles of Critical Realism and apply philosophical Hermeneutics so as to approach the text in question in a more holistic manner, on the other hand, I'll acknowledge that the interpretation of the whole Torah and its inherent issues of slavery, and the fact that white people have claimed to be Christians themselves but have used the Bible to justify not only the [former?] North American slave trade of the Modern World, but also notions of racism wherein white people have trodden over the back of black men, women and children, among others.

So, in taking all of this in mind as a Hermeneuticist, an ethicist, and as a student of Social Science, I'll probably interpret Exodus 21 in a way that is sensitive to the thought forms of ancient Hebrews/Israelites, all the while remaining open to the recommendations and social praxis of someone like James H. Cone, among others. :cool:

Now, maybe you can tell me something: How does one carefully balance and moderate a beating, or how hard or softly does one beat his servant or maidservant, so as to obey Exodus 21:20,21 on the one hand, and Exodus 21:26,27 on the other (in addition to any other O.T. Laws that apply along with the interpretive, even re-interpretive, force of which their legal adjudicators will apply, as mentioned in Exodus 18:21-26?)

And as for those troublesome verses in Leviticus 25, I think I'll interpret them in the same way as I do those above from Exodus 21.

Please answer above? It's pretty simple. I think, if we are both honest, that the Bible allows slavery, practically in any form, as aforementioned. If you would just admit this, and also reconcile the fact this seems to be at direct odds with the said 'Golden Rule', we can then move forward attempting 'interpretation' of the many other topics
clear.png
Forgive me if I say I honestly don't think that ANY of this is simple, ever.

As for the Golden Rule, we'd have to understand what it is predicated upon; it's not as if Jesus just pulled it out of thin air and said to his disciples, “Hey, listen to this! I've got a new idea!”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, I get why we should all do some work to understand why it is we don’t think slavery is ever acceptable, but the OP was careful to make that a separate issue to the point of the thread. Unlike atheists, Christians are beholden to scriptures, so it is a fair point to ask Christians where their contempt for slavery comes from when it is accepted in scriptures, and it is a red herring to ask an atheist the same thing in response.

And surely, if you understand that Christians are 'beholden' to Scripture, then that state of being beholden comes with some inherent social accountability, not just as an afterword, but a priori going into the whole interpretive process of any human work.

And for me, as a Hermeneuticist, this means that there are always socially relevant strings [i.e. contexts] attached to the things we state, or to the things we think we're merely asking. There is no such thing as an 'a'political speech-act. So, no it isn't a red herring by any stretch of the imagination. If this was the case, everyone together could just as well say they don't care that slavery of any form is in the Bible. But if it seems to "make a difference" that slavery is indeed in the Bible, then it's never just an issue that, especially in today's world, can just be broached in a neutral fashion.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm sorry, but this is not talking about any type of 'slavery.'

I did not claim it did, but you conveniently disregarded what I posted as a guiding principal, noted.

Yes, 'the word 'slave' can also be used figuratively. Such as, 'I am a slave to my craft'.

I mentioned nothing about using the word 'slave' figuratively. Different forms/types of slavery does not equivocate with using the term figuratively.

A 'slave' either means 'legal property of another whom is forced to obey.'

By this simple definition a child of a parent can be considered a slave.

Or, to 'work extremely hard.' Etc... The verses mentioned do not specify as such. You are 'show-horning' the word 'slave' in there to throw off the sent.

Between homeless starvation and working hard, most sensible people choose working hard and shelter.

The verses you bring up instead exhibit stern requests to love this entity. And later, when Jesus comes along, is when He drives such verses home, when 'Mark' writes passages such as:

'15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'

Which is not so much about 'slavery', but instead a threat.

No, the verse I posted is not a request, it is a command from the Most High authority over all other lesser authorities...masters, lords, kings, etc. The passage you quote from Mark is less of a threat and more of a promise.

If this is the case, let's not abide by any other 'suggestions', 'commands', or 'proclamations'. All we need to know is 'two commandments'.

This assumes we know more than God and we should be the highest authority.

Attention everyone, 99+% of the Bible is no longer important.

You do realize your statement above is a overt demonstration of disregard for context? And shows a wholesale disreguard for the role of the Bible on abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Newton.

Hopefully I can work in time to respond to the rest later, time will tell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, the Bible regulates slavery.

If by 'regulate', you mean that it does not clearly define slavery in general, allowing 'all forms of slavery' but does distinctly specify and clarify the 'allowances' of lifetime beatings, lifetime human property ownership, and lifetime inheritance, all provided as the only caveat that you are not a Jew, then yes, the Bible 'regulates' it.

It does not mean it condones any of this thereby, or think it moral, merely that it is there and should therefore be considered and limited in some fashion.

Um, then we are clearly miles apart, as to what the word 'condone' means. I'm using the 'classical' definition:

condone - accept, allow, and/or approve

Otherwise, again, it would either not mention slavery at all, or state humans are not to own other humans for life. You know, something to that affect.

In fact, the Do unto others is explicitly applied to Onesimus, a runaway slave, that he should be treated as a brother. Just as Mosaic Law applied systems for Divorce, systems were in place for Slavery - a universal human institution at the time. In Eden though, where was the slavery? Where are the slaves in the Parousia? He who is first shall be last, and all that.

Let's say the government tried to legalize any form of slavery today. Would you be able to reference a Biblical verse, which would disallow as such? The answer is no. This may even hold true for forms of slavery [you] may not 'like' or agree with.

With Christianity, Slavery is a strength to the Christian Apologist - no other society ever abolished Slavery but Christian ones, or under direct threat of Christian Powers' gunboats or attempts to Westernise. So if we acknowledge Slavery an Evil, than only Christianity ever stood against it. Other societies usually praised the taking of slaves, the dominating of your fellow man - only in Christianity was this in fact considered a flaw, a lack of mercy, as such.

If you look at the history of the Abolition movement, it was spearheaded by Britain ending the Slave Trade - and all of this was done via Churches and Churchmen. Even in the American expansion, Churchmen were the chief opponents of slavery, like Las Casas. Wherever the Christian religion went in Europe, Slavery dissappeared: First in the old Roman Empire, then Germanic lands and finally Slavic lands, into some alternate relationship like Serfdom usually, before free peasantry arose. They started slaving again during the Age of Discovery, but from the start many churchmen opposed this - though the Catholic Church eventually acquiesced to the inevitable. This evil was then finally crushed by the highly religious 19th century Abolition movements onward, even stopping Islamic slavery. The secularists of the Enlightenment never cared, just read Voltaire or Hume and their low opinion of black Africans. In fact, Voltaire invested in African slavery. We also see the sudden reappearance of slave labour amongst the secular and atheistic regimes of the 20th century, like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, with rapidity.

The Bible certainly regulates slavery, as it regulates other instances of human greed and sin. It nowhere says it is a good thing, nor do Church Fathers ever say so - usually attributing it to the Fall - and the proof of the pudding is in the Eating: Christianity is the most wholesale anti-slavery movement in human history, resulting in the liberation of millions from bondage and responsible for the fact that people, even the secular, today acknowledge that owning another human is a bad thing.

The decision to abolish slavery, and the 'command' to allow slavery are NOT one in the same ;)

Meaning, making slavery illegal does not go against the Bible. It was not a command, in the sense that God told people they 'must' own slaves. It instead 'allowed' for such practices without telling humans they were committing 'sin.' However, on the flip side, deciding to legalize practically any form of slavery, is also justified, under the 'Christian umbrella.'
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I did not claim it did, but you conveniently disregarded what I posted as a guiding principal, noted.

I did no such thing. What I mean is that, even though the Bible does not clearly define what constitutes as a 'slave' or 'slavery', such a response does not seem to be relevant. It instead commands or asks that humans 'love God'.

By this simple definition a child of a parent can be considered a slave.

Sure. But as I stated prior, the Bible does not clearly define the term 'slave'. So even though I can rattle off a multitude of definitions, and also add 'ETC', you can still disagree :) But some things are detailed. Which is, what one is allowed to do to slaves. (i.e.) beating for life, owning as property for life, and passing them down to their next of kin for life. Again, provided you are not a Jew.


The passage you quote from Mark is less of a threat and more of a promise.

I agree. Just like a Mafia boss 'promise' :) 'Pledge allegiance' to me, or you will surely be punished.
 
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

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
In what other way would I interpret that passage? Well, you ask this as if there is only one way to interpret that passage, but there are several ways to do so in today's world, but since we're so far removed from the time, place, persons and culture of the person who wrote these verses, I tend to think that not all of these ways are entirely correct in and of themselves; on the other hand, neither do I think the obverse of this: that all of these ways are completely wrong in and of themselves on all points.

For instance, I could take up said passage in Exodus 21 and then just read it as you seem to do, just arbitrarily off the page in an “excised” manner. Or, I could respectfully approach the text, realize that I don't have ownership over it, that it belongs “elsewhere and elsewhen” and in the realization that I'm displaced from it person, place, time and culture, seek to under the passage as best I can as a Modern Day American, Liberally Educated, white-man [...that's "white-man," with a little 'w' by the way, or more accurately, just caucasian man, little "c," in case you're interested.].

Of course, that's just the trick, isn't it? We're gathered here today over the union of text and textual interpreter due to your own inquiry, so this whole issue of “slavery as ordained in the Bible,” as it is presented in your thread, is pre-contextualized socially by what you bring to it in your reading and, indirectly, by your own experiences of bigotry you've had in your own life. And I say this not even knowing whether or not you are, as your avatar seems to imply, an African-American man. Perhaps you are; perhaps you aren't.

How am I going to interpret Exodus 21, you ask? I'm going to it by taking into account the varied perspectives I've gleaned from different interpreters, not all of whom will share my preferences for interpretation. So, while on one hand, I'll readily adopt the principles of Critical Realism and apply philosophical Hermeneutics so as to approach the text in question in a more holistic manner, on the other hand, I'll acknowledge that the interpretation of the whole Torah and its inherent issues of slavery, and the fact that white people have claimed to be Christians themselves but have used the Bible to justify not only the [former?] North American slave trade of the Modern World, but also notions of racism wherein white people have trodden over the back of black men, women and children, among others.

So, in taking all of this in mind as a Hermeneuticist, an ethicist, and as a student of Social Science, I'll probably interpret Exodus 21 in a way that is sensitive to the thought forms of ancient Hebrews/Israelites, all the while remaining open to the recommendations and social praxis of someone like James H. Cone, among others. :cool:

Now, maybe you can tell me something: How does one carefully balance and moderate a beating, or how hard or softly does one beat his servant or maidservant, so as to obey Exodus 21:20,21 on the one hand, and Exodus 21:26,27 on the other (in addition to any other O.T. Laws that apply along with the interpretive, even re-interpretive, force of which their legal adjudicators will apply, as mentioned in Exodus 18:21-26?)

And as for those troublesome verses in Leviticus 25, I think I'll interpret them in the same way as I do those above from Exodus 21.

Forgive me if I say I honestly don't think that ANY of this is simple, ever.

As for the Golden Rule, we'd have to understand what it is predicated upon; it's not as if Jesus just pulled it out of thin air and said to his disciples, “Hey, listen to this! I've got a new idea!”

Huh?
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And surely, if you understand that Christians are 'beholden' to Scripture, then that state of being beholden comes with some inherent social accountability, not just as an afterword, but a priori going into the whole interpretive process of any human work.

And for me, as a Hermeneuticist, this means that there are always socially relevant strings [i.e. contexts] attached to the things we state, or to the things we think we're merely asking. There is no such thing as an 'a'political speech-act. So, no it isn't a red herring by any stretch of the imagination. If this was the case, everyone together could just as well say they don't care that slavery of any form is in the Bible. But if it seems to "make a difference" that slavery is indeed in the Bible, then it's never just an issue that, especially in today's world, can just be broached in a neutral fashion.
Hmm, I want to grant you that this is a very good point, but something just doesn't sit right with me. Yes, we’re asking not out of mere academic interest but true concern that Christians get their morals from a book that condones slavery, but that doesn't have to be a moral concern on our part, as you seem to be suggesting. Why isn’t it sufficient to have pragmatic objections to a situation in which a significant portion of the population take a slavery-condoning book seriously as a moral guide? Even if I think morals are nonsense I have good reasons to be uneasy about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
The NT forbids capturing people as slaves and also commands against selling oneself into slavery (which were the two methods slaves were made at the time).

Just curious which verses you are referencing? But even still, there exists plenty of NT verses which 'allow' slavery', with no clear definitions of what a slave is and is not.

It also outlines a treatment and consideration of the slaves one may already have had when one became a Christian that makes slavery incompatible with a Christian life.

No, it would only be deemed 'incompatible', if God forbid such practices, like He 'commands' of many other practices.

Kind of the way the NT does not explicitly condemn abortion, but early Christians had realized by the second century that both slavery and abortion were incompatible with a Christian life as given by the NT.

You mean like the same common knowledge one developed, in not stealing, not killing, or not trespassing? But for some reason, God had to still state specific laws as such, not to do so?

Again, if the Bible never mentioned slavery, or simply stated not to own others as property, case closed. One simple line. Can you find as such? The answer is no. It instead allows for it. And as stated in my OP, I think I may have a sneaking suspicion as to why.


It does not command waging war against Rome to end the Roman institution of slavery.

Please see above.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
And surely, if you understand that Christians are 'beholden' to Scripture, then that state of being beholden comes with some inherent social accountability, not just as an afterword, but a priori going into the whole interpretive process of any human work.

And for me, as a Hermeneuticist, this means that there are always socially relevant strings [i.e. contexts] attached to the things we state, or to the things we think we're merely asking. There is no such thing as an 'a'political speech-act. So, no it isn't a red herring by any stretch of the imagination. If this was the case, everyone together could just as well say they don't care that slavery of any form is in the Bible. But if it seems to "make a difference" that slavery is indeed in the Bible, then it's never just an issue that, especially in today's world, can just be broached in a neutral fashion.

Hmm, I want to grant you that this is a very good point, but something just doesn't sit right with me. Yes, we’re asking not out of mere academic interest but true concern that Christians get their morals from a book that condones slavery, but that doesn't have to be a moral concern on our part, as you seem to be suggesting. Why isn’t it sufficient to have pragmatic objections to a situation in which a significant portion of the population take a slavery-condoning book seriously as a moral guide? Even if I think morals are nonsense I have good reasons to be uneasy about that.
I think the Bible is a pretty good repository of moral teachings......

1. IF you view it as the record of a people's moral evolution.

2. IF you presume that our proper moral evolution did not somehow stop cold when the Bible was canonized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
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
Status
Not open for further replies.