I do not see slavery as not permitted in the Scriptures.
It is allowed and obliged under the OT Israeli justice system, and the NT does not condemn it.
Your thoughts?
It is not "obliged" under the OT system.....The OT system has a set of laws and rules which regulate what is permitted, but it is not "obliged". Does that make sense? In other words... there were regulations established for how the already existing "slavery" system might be applied....but those regulations served to place the appropriate limitations upon how "slavery" might be properly applied....it does not, strictly speaking....establish slavery as a practice.
"Slavery" simply was not generally understood or practiced in the same sense in the ancient Eastern world as it was in the 17th-19th centuries in the Western World..... We have to divorce ourselves of the correlation between those two respective practices...In short, "slavery" as understood in the OT was more akin to "indentured servitude" or the working off of owed debt. It was not understood in the same sense as the somewhat racially centered and perpetual status as it was in the Western practice later understood by us (as Westerners) in the 17th to 19th Centuries.
As far as the NT is concerned...Christ did not, neither did Paul (see Philemon) condemn the practice (as understood in the Eastern world at the time). This is
NOT to be understood as a tacit agreement with it...it is simply that neither Christ nor Paul had, as their goal, some sort of moral societal reformation in mind. Christ (as you know) did not come to be a moral reformer, he wasn't Mahatma Ghandi, he came to save us from sin....Christ's "teachings" except as they referenced himself and his mission were not a morally ground-breaking set of teachings...Jesus (sorry to say) did not originate the "turn the other cheek" idea, nor was he introducing unheared of thoughts with "love your enemies" Buddha pulled that off centuries before Jesus. I always liked C.S. Lewis's quote here:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”[/U]
Hope this is decent "short" answer.....I could add more, but this is already as long as need be. Great OP question!!! :thumbsup: