Slavery - is it Biblical or not?

Depends on what kind of slavery they were referring to- slavery to sin? Like you i am confused as to what 'slavery' in the common sense of the term has to do with America's problerms today.

 

I don't know much about him, but there was a civil war era American theologian named RL Dabney that the Presybterian/Reformed folks still consider a valid theologian apart from his racial/slavery views. It might be interesting to get his take on it.

In my reformed baptist days I recall looking through a catalog of books and came across on by him. The catalog folks sorta made an apology for his slavery views but considered everything else by him to be orthodox.

 

OK, I'll bite

Slavery is contrary to a couple of principles clearly laid out in scripture. The first is "Love your neighbor as yourself". It is hard to imagine loving yourself so much that you would want to be held, against your will, not being paid for your work and then sold to the highest bidder should one come along.

There is also the idea of mutual submission in Ephesians 5:21, how can you submit yourself to someone you own? Which is interesting because later on in that passage slaves are told to be obedient and masters are told to be nice.

It is clear to me that Paul is addressing a group of people in unique situation, slavery existed and Paul was trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

Let's not forget the progressive nature of revelation, God gave as humanity was able to absorb, building on the previous revelation

So no it doesn't say don't own people, but neither does it say don't jump off a 10 story building, doesn't mean it is a good idea just because it is not precisely spelled out as such. We where given a brain and expected to use it as well as a heart that is supposed to be compassionate toward one another.

 

With our modern concepts of freedom and human dignity, there is no way we don't slant the Bible in that direction. And when culture slants scripture, it may or may not be closer to its (scripture's) ideals. In the case of slavery and its condemnation in most of the world, I think it is closer to the scriptural ideals of all believers being brothers and sisters in Christ, being fair and paying the worker his wages [fair return], and showing no favoritism. It's obviously more expedient to meet these ideals with no slavery. Another problem, though, can come from thinking that if we no longer have slavery, in an affluent society we can enjoy inventions, buildings, fast transport and communication, et al, and we are not oppressors who keep people in a poor and miserable existence [i.e., "sweatshops;" undocumented workers doing the jobs the 'we' wont'] to satisfy our bottomless cravings for these things.

 

Just one argument from the point of view of enslavement.

The Bible seems to permit the practice of someone selling himself to pay or work off a debt. But the practice in modern slavery was to kidnap and enslave people. Exodus 21:16 says "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." These "man-stealers" are thrown in with murderers in 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

 

I think slavery in biblical times, and slavery we are more familair with are two different things.

 

I can't imagine owning one whom I am supposed to consider a brother or sister in Christ.

Christ left us with many examples of classlessness in the church, which would apply to our brethren outside of the meeting time as well.

Along with Alcott, I find it difficult to understand how "love thy neighbor" can allow you to own him.

We oftentimes hear people say, about their children especially, if you love them, you will let them go. It is said of dying people as well. Both of those have to do with freedom. A child is freed from his/her parents to grow into adulthood. A dying person is freed from the bonds of this sinful body at death.

If anyone is to be a slave to anything, it should be in the bonds of love in Christ.

 

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.

 

It is true that American slavery had features that contradicted Old Testament law. One of these, however was not "stealing people," as was alleged on the previous thread that gave rise to this one. If slaveholding equaled stealing people, then the Old Testament patriarchs and New Testament Christians were guilty of capital crime and deserved execution at the hands of God's servants, which is ridiculous.

I favor penal slavery. Crooks should have to work until they pay their victims back: the replacement cost of the goods they stole or damaged, plus a bonus for the distress they inflicted. This would also turn the illegal alien problem around so that those who create the problem become the solution.

Anything unbiblical with that?

 

I'll see your Deuteronomies and raise you two Leviticuses:

Lev 25: 44-45
They shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit [them for] a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Now who you gonna believe?

 

It was perpetual and hereditary, even for Christian slaves. It was reserved for nonwhites alone. And it contradicted biblical law in both the letter and the spirit in that the slaves were not properly protected by law against abuse. Sometimes laws were on the books, but there was not nearly enough enforcement.

Abuses occur in every type of relationship: parent-child, husband-wife, cop-noncop, pastor-parishoner, Southron-invader, etc. The fact of abuses does not argue for or against the legitimacy of the relationship itself. But in the case of American slavery, the persistence of a situation where abuses could not or would not be addressed and redressed renders moot any possible defense of the institution "in theory." "In fact" it was indefensible.