Slavery: Why did Paul....

We studied Philemon a few weeks ago in Sunday school. We were told that they slavery in bible dasy was different then we think of slavery today. When we think of slavery we think of black slavery in the 1800's. In bible times slavery was not like that. Slaves were not necessarliy a different race, and many were slaves becasue they owed money and they were working it off, slaves until it was paid. They didn't beat and torture slaves then, or at least it was against jewish law. If a man did not have a male heir, his male slave could be his son and inheirt,


oh, I was looking up a bunch of stuff for you, but gotts go with what I have now, I've gott o take my son to work, heres a site, not sure how good it is, didn't get the chance to read all of it. I have some more ideas if I can remeber them now.
http://web2.iadfw.net/~elo/news/slavery.html

Slavery was for 7 years only

 

Because slavery was the Law of the land.

 

The Bible would disagree with you. Exodus 21:20 says it's perfectly OK to beat a slave as long as they can walk again after a few days. Likewise, since slaves were inferior, the death penalty was waved for extra-marital sex with them (Lev 19:20-22). Thus, they could be used as sexual objects for a fee, and beaten senseless at a whim.

It's funny the kind of revisionist history that fundamentalists now have to do on the issue of slavery, but when you say that our concept of homosexuality has changed from the biblical era people get all up in arms.

Joshua

 

Slavery in the first century was entirely differen than most people think. Slaves were anything from gardeners to salesmen to accountants to teachers to doctors to civil workers. Many of them owned land and property and even other slaves. Many people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery because it was an easier life -- food, clothing, and a place to live were guaranteed for the slave while the freeman had to worry about it. The education that a slave received was better since his owner paid for it. Understanding slavery helps a lot of the misconceptions.

Paul's comments on slavery dealt with the slaves and owners responsiblity to be godly. What we learn is that Christianity did not set out to change the social customs. In fact, it very rarely even addresses them. It is intended to change the heart, from which social change would come.

Joshua's comments, once again, show a complete misunderstanding of Scripture. To equate slavery with homosexuality is an affront to slaves. Homosexuality is condemned in explicit terms, both in the old and new testaments. To twist the Scriptures the way you do is an affront to the Scriptures and to faithful ministers of the word.

 

Joshua wasn't equating slavery with homosexuality. He was talking about how people react differently when discussing how these issues have changed, not that the issues themselves have anything to do with each other.

 

slavery isn't wrong.

 

In the USA it is.

 

The Bible would disagree with you. Exodus 21:20 says it's perfectly OK to beat a slave as long as they can walk again after a few days. Likewise, since slaves were inferior, the death penalty was waved for extra-marital sex with them (Lev 19:20-22). Thus, they could be used as sexual objects for a fee, and beaten senseless at a whim.

It's funny the kind of revisionist history that fundamentalists now have to do on the issue of slavery, but when you say that our concept of homosexuality has changed from the biblical era people get all up in arms.

Joshua </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, I'm back,
and what I want to know is if Joshua makes it his career to jump people, becasue thats all I see him do on the BB.

 

where does the bible say that slaves are inferior? it doesn't, as far as i know.

lev 19:
20 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.

i think the death penalty for adultery was waived since to have killed the slave would have been unfair to the slaveowner in this case (a kind of theft, really) - and since the female slave was not killed, neither was the guilty man.

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

 

The Bible would disagree with you. Exodus 21:20 says it's perfectly OK to beat a slave as long as they can walk again after a few days. Likewise, since slaves were inferior, the death penalty was waved for extra-marital sex with them (Lev 19:20-22). Thus, they could be used as sexual objects for a fee, and beaten senseless at a whim.

It's funny the kind of revisionist history that fundamentalists now have to do on the issue of slavery, but when you say that our concept of homosexuality has changed from the biblical era people get all up in arms.

Joshua </font>[/QUOTE]Do you see any lessons in the old testament joshua? do you believe that this passage is from God in exodus 21/20 ?
how horrible it must be to read from Gods word and not understand human depravity vs. Gods holiness. Do you believe you could of wrote a better old testament bible? more humane? or maybe it is a metaphor?

i call on all liberal preachers and teachers to resign and leave their office

 

against the law, and arguably not a good idea (today anyway), but not wrong. god determines right and wrong, not our government.

interesting aside, the 13th amendment does not abolish slavery:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

it limits slavery to being a punishment for crime. compare:

Exodus 22
22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. 2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 3 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.

 

Well said -- but I don't see how this contradicts any example Bro. Joshua has used.

-Neil

 

I like having him around. He makes me think, and he keeps things interesting.

 

Katie,

I had no intention of jumping you. The person whose teaching you cited was in direct contradiction to the biblical record. I don't often get to be the one to point out that sort of thing - so I thought I would now.

In answer to your question about me jumping people, I do disagree with folks; but I also post when I agree with them (even if they're people with whom I'm generally in disagreement). I think you and I have even agreed a time or too.

I don't post as often here as I used to since the fringe-right quotient seems to have gone up exponentially in the past year. As a result, when I do post it's often because I've goten tired of reading post after post of "all baptists believe" or "all real Christians believe..."

Nevertheless, I try my very best not to attack people, only to challenge ideas. Regardless, if it seems like I was attacking you - I apologize.

Larry - I'm not equating homosexuality and slavery; I'm just saying that fundamentalists use opposite hermeneutics on the issue:

- on homosexuality: let's look literally at the texts and nothing else

- on slavery: let's use extra-biblical descriptions of the cultural setting to counter the plain reading of the text.

Joshua

 

Slavery is a political institution primarily. Christianity is not about overthrowing political institutions, for His Kingdom is NOT of this world. There are injunctions in the New Testament about how slave owners should treat their slaves.

Was slavery different then, in the Roman Empire? Not essentially, no. Don't mix up the Roman Empire, which was the political system of Paul's time with the ancient laws set up by God for the theocracy of Israel. Roman slave owners could kill their slaves or literally do anything they wanted with them.

Is slavery morally wrong? The New Testament indicates that it is, for there are no slaves in the new creation. So why has God permitted it, even in the theocracy of Israel? It, at the very least, is a picture. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. Sin is not a very good slave owner. The reality of the cruelty of real-life slave owners presented and presents an excellent picture of this! However a slave owner who is kind and considerate has slaves who are in a better position than a good many free men. This is also a good picture of life under the authority and ownership of Christ.

For Joshua to equate something about slavery with something about homosexuality is ludicrous at the least. Slavery in and of itself is not rebellion against God, although the way either the owner or the slave acts may well be. Active homosexuality, on the other hand, is direct and intentional rebellion against God.

 

Again, Helen, I'm pointing to the hermeneutic used.

Joshua

 

is marriage morally wrong?

no, not only is slavery permitted, but it is commanded in certain instances. our lord does not command evil to be done.

 

The only inconsistency here is you. We insist on the normal reading of the text in both instances. The cultural issues surrounding slavery should be taken into accoutn just like the cultural issues of homosexuality. The problem is that there are no cultural issues with homosexuality. Paul says that it is against nature and nature is not cultural; it is creative. It is you who uses an inconsistent hermeneutic, not us.

 

Hi SheEagle9/11. Paul did NOT send Onesimus back to be a "slave" as you suggest. He sent him back as a NON-slave to be recieved as a PARTNER as if he were Paul himself (v17). Accordingly, the book of Philemon illustrates Paul's REJECTION of slavery as seen through the eyes of early America. Thanks! latterrain77

[ July 04, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]