Reparations

[Particular]

So you don’t see Ezra presenting a teachable principle unlike the author quoted in post #16?

Is the principle of the passage completely misrepresented by the author?

I don't understand your question. Are you referring to Ezra as the author or to the author calling for reparations for African Americans whose ancestors were forced into slavery?
If the latter, then, yes he is misrepresenting Ezra.

 

[Particular]

Darius was honouring the decree of Cyrus. Which he searched for. It seems that the persians were not great record keepers as the didn't know where it was. Josephus said he went to the archive houses from various places he went to for his history, but it seems the Persians were, not that organised.
Anyway, the law of the Persians and Medes changeth not so he was bound to follow Cyrus.

• Isaiah 44 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

If you follow the Persian-Greco conflict you will note that Persia is moving supplies at the same time as giving Jews passage to Palestine. Having the temple rebuilt is a wonderful guise for movement of troops and supplies westward.

 

[Reformed]

Go back to the OP and the follow up post #16.

We are looking for discerning the Scripture principles of reparations. Not the political discussion, but that which the Scriptures consider the believer should attend.

I choose a well known author and pastor of the “Gospel Coalition” to jump start the discussion.

The problem is that reparation is political. In the Old Testament, you read of nations conquered or defeated and the victor plundering their enemy (the spoils of war). There is no scriptural support for reparations in the way that Thabiti Anyabwile is proposing. A better question to ask is whether the Bible addresses this topic in a different way. It does if we are talking about how Christians are to treat each other. It does not when the context is about nations. As has already been brought up, the United States Federal government passed legislation and implemented programs that ostensibly were to benefit those in systemic poverty and who were denied equal opportunity, which included millions of Americans of African descent. Thabiti's article takes the passages he uses to defend reparations out of context. He does the same thing that black liberation theologians have been doing for decades.

The bottom line? The reason you are not getting any "principles of reparations" in scripture is that there are none.

 

[agedman]

I don't understand your question. Are you referring to Ezra as the author or to the author calling for reparations for African Americans whose ancestors were forced into slavery?
If the latter, then, yes he is misrepresenting Ezra.

The author uses Ezra as foundational to his establishing a principle that can be taught to the assembly.

How do you perceive that he used the passage(s) inappropriately, and what better rendering could be made for those passages?

 

[David Kent]

If you follow the Persian-Greco conflict you will note that Persia is moving supplies at the same time as giving Jews passage to Palestine. Having the temple rebuilt is a wonderful guise for movement of troops and supplies westward.

That is beside the point. His checking for the document of Cyrus was as a result the Jews request to him to honour Cyrus' decree.

 

[Particular]

The author uses Ezra as foundational to his establishing a principle that can be taught to the assembly.

How do you perceive that he used the passage(s) inappropriately, and what better rendering could be made for those passages?

I think his narrative is created by his personal desire for reparations. He then attempts to use Ezra as a prooftext. The king taxed his people, not for reparation to Jews, but because he was growing an army to attack Greece. The Jews were his cover for his bigger goal. God used that bigger goal to effectively fulfill his promise in bringing back and establishing a remnant in Israel. The passage is not about reparation. But, the author needs a prooftext for his own wishes.

 

[agedman]

The problem is that reparation is political. In the Old Testament, you read of nations conquered or defeated and the victor plundering their enemy (the spoils of war). There is no scriptural support for reparations in the way that Thabiti Anyabwile is proposing. A better question to ask is whether the Bible addresses this topic in a different way. It does if we are talking about how Christians are to treat each other. It does not when the context is about nations. As has already been brought up, the United States Federal government passed legislation and implemented programs that ostensibly were to benefit those in systemic poverty and who were denied equal opportunity, which included millions of Americans of African descent. Thabiti's article takes the passages he uses to defend reparations out of context. He does the same thing that black liberation theologians have been doing for decades.

The bottom line? The reason you are not getting any "principles of reparations" in scripture is that there are none.

This is an interesting point that you made!

Do the Scriptures not present any principle for guidance that can be taught the assembly?

 

[Reformed]

This is an interesting point that you made!

Do the Scriptures not present any principle for guidance that can be taught the assembly?

The assembly? Sure. Ephesians 4:28 can be used to teach those who used to steal to labor in order to bless others. However, that is in the context of the local church. Can that be applied outside the church? Yes. Can it be used to defend large-scale reparations? No.

 

[agedman]

The assembly? Sure. Ephesians 4:28 can be used to teach those who used to steal to labor in order to bless others. However, that is in the context of the local church. Can that be applied outside the church? Yes. Can it be used to defend large-scale reparations? No.

Good.

My own difficulty with using Ezra as a foundation is that is the only place in Scriptures, then neither principle nor even persuasion may be taken.

For such to occur, as you know, there must be precept built upon precept...

 

[David Kent]

I think his narrative is created by his personal desire for reparations. He then attempts to use Ezra as a prooftext. The king taxed his people, not for reparation to Jews, but because he was growing an army to attack Greece. The Jews were his cover for his bigger goal. God used that bigger goal to effectively fulfill his promise in bringing back and establishing a remnant in Israel. The passage is not about reparation. But, the author needs a prooftext for his own wishes.

Well if you believe the current teaching on chronology,* Ezra was in the reign of Artaxerxes over 80 years after that account. i.e. Between Ezra ch 6 and ch 7 there is at least 80 years, Interesting eh?

* I don't.

 

[agedman]

Well if you believe the current teaching on chronology,* Ezra was in the reign of Artaxerxes over 80 years after that account. i.e. Between Ezra ch 6 and ch 7 there is at least 80 years, Interesting eh?

* I don't.

ESV gives this chronology: Chronology of Ezra | ESV.org

James B. Jordan from Theopolis Institute gives these words:

The chronological problem in Ezra-Nehemiah boils down to this: On the one hand, the name lists in these two books lead us to expect that all the events in them took place in the reign of Darius; while on the other hand, the text calls the Persian emperor under whom Ezra and Nehemiah lived by the name "Artaxerxes," and Artaxerxes I (Artaxerxes Longimanus) reigned many years after Darius. We can resolve this problem one of two ways. The first is to strain the information given in the name lists in order to make it fit, this approach being the common one today. This gives us a long chronology for Ezra. The other way of resolving the problem is to hold that "Artaxerxes" in Ezra-Nehemiah is simply another name for Darius, giving us a short chronology. The long chronology is the establishment view today among both unbelieving and evangelical commentators. The short chronology has always been favored by Biblical chronologists.
​

He goes on to devote three essays to this matter:
(The Chronology of Ezra & Nehemiah, Part 1)
(The Chronology of Ezra & Nehemiah, Part 2)
(The Chronology of Ezra & Nehemiah, Part 3)


It is worth pondering the views.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I place thread in this forum rather than the political forum so that biblical principles may be explored rather than the debate over the politics.

Member of the Gospel Coalition author Thabiti Anyabwile, popular author and pastor wrote:

How might we define “reparations” in principle? I would define reparations as “material and social repayment made as acknowledgement and restitution by an offending party to an aggrieved party for wrong(s) done in order to repair the injuries, losses and/or disadvantages caused by the wrong.” Though these are my own words, I have in mind the work of William “Sandy” Darity at Duke University, who argues that reparations should have three aims: (a) acknowledgement of the wrongs done, (b) payment for the wrongs done, and (c) closure for both parties. (Reparations Are Biblical)
​

He gives these agreements:

1. Restitution is biblical. There’s disagreement about whether to emphasize the individual or groups, and whether repayment for the estimated cost in today’s dollars is feasible, but no one I know rejects restitution in principle (Exod. 21-22; Lev. 5; Luke 19:1-10).
2. A grievous wrong was done in the American practice of slavery. There are some fringe perspectives that deny slavery was “all that bad” or attempt to argue slavery was “for the African’s good.” But in general, most people think slavery was wrong and a grievous wrong done to African Americans.
3. Reparations was owed at some point. Even many of the opponents of reparations in today’s context will allow that reparations should have been paid to that generation of freed persons following the Civil War. Some would even cite Special Field Order 15and argue that had it been followed then we would not be in the predicament we are in today. However, after that generation of African American freedmen, agreement on reparations breaks down. (Reparations Are Biblical)

The purpose of this thread is to explore Scripture to validate or not Anyabwile's claims and to discern what practical participation or not the local assembly should take.

Again, this is NOT a political debate based upon opinion and agenda, but one in which the Scriptures are to be the deciding factors. This is also not a discussion of the biography of the author.

Your thoughts?

I can appreciate wanting to make this non-political, but it is made such, or made moot in bringing up "the American practice of slavery" of the past. If you wish to discuss modern human trafficking or false imprisonment (through false witness or prejudice), then perhaps the discussion could move forward, but perhaps we already agree on those.

What I would ask of anyone worried about reparations for "the American practice of slavery" of the past is whether they have in any way condoned, excused, advocated, practiced or participated in abortion. If they have, I would suggest they cease worrying about reparations and instead worry about those they have murdered or allowed to be murdered but cannot ever provide reparations to, only pay life for life. That realization should end the reparations discussion for practically all.

 

[MB]

Go back to the OP and the follow up post #16.

We are looking for discerning the Scripture principles of reparations. Not the political discussion, but that which the Scriptures consider the believer should attend.

I choose a well known author and pastor of the “Gospel Coalition” to jump start the discussion.

I just won't respond to any of your post then.
MB

 

[church mouse guy]

What about Islamic slavery today?

 

[agedman]

I just won't respond to any of your post then.
MB

Not what I desire!

It is necessary to keep the focus of this specific thread away from the politics, and it search and discern how believers may give a Scripture answer rather than political.

 

[agedman]

What about Islamic slavery today?

Not the issue of this thread.

What Scriptures can be used to establish principles in which the believers and assembly may use when addressing the topic.

The OP and Post #16 quoted a well known author’s presentation.

Some have made some very good points in rebuttal.

What do the Scriptures actually teach that can be used as a principle?

 

[agedman]

I can appreciate wanting to make this non-political, but it is made such, or made moot in bringing up "the American practice of slavery" of the past. If you wish to discuss modern human trafficking or false imprisonment (through false witness or prejudice), then perhaps the discussion could move forward, but perhaps we already agree on those.

What I would ask of anyone worried about reparations for "the American practice of slavery" of the past is whether they have in any way condoned, excused, advocated, practiced or participated in abortion. If they have, I would suggest they cease worrying about reparations and instead worry about those they have murdered or allowed to be murdered but cannot ever provide reparations to, only pay life for life. That realization should end the reparations discussion for practically all.

Actually, the politics concerning reparations should be secondary to the Scripture principle(s).

How can one set a standard before the assembly with no Scripture support?

Political decisions void of a Scripture principle are subject to whims and emotions.

Principles based on Scriptures do not easily change.

 

[church mouse guy]

Not the issue of this thread.

What Scriptures can be used to establish principles in which the believers and assembly may use when addressing the topic.

The OP and Post #16 quoted a well known author’s presentation.

Some have made some very good points in rebuttal.

What do the Scriptures actually teach that can be used as a principle?

OK, thanks. We are only talking about people who purchased African slaves in the USA and how Americans can pay reparations, right? I would add that the Islamic slave traders past & present have done nothing wrong because Islam teaches that slavery is okay, right? The obvious answer is to pass legislation to pay money to all blacks in the USA, right?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Actually, the politics concerning reparations should be secondary to the Scripture principle(s).
How can one set a standard before the assembly with no Scripture support?
Political decisions void of a Scripture principle are subject to whims and emotions.
Principles based on Scriptures do not easily change.

If you were to do what I suggested instead of ignoring it, you might make some progress. Focus it on current issues: human trafficking, false imprisonment, and the like.

You are not going to resurrect those who were enslaved or those who enslaved them. You are raising a moot issue leading to a deadend. The best you could do on that point is study the history of what was done at the time, why (or on what basis) it was done, and see what might have or should have been done differently.

This pretending that nothing at all was ever done is a lie, no matter how much Scripture you throw at it. In your quest here, you are already buying into the politics of it whether you admit it or not.

 

[Reynolds]

This thread once again presents a discussion of an obvious fallacy. My great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather undoubtedly shot native peoples at Tippecanoe. They certainly mortally wounded him. But should we hold the children accountable for the sins of the father? What does the bible say.

And as a new creation is Christ, all of my sins are forgiven.

Some unstudied voices say "visiting the iniquities" to the fourth Generation supports holding children accountable. Not what the phrase means. The consequence of sin can adversely affect others in subsequent Generations. But the solution is not to fan class or race warfare, rather it is to forgive and remember no more forever.

Pay no attention to false doctrine from false teachers.

Deuteronomy 24:16 ESV
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Exodus 34:7 ESV
Keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Ezekiel 18:19-20 ESV
“Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

John 9:1-3 ESV
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Thats Tha I pointed out the Indian.