Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > tangent  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 4/12/2004 10:42 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Victory,

Another view on Finney.

http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/articles/issue53.pdf


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

victoryword
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
 
   Posted 4/12/2004 10:46 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott

Wahoo,

Here are a couple of links to look at (hope they work right):

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188576717X/qid=1081789181/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2_xs_stripbooks_i2_xgl14/104-6950198-4205568?v=glance&s=books


Wow, looked at the reviews of that book on Amazon.com. If the people who gave it only ONE star are correct (and there were more one stars than any other rating), that book is full of HORSE-HOCKEY!!! Now I can see how people could believe that American slavery is justified after reading propaganda like that and actually believing it to be FACTUAL. Sheesh! Someone on Amazon recommended an alternative to the above:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807127582/ref=cm_custrec_gl_rec/104-6504500-4308768?v=glance&s=books

Well, anyways, I gotta run. If you guys are successful in having the slave trade restored then let me know. Okay?


If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com

Back to Top
 

victoryword
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
 
   Posted 4/12/2004 10:50 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake

Victory,

Another view on Finney.

http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/articles/issue53.pdf




Thanks Spen Lake but I have read enough of the stuff on the Twin City Fellowship site to know their views on Finney, Open Theism, and a few other subjects in which I know that I would strongly disagree with them on.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that I could take stock in anything that YOU recommend anyway being that in another life, I may have called you "massah". Don't take it personal. I just have trouble with anyone who would justify American slavery in any form. It sort causes me to close my ears to anything else that they have to say. Might just be a personal thing with me.

Ta-ta Spen. Have a great day.


If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 4/12/2004 11:15 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
VictoryWord,

You said:

quote:
That's exactly how Satan operates. After a person is redeemed from his slavery and brought into the Kingdom of God's dear Son, they often face a few trials. The thoughts that came to their head are, "Wow, remember when you were in the world? You had all that your flesh can indulge in. I fed you with the finest drugs, plenty of sex with just about anyone you wanted, nice material goods. Yet God won't let you have any of that. Look at you suffering for 'the gospel's sake."


I don't understand your point. Could you clarify?

Tigress,

You say:

quote:
Yeah but just because there's a relativism about preferences, doesn't mean that God is truly okay with it.


All I'm trying to say is, since different people feel differently about things, shouldn't we let the Scriptures be our guide?? If everybody questions the plain black and white of Scripture based on their own subjective feelings and preferences, how far could the Church get?? I'm asking why should I (or any Christian, for that matter) condemn the slave-holders of early America unless I/they have Biblical grounds for doing so?

quote:
He commanded them to free their slaves after every seven years.


He didn't require them to free Gentile slaves. If having a slave is a violation of the Golden Rule, then don't both the Old and New Testaments have contradictions?

quote:
Why didn't He just command them to provide for the widowed and unmarried, too?


He did make provision for the poor. Christ himself said the Law required mercy.



wjs

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 4/12/2004 11:54 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
VictorWood,

You say:

quote:
Wow, looked at the reviews of that book on Amazon.com. If the people who gave it only ONE star are correct (and there were more one stars than any other rating), that book is full of HORSE-HOCKEY!!! Now I can see how people could believe that American slavery is justified after reading propaganda like that and actually believing it to be FACTUAL. Sheesh!


Here's one:

quote:
As a Christian, I found this monograph to be wicked. The authors' use the Bible to justify southern slavery is pure evil, regardless of how "well" individual owners may have treated their slaves. This monograph literally made me sick to my stomach but made me aware that evil disguised as Christianity is unfortunately alive and well in the US.


The emphasized text of that review is in direct contradiction to Colossians 4:1, Ephesians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 6:2.

Another one is:

quote:
The first commandment was to "love thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind and all thy strength." The second is like unto it: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" I wonder how you can claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, love your neighbor, and make them a slave.


I ask you the same question I asked Tigress. Is the Scripture contradictory?? Love rejoices with the TRUTH. Is Colossians 4:1, Ephesians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 6:2 Scripture or not?

You close your posts with the statement: "If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting." What verses constitute scripture to you??

And BTW, have you ever noticed how many "1" ratings Greg Boyd's books get?? What does it really prove? Probably nothing more than that such books are polarizing because of the emotions involved.


wjs

Back to Top
 

Wahoo
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
 
   Posted 4/12/2004 12:55 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword

Interesting words from Charles G. Finney, who was one of America's most successful revivalists, soulwinner and Evangelists, and who was also a very staunch ABOLITIONIST:

Now, who can suppose, that in these days, such a man as John Newton could, even for a time, continue in the slave-trade without some compunctions of conscience? But suppose he should have no recourse to the Bible, and ask, "Were there not slaves in the days of the New Testament?" Why did not Christ denounce it? Slavery was known to the Apostles, Why did not they denounce it, if it were so wicked?

This is easily enough answered. But suppose men justify the slave-trade in this way? And in the Southern States of America this is very common. They forget that Christ had a previous question to settle before he could make any direct attack on the several sorts of sin. When Christ came into the world, instead of his mission being acknowledged, he had to debate every inch of ground. His divinity and divine mission demanded primary attention; it was necessary that the world should first recognize his authority to lay down regulations, and prohibit practices. It would have been utterly out of place for him to have attempted to set right social questions before he had established his authority to interfere with such matters. Again: it is said the Apostles did not denounce slavery. They, too, had a great question which demanded their first attention. They had to establish the fact of Christ's resurrection, divinity, and messiahship, as well as the divine authority of their own commission. This being done, they would naturally commend to the world the Scriptures of truth, and let them tell what things are right and what are wrong. Now, who does not see that it is a selfish evasion for a slaveholder to talk thus? It would have been absurd for him to have denounced any particular sins without establishing his authority to denounce sin at all.




According to Charles Finney the answer is so easy!!! Slavery was of a lower priority. But it was still hienous enough to ensure that participants were certainly NOT Christian.

I understand Finney is a classic evangelical, but I don't think he answers it here. Perhaps when he had to come up with an answer, when the issues were current events, he had to at least say something.

God wrote the book on the agricultural ideals for Isreal. What that included was the releasing of the bond-servant every seven years. But for some of those, they chose to stay with their master, and punched their ear to the doorpost of their master's house to show that they were going to stay there.

Wahoo
Back to Top
 

victoryword
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
 
   Posted 4/13/2004 2:12 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Many of you guys keep forgetting the main point - AMERICAN SLAVERY!!!!!

We are not talking about the VOLUNTARY servitude of Israelites who could be released every seven years. You guys CANNOT justify American slavery with the Bible, and the PROPAGANDA written in those books that have been recommended to make one feel as if American slavery was anything less than it really was does not justify what white men did to Africans.

But I am not going to argue with you guys anymore on this. You believe as you wish. However, being that I am an African American I don't buy into any of that crappola for one minute. I have studied enough history to know better. If your "god" condones the slavery that I read about in history (um, not the revised version by a couple of southerners who seem to want to justify American slavery) then you are serving the "god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4) and not the God of the Bible.

Latah


If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 4/13/2004 2:32 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Victory, the real main point is a different slavery.

2 Peter 2:18, "For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved."

If you have been freed from salvery to corruption and sin, then even amidst the tribulations of earthly abuse and suffering of whatever flavor, you are truly free. If, being free we only follow our own desires and feelings, then we become slaves of corruption that will end in eternal punishment. I would believe that many physical slave owners were actually slaves to corruption and that many physical slaves had freedom in Christ that their masters long for now.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

Wahoo
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
 
   Posted 4/13/2004 1:50 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I don't think or get the impression here that anyone is trying to condone any kind of slavery. What I understand is the question of why the Bible uses the language of slavery that it does. I have pointed out and I think others have also pointed out that the people who used the Bible texts with slave and servant language were clearly taking it out of context.

Now, just because some of us are not African American and we don't live with the reminders of that horrible time, does not mean that we are going to have such strong emotions about that. I am still trying to understand what happened then and why it still affects African Americans today. I hope that this is understood. Just because I'm not using strong language towards the issue does not mean that I am indifferent or that I would like to re-instate slavery.

I don't think anyone here has been out-of-line by talking about ALL that surrounds the question and the not-so-easy answer to it. I used slavery in a teaching once and it was very consistent with what we have been talking about. The audience was more than half African American and no one misunderstood what I was saying. Paul uses the language of the times to drive the message home. We've got to be all ears when it comes to that message. The context is 2000 years old and we live in such a materialistic and urge-fulfilling environment that we really have to push past alot of garbage to really understand. God help us all.

Wahoo
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 4/13/2004 1:52 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
VictoryWord,

I'm not trying to justify AMERICAN SLAVERY. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt to those American slave owners that may have been benevolent as Colossians and Ephesians describe. Why the benefit of the doubt? Because the Scriptures are not anything like as clear as you imply about the matter. Take, for example, your comment about VOLUNTARY Hebrew slavery - here's the actual quotation from Exodous which is not nearly as politically correct as you seem to suggest it is:

quote:
21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything. 21:3 If he came in by himself he will go out by himself; if he had a wife when he comes in, then his wife will go out with him. 21:4 If his master gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will belong to her master, and he will go out by himself. 21:5 But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my master, and my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 21:6 then his master will bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door, or the doorposts, and his master will bore through his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

21:7 If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she will not go out as the men servants do. 21:8 If she does not please her master, who has desired her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her. 21:9 And if he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her after the manner of daughters. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he must not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights. 21:11 And if he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money.



I'm going to have to go to a meeting and will not be able to respond soon. But to address just how difficult the issue is, I will pull out as many verses and their implications as I can. I will also look more into Roman slavery.

I am open-minded to change - but I, too, believe that views that can't be supported by Scripture are irrelevant.

You see, VictoryWord, your judgment of Spenlake, past Christian slave owners, and me is ALSO a moral issue, because such judgement is not warranted without Scriptural justification. As Romans says, every man stands or falls to his own MASTER. My master is Christ - and his Word/Scripture is my guide to judge people by and it should be yours.

Slavery is a thing of the past in America. Nobody that I know of advocates it's return. Thus, it is a dead issue PRACTICALLY. The only question we as Christians should be concerned with is, what do the Scriptures say about slavery. We should not be ashamed of whatever that truth ends up being, however politically incorrect it may be.


wjs

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 4/18/2004 2:46 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hopefully the formatting below will be decent.

Below are some excerpts from the article on slavery from ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. These are included to show similarities between slavery throughout history. I.e., Roman (or American) slavery was not uniquely cruel or benevolent as compared to slavery of other times. Keep these in mind when comparing the Mosaic regulations of slavery. I have emphasized text that is relevant to the discussion. Note especially the author’s admission that not all American (even Southern) slavery was malevolent – unless one regards slavery as intrinsically evil. The Scriptures do not, as will be shown below.

quote:
THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Sources of slaves

“Houseborn” slaves, however, enjoyed a slightly higher social status, and masters often supplied their slaves with “wives” or “husbands” in order to obtain them. An important source of slaves lay within the native population itself. At least from the 3rd dynasty of Ur in Babylonia (circa 2100 b.c.), and no doubt earlier, and from the Old Kingdom in Egypt (circa 2686-circa 2160 b.c.) self-sell or the sale of children in order to pay debts was widespread. Unlike the ordinary form of slavery, debt slavery was recognized as a social evil that should be held in check.

Many Babylonian kings, notable in the Old Babylonian period (circa 1800-1600 b.c.), issued decrees liberating debt slaves and abolishing public and private debt. The Hebrew sabbatical year (the 7th) in which Israelite debt slaves were to go free was paralleled in the Code of Hammurabi by which such persons were to be released upon completing three years work for their creditor.
It is not known how far and for how long these laws were observed, though Jeremiah castigates their evasion (Jer. 34:8-17). Poor Jews were forced to sell their children into slavery to pay their taxes after returning from the Babylonian captivity (Neh. 5:1-5).


Near East – Status of Slaves

Nevertheless, a slave was not a human being before the law but a “head” like an animal. He seems to have enjoyed no protection from his master, and if he was injured by someone else, the case was considered as one of damage to his master’s property. Hebrew law provided that if a master beat his slave to death and the victim lingered on for a day or two, the master went unpunished “for the slave is his money” (Exodous 21:20-21). In the circumstances, runaways were numerous, and in Babylonia the laws of Hammurabi prescribed death for harboring a fugitive; other societies, notably among the Hebrews were more lenient. Probably most masters found that it paid to treat slaves reasonably well, and sometimes inducements were held out to them, such as the privilege of retaining small gratuities or the prospect of ultimate liberation.
Greece and Rome

The doctrine of the Roman law was summed up by Justinian in the sentence, quoted from the 2nd century lawyer Florentinus: “Slavery is an institution of the jus gentium (law of nations), whereby a man is, contrary to nature, subjected to the ownership of another.” No other legal institution is expressly admitted to be contrary to natural law, but after this formal acknowledgement of philosophical theory, the Roman lawyers formulated the practical rules governing slavery without demur.
Sources of Slaves – Greece and Rome

The sources of slaves were many and varied. In primitive Athens and Rome, insolvent debtors might be enslaved by their creditors. This was forbidden by Solon at Athens in the 6th century B.C. and in the late 4th century B.C. in Rome. But the rule probably prevailed longer in many communities. With the extension of Roman law to the whole empire, slavery for debt ceased to be legal. In Greece, children exposed and abandoned by their parents became the slaves of those who reared them. Roman law varied on this point until Justinian in the 6th century declared that all exposed infants were free. Poor parents also sometimes sold their children. This was prohibited by Roman law but was nevertheless not uncommon, especially under the later empire; the sale of newborn infants was legally recognized by Constantine the Great. A freeman might, under Roman law, allow himself to be sold into slavery and could not reclaim his freedom if he was over 20 and had received a part of the price paid for him. A few offenses were punished both in Greece and Rome by sale into slavery, and under the empire a common penalty for crimes among the lower orders was slavery in the state mines and quarries.

The principal sources of slaves, however, were war, piracy and kidnapping, breeding, and import from barbarian lands. Victors in war always possessed, and frequently exercised, the right of selling captives. With the establishment of the principate (27BC) conditions changed, however. Under Augustus there were still wars of conquest and many thousands of barbarian prisoners were enslaved, but thereafter large-scale wars were rare. Peace reigned within the empire; piracy and brigandage were effectively suppressed and, without these two major sources, slaves could be imported only from beyond the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates. In these circumstances, slaves became rarer and their price rose. Breeding in these circumstances became necessary and profitable.
Apex of Roman Slavery

Slavery reached its high-water mark in Rome in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. Not only were slaves very abundant and cheap, owing to the prevalence of wars and piracy, but the Roman upper classes were immensely wealthy and were building up huge estates. The result was the introduction of agricultural slavery on a vast scale. The peasantry were progressively expropriated, and their lands either cultivated by slave gangs or converted into ranches manned by slave herdsmen. This is the only period of antiquity in which large-scale revolts occurred, in Sicily 135-132 and 104-100 BC and the rising of Spartacus in Italy in 73-71 BC, and the difficulty with which these revolts were suppressed proves the large numbers involved. Slaves were also employed on a vast scale in the mines; there are said to have been as many as 40,000 in the silver mines of New Carthage in Spain.

Social Conditions – Rome and Greece

It is obviously impossible to generalize on the condition of slaves in classical antiquity. All slaves were liable to the arbitrary cruelty of their masters; their only legal remedy was to escape to a sanctuary and demand to be sold to another master. Antoninus Pius (AD 138-161) ruled that the killing of a slave by his master was homicide, but Constantine (306-337) absolved the master if the slave died as a result of flogging. In practice there were great differences between various categories of slaves. In the mines slaves often were ruthlessly worked to death, and the chained gangs on the land were brutally treated. On the other hand, a private secretary or a nurse might be treated as one of the family, and a craftsman in charge of a workshop or a sea captain in command of a ship enjoyed de facto most of the rights of a freeman. Miners and agricultural slaves had little hope of freedom, while domestic servants could reasonably hope to be manumitted, and craftsmen and shopkeepers had a fair chance of buying their freedom.
The fact that slavery was universally accepted as a normal social institution made relations between slaves and masters easier. Slavery was regarded as a misfortune but not as a wrong, and slaves felt no resentment against their masters unless they were ill-treated.

Early Modern Plantation Slavery

Treatment of Slaves

…But the Roman Catholic clergy also tried to exert authority upon slave-owners on the spot. For example, the clergy encouraged Church marriages for slaves and opposed the separation of families. On the other hand, the Anglican clergy did not seem to show similar interests in the slaves, and in many British possessions in US States the law expressly prohibited legally binding slave marriages. But here too the situation in some cases changed under the influence of the Quakers and of certain Protestant dissidents.

A third difference came as a result of the attitude of the peoples themselves. As already noted, the Portugese and Spaniards had relatively far less race of color prejudice. Mating between white men and black women was a common phenomenon is all colonies. The rule elsewhere was that the child inherited it’s mother’s condition and consequently was born a slave. … In Brazil, where toleration toward the half-castes and even full blacks was much more in evidence, a number of free persons of African descent had reached positions of eminence even before the liberation that came in 1888; this, in turn, fostered still more the spirit of non-discrimination and had it’s effect on the condition of slaves, particularly those in direct contact with their masters. It would be excessive to say that in Anglo-Saxon territories, including the Southern United States, similar situations never occurred…
… The third [slave category] – and most numerous – included the slaves working on plantations. Here were the worst excesses, particularly if the estate was large and the absentee land owner had to rely on an agent who hired supervisors. Nonetheless, in order to maintain a balanced picture, one must always remember that published accounts usually dealt with either the best of worst examples. Probably on the whole the situation of slaves was not much worse than that of indentured laborers brought over from Europe. At times it might have been even better because the master had reason to take care of his slave who represented capital, whereas he had no similar incentive in regard to the laborer. But, of course, the condition of the slave was permanent and even hereditary, whereas an indentured man retained important rights under colonial rights and became free at the expiration of his contract.

Slave Narratives

In the 19th century, when their publication was encouraged by the abolitionists, the accounts, many of them based on oral relations, multiplied. Although some of these, such as Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman (1869), are factual autobiographies, in many cases the narratives are colored or sensationalized by the writer’s desire to arouse sympathy for the abolitionist cause. Such re-workings and interpolations are usually obvious. In some cases, such as The Autobiography of a Female Slave (1856) by Mattie Griffith, the account was entirely fictitious.


There are many Bible passages which directly sanction and regulate slavery. They deal with the sources of slavery, the benefit of doubt given to slave owners when punishing their slaves, duration of slavery, etc. From the Decalogue, which one can only assume are wholly consistent with loving God with all of the heart and mind, we have the following commands:

quote:
Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."

Exodus 20:10: "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"


The following verses imply that, since a slave is the master’s “money,” the master can legitimately punish disobedient slaves. Such punishment can accidentally result in death, but should not be punished as murder. But if the punishment inflicts permanent damage, the slave should be freed on account of that permanent damage instead of the master receiving the ordinary retribution of tit for tat.

quote:
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Exodus 21:23-27 "… thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."


Note how the property aspect of slavery is emphasized in the following Mosaic regulations:

quote:
Exodus 21:2-11: " If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."


The following verses show that OT women that gave their bondmaids as wives to their husbands considered the children sired thus as their own children.

quote:
Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."


The following verse shows that Gentile slaves could be owned unto perpetuity and their children could be inherited.

quote:
Leviticus 25:44-46: "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." (NIV)


This verse shows that poor Israelites could be sold to pay debts and provide retribution for theft, just like neighboring Near East countries (compare Matt 18 below).

quote:
Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."

II Kings 4:1: "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the LORD: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."

Exodus 22:2-3: " If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."


The following shows that the OT does not take an amoral approach to slavery – it distinguishes between legitimate and “evil” causes of slavery.

quote:
Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."


The following verses show that enslaving the captives of sanctioned war was legitimate:

quote:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her , and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Deuteronomy 20:14"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"


The following indicates that God was sympathetic to the unjust treatment of Gentile fugitive slaves:

quote:
Deuteronomy 23:15-16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."


The New Testament has verses that allude to Old Testament views of slavery and show that slavery is not intrinsically wrong or evil. The verses in Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy, and Peter are from epistles that speak clearly about love of God and man. It is thus contrary to a perspicuous approach to scripture to assume that the apostles sanctioned what they thought was contrary to love. Moreover, Philemon, to whom Paul deferred as to what should be done with Onesimus, is spoken of as one characterized by love.

quote:
Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, 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 eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to 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. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

I Peter 2:18: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."


But if slavery is not intrinsically sinful, it doesn’t follow that the institution of slavery should be embraced in a society where justice and retribution can be achieved without it. As the Britannica article showed, even pagan societies recognized the problems and abuses that tend to be associated with slavery.

There were attempts to stop slavery before the American War for Independence, but the King vetoed those attempts. By the time of the Civil War, slavery was a full-blown, entrenched institution. It seems highly probable that at least some of those slave holders that professed Christianity were indeed benevolent masters, just as the Britannica article concedes.


wjs

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 4/18/2004 2:53 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Great work Jeff. Your efforts are appreciated and helpful.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:10 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads