1

Unfortunately, the only way that slavery ended in the 19th was by reforms made by the citizens of given a country where there was a demand for slaves. Once the demand dried up, due to a societal rejection of slavery, the supply did as well.

I think a combination of missionary work on the part of the Church and, in the case of the national governments, putting contracts on the heads of those tho engage in the slave trade is the best solution. Economically, you are then attacking supply and demand.

2

David, yours is an excellent point; however, I think one of the problems of modern day slavery is that we are viewing in terms of its historical counterpart. Prior to the nineteenth century, slavery was a very mainstream, face-to-face institution.

Now, everywhere it operates it is operating in shadow--and it is likely operating without the explicit cultural or political sanction of the nation within the borders of which the traders operate.

I first became aware of the problem of slavery in the international community, but what shocked me was the prevalence of the peculiar institution in our own country. In shady corners of forgotten locals from Florida to New Jersey immigrants and non-immigrants are held against their will and prostituted or farmed out as forced labor. The problem is that in a globalized economy, the demand is no longer geographically proximate to the supply.

Sex tourism has boomed as perverse North Americans invade countries like Thailand for weekend encounters. Products are mined or grown by slaves on the coasts of Africa and in the heart of central Europe and then shipped to major U.S. corporations. The problem Joe brings up is a different one than faced us in the nineteenth century. Like terrorism it is decentralized and harder to control.

Thank you for the coverage, Joe. It is important that evangelicals once again lead this movement--it is a respect for human dignity that drives it.

3

'For the price of a bomber or a battleship, the amount of slavery in the world could be dramatically reduced.'

questioning they way governemtns spend money on the military versus social programs? (and the US being by far and away the largest) wow i'm in shock.

4

Fighting terrorism and slavery is the same battle. If we succeed in spreading liberty and freedom to the Muslim world, slavery will cease to exist.

Or we can do it the liberals' way. Send $500 million to the United Nations and watch it get flushed down the toilet, then watch them come back for more.

5

Kevin,

Fighting terrorism and slavery is the same battle. If we succeed in spreading liberty and freedom to the Muslim world, slavery will cease to exist.

The flaw in your conclusion is the assumption that all slavery occurs in the Muslim world. While I agree that fighting terrorism will have a significant impact on human trafficking in Arab countries, I don’t see how it can change slavery in our own nation.

Or we can do it the liberals' way. Send $500 million to the United Nations and watch it get flushed down the toilet, then watch them come back for more.

I agree that using the UN to achieve global abolition is the wrong approach. I would prefer that we allow NGOs to do the monitoring and back them up by the force that can only be provided by individual nation-states.

6

>It’s time that modern-day evangelicals once
>again take our place in the struggle against
>slavery.

First step: Take your copies of Left Behind, Late Great Planet Earth, Armageddon Oil and the Middle East Crisis, and all your marked-up End Time Prophecy charts to the shredder or the fireplace and shred or burn them.

When "The Rapture" is coming yesterday at the latest and "it's all gonna burn", why bother doing anything like fighting slavery? Or anything that requires more than thirty minutes into the future? After all, it's not "soul-winning" or anything "spiritual", is it? Just Witness! and Study Scripture! and constantly Praise the LOORD! while the slave coffles trudge to market and the weak, sick, and uppity are "culled"...

7

Kevin & Joe:

I have heard that the Koran either commands slavery as a Divine Right or has passages that regulate slavery that are interpreted by literalists as Divinely sanctioning/commanding slavery among Muslims.

Can anyone confirm this?

I do know that the "slave belt" of modern Africa stretches from Mauretania to Sudan and its biggest foreign customers are Libyans & Saudis -- all Muslim countries. (Sudan pays its "army" of tribal militias and janjaweed by letting them slave-raid infidel villages on their own time. During Livingston's time the "Arabs" (both true Arabs and/or African Muslims) ran the slave trade throughout Africa, and it looks like they've made a comeback.)

8

Yes, Ken, you're right. But Joe is too. If you can fix Islam, most slavery will go away. Along with terrorism.

Question is, can Islam be reformed? The historical evidence is not promising.

9

Joe,

Thanks for the post. I've got election burn-out and have been counting the days when we can all get back to other important issues.

This is a topic that has been on my mind, and I've been wondering what practical steps an individual can take to counter it. I hope that all Followers of Christ take actions to do justice for the oppressed.

10

Aw shucks, I was hoping to see how DS would try to argue against you on this one...

11

A little off topic but most people do not know that during the "dark days" of slavery the country of Brazil imported far more Africans to work in their plantations than we did. Perhaps 4 or 5 times as many. So, my guilt ridden friends, step back & get some perspective.

12

Ken wrote, "I have heard that the Koran either commands slavery as a Divine Right or has passages that regulate slavery that are interpreted by literalists as Divinely sanctioning/commanding slavery among Muslims."

It might be useful to note that the Bible does not directly forbid slavery. 1 Peter 2 speaks of slaves submitting to masters, even those who are harsh. In this way, you suffer as Christ suffered. Ephesians 6 describes slaves their service as to the LORD. Notably, the call is for masters to give up "threatening", i.e. slavery as we knew it in America. Likewise, Paul does not demand that Onesimus because of the inherent sinfulness of slavery, but Paul asks him to release him as a beloved brother rather than as a slave because of his service to the LORD.

There are so many other chinks in the islam armor. I fear the abolition of slavery is a weaker argument than, say, the right to life, subjugation of women, etc.

13

according to the old testament, we, the chosen ones, (used to be isreal, but now it is america, goys and all) can own slaves from neighboring countries. i wonder how much a canadian costs? good white meat, probably taste like chicken. the old testament also says that homosexuality is a sin.

14

'Question is, can Islam be reformed? The historical evidence is not promising. '

can christianity be reformed away from the bastardized pauline doctrine to the original teachings of christ? unlikely.

15

Gedi writes

"I fear the abolition of slavery is a weaker argument than, say, the right to life"

I'd say the abolition of slavery argument in the Bible is conspicuous in its absence unless, of course, you want to bring up all those "do unto others" verses that make Jesus sound like Mr. Rogers and other limp-wristed wimps that couldn't wield a sword if their lives depended on it.

With respect to the "right of life," there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that its authors anticipated blastocysts, stem cells, or in vitro fertilization. Nor does the Bible speak to whether a raped women is entitled to end her pregnancy or not. Nor does the Bible speak as to whether a woman who has the choice between giving birth and risking her life or health must choose to give birth. Of course, none of that is surprising given the indisputable fact that the Bible presents a weaker argument for "the abolition of slavery ... than, say, ... the subjugation of women ..."

Nevertheless, certain Christians will tell us that the Bible is 100% clear on these points. Why? Because that is what their religious leaders have told them that they must believe or else they risk being cast out as non-believers by the frothing crowd of Bible-thumping robots.

16

>A little off topic but most people do not know
>that during the "dark days" of slavery the
>country of Brazil imported far more Africans to
>work in their plantations than we did. Perhaps
>4 or 5 times as many.

And in the Caribbean and other tropical slaveowning countries, they had to keep importing because their animate property kept dying on them. Haiti was the worst in this regard -- the average life expectancy of a slave was only 5 years or so from time of arrival. (When you use anything up that quick, you have to keep replacing it constantly.)

Larry:

Cut the Christian-bashing. After quite a period of "that's the way we've always done things/fish don't know they're wet" cluelessness, just which civilization not only got the idea that slavery was wrong, but actually acted to abolish it?

17

Slavery in the British Empire was nearly eliminated in Victorian times. It was a pet project of Prince Albert, an obsession, really. His justification was religious. His influence is also one of the reasons the Confederacy never got the alliance they wanted with Britain. Colonial oppressors or emancipators? History is messy, it rarely falls into the neat, simple narratives we prefer.

18

Larry,

I thought we really had something, bro. We agreed earlier today. I could sense a cosmic realigning of the cosmos. Then *poof*, all gone.

Ken and Terry,

I wasn't implying that the religion of peace, Christianity, isn't single-handedly responsible for the abolishment of slavery in Christian lands like America. You had just requested, Ken, for qu'ranic support for slavery. I simply wished to suggest that such a tactic might not be advisable given the lack of condemnation in the Holy Bible. Rather, I would suggest hitting them with such verses as:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." qu'ran 9:5

This typically is enough to discredit the supposed "religion of peace" and make the adherent storm off in protest mumbling something about infidels. If you want more, I can continue quoting from their Satanic book ad nauseum. God bless, Ken and Terry

19

Larry Lord wrote, "With respect to the "right of life," there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that its authors anticipated blastocysts"

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" - Jeremiah 1:5

God bless you, Larry Lord. Have you ever wondered about God's plan for you?

20

Larry,
What are your opinions on the issue of modern day slavery? I think this, above all, is a post that everyone that reads Joe's site can agree about. For once it may be possible for us to be uniformly positive.
John

21

"I would prefer that we allow NGOs to do the monitoring and back them up by the force that can only be provided by individual nation-states." Joe Carter

You ended well with the force part being provided by nation-states.

Why do we need NGO's to do the monitoring? How about reporters travel to these countries and report what is happening. Or eye-witness accounts from bloggers in those countries? Or congressional hearings? The monitoring is not really the hard part.

The NGO's are addicted to crumbling situations. If things get better they have to give up their mercedes. Pity the Mercedes dealers.

22

As much as we malign our MSM, the free press is likely the best weapon against this. This practice cannot exposure to the light.

23

Leviticus 25:44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. "

Exodus 20:20-21: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Now, which book is more "Satanic": the Qur'an, or the Bible? And, furthermore, why do Christians criticize Justice Taney's by-the-Book interpretation in Dred Scott?

24

Jim quoted Leviticus 25:44 and Exodus 20:20-21.

Jim, these verses are clearly descriptive of God's will toward His people throughout history. No Christian today sees these two verses as prescriptive for how they are to behave. Perhaps Jews would view it differently. However, Muslims believe wholeheartedly that the Qu'ran in its entirety is prescriptive for today. Verses like these are to be followed to the smallest detail:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - qu'ran 9:29

The list of Satanic verses prescriptive for the muslim of today is endless.

In sharp contrast, Christians are left with a legacy of descriptive verses from the Bible such as the ones you quoted. However, Christians are not prescribed ANYWHERE to kill, slay, or enslave anyone. We understand that we are already slaves to sin in need of salvation through Christ Jesus. As such, Christians do not look with trepidity upon slavery. Rather through our submission to the will of God, we are to humbly serve all men. We take for our example, Christ Jesus Himself who being God, took it upon Himself to become man and serve mankind. He took it upon Himself to be a slave for us. Christ exhorts us, "And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all." Again Christ exhorts us, " So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have only done what was our duty.'" "Remember the word that I said to you: 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

Paul's words are clear, "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.
You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."

This is why nearly every epistle, Paul's letter, James', Peter's, and Jude's, begin with the word, X "a slave of Christ Jesus".

As servants of Christ we are above nobody, we are all brothers. This is the argument Paul uses to try to free Onesimus, a slave of Philemon.

"For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever,
no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother- especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord."

Thus while the Scriptures do not explicitly forbid slavery as a sin in and of itself, it exhorts Christians to serve all men, seek freedom ffor all men in Christ, and when God gives you authority (be it serving as a government official, boss, master, father or mother, etc.) you execute this authority in humility and meekness, not with brutality and force.

The Qu'ran is Satan's word. The Bible is God's Word. God bless you, Jim.

25

Gedi, you appear to be not taking the literal word of God seriously. Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly states:

"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."

To me this is clearly a reason that slavery is ok. If in your view God changed his mind, this clearly states that God is a moral relativist.

26

Of course immediately preceding the Exodus 21:21 is Exodus 21:20, When a man strikes his

slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be

avenged. But Envoy, Gedi, and Jim, you've also failed to factor in the historical

context of the passages quoted, which is that it is an allowance, not an approval. To quote

from Matthew 19:1-8 on the issue of divorce:

Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the

region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife

for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the

beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and

his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? So they are no

longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to

send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to

divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Gospelcom.net has a useful article on slavery in the Bible,

which you can find here.

I'll take a relevant passage:

The regulation that is listed after the severe sentence for the killing of a slave has

troubled me for years because it seems too lenient. It reads, "But he [the slaveowner] is

not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his

property" (Ex. 21:21). A beating that incapacitated a slave for a day or two was quite

severe. But I have come to the conclusion that there may have been other factors to

consider. We must realize that the owner may have been providing food and lodging for the

captured or purchased slave and had a right to expect some return on his investment. Then

too, no matter how well the slaves were treated, some might have been rebellious and

defiant. Forgetting that they were alive because they were taken as war captives instead of

being executed, they might have blamed their master for their slave status. They might have

shown their resentment by destroying property, abusing fellow slaves, or refusing to work.

The master may have had no other way to bring his slave in line than to use physical

punishment.

The law imposed no fine on the owner who punished a slave so severely that he couldn't

work for a day or two. But this doesn't mean he got off scot-free. He paid a penalty,

because he received no work from the slave until he was healed. It cost him financially,

the same as if he had injured a free fellow Israelite. Note what Exodus 21:18-19 says:

If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held

responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must

pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely

healed.

The law provided no compensation for emotional anguish, but it made the same demand for

the injured person, whether slave or free. The man who inflicted the injury was liable for

the money that the injured person lost by his inability to work during the time of

recuperation.

The law in Israel afforded the slave further protection from being physically harmed.

Exodus 21:26-27 stipulates that if the master destroys an eye of the slave or even knocks

out a tooth, he must set the slave free. This law showed God's concern for the personal

humanity of the slaves. He wanted them to be treated humanely, as men and women with basic

civil rights like the rest of Israel's citizens. To enforce this law, an injured slave

undoubtedly had the right to appeal to the court of elders against his own master.

The fact that a slave was an expensive commodity afforded him some level of protection and

a built-in penalty. And here is another pertinent passage taken from Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live

among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.

Now, what does that say about the Bible's attitude toward slavery? I suggest you read the rest of the Gospelcom.net article. It seems to provoke some thinking.

27

@#%$#@#&^%$ the formatting issues...

28

David, for all you juggling, you still haven't talked your way out of proving that the Bible justifies slavery. I quote:
"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."

29

So studying the cultural context and background of a text is juggling? And for all the boldness of your statement, you haven't answered the points I presented. But anyway, to answer your quote...

There were distinctions made between the Israelites, who were under the covenant, and foreigners, who weren't. And since the Israelites were set apart to be a community in communion with God, making your fellow countrymen a slave doesn't exactly foster a sense of community.

But the people who they could purchase as slaves already had to be slaves in the first place, unless they were at war with a specific nation and allowed by God to take them as slaves. It isn't as if you could take free foreigner off the street and clap him in irons.

30

gedi,

'Jim, these verses are clearly descriptive of God's will toward His people throughout history. No Christian today sees these two verses as prescriptive for how they are to behave.'

so why is homosexuality a sin? it is only mentioned in passing once in the old testament.

31

i still want to know why i can't own canadians, or better yet, the french, being as they are our enemies now.

32

David writes about historical context: "...is an allowance, not an approval."

I fail to see the distinction. God's "allowance" is a tacit form of approval; otherwise, He's letting the Israelites continue sinful behavior, if slavery truly is morally wrong. (The same goes for polygamy.) The harsh words about all sorts of abominations in the Levitical code do not equate slaveholding with any other immoral practice; this significant omission clearly shows that God, in His wisdom, did not consider it immoral.

Setting different moral standards that are merely "better" than the surrounding culture, rather than wholesale different, is moral relativism in the classic sense; you're claiming that something is moral because it is "better," rather than moral because it is inherently good. Simply because I steal less than Enron execs does not excuse my petty theft, or make it "moral."

David writes further: "There were distinctions made between the Israelites, who were under the covenant, and foreigners, who weren't. And since the Israelites were set apart to be a community in communion with God, making your fellow countrymen a slave doesn't exactly foster a sense of community."

Neither does enslaving people from foreign lands, who often had different beliefs, etc. "Fostering community" seems to be a poor moral criterion.

Note that the key issue--that a slave, in the Old Testament, is considered property--has not been addressed.

33

tommythecat wrote, "so why is homosexuality a sin? it is only mentioned in passing once in the old testament."

It is mentioned more than once. We have the New Testament as well which speaks against homosexuality. God bless, tommythecat.

34

Jim Anderson wrote, "Note that the key issue--that a slave, in the Old Testament, is considered property--has not been addressed."

You are weaving and ducking on me Jim. Your original post was the Exodus passages in light of the Dred Scott decision. Do you now see how Christians can hold the Old Testament as God's Word without seeing it prescriptive for a Christian today, i.e. fight against slavery rather than support slavery? God commanded the Old Testament priests to wear pomegranates. We do not anymore (none that I know of). God's relationship with mankind has changed. However, it does not invalidate God's previous relationship with mankind (Exodus). If you understand this point, your last issue is moot, would it not be?

God bless, Jim!

35

gedi,

I would buy your "progressive revelation" perspective if the New Testament had a clearly different take on slavery. But its words are no less exculpatory of the practice, exhorting slaves to submit to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves kindly. There are no calls to end the practice, to free the slaves one might own; there are only calls to take freedom if granted, and to be a nice slave boss. Ephesians, Titus, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter... the message is remarkably consistent.

I submit that to say that slavery is immoral is entirely outside the Biblical moral framework. Where, in the classic lists of sins, is slavery condemned? Where, in the Ten Commandments, is slavery condemned? Where, in the teachings of Christ, is slavery condemned? The New Testament is a cultural document, imbued with the beliefs of its time; that it should see no problem with slave-owning merely shows that for its authors, the practice, if regrettable and not ideal, is certainly within the bounds of morality.

Thanks for the civil tone of discussion, gedi; I appreciate your willingness to debate reasonably and patiently.

36

Jim, I am glad we can agree that the totality of the Old Testament may not necessarily be binding for Christian ethics of today.

Reports such as the one from gospelnet.com above make me bristle when I read them. How does the fact that the Middle East condoned slavery during the time of the prophets have any effect on whether or not God condones brutality towards slaves, ala 19th century America? Isn't God larger than the socio-economic context of any one individual, even if that individual is Abraham, Jacob, or Moses? Clearly. Otherwise, I will be the first one to reject my faith in Christ.

Wrote Jim, "I submit that to say that slavery is immoral is entirely outside the Biblical moral framework. Where, in the classic lists of sins, is slavery condemned? Where, in the Ten Commandments, is slavery condemned? Where, in the teachings of Christ, is slavery condemned?"

True. It is not. If this is what you need in order to feel better about Christianity than you will be disappointed. However, there is a deeper issue at hand which Christianity acknowledges. We all are enslaved in one way or another. We are enslaved to sin (Romans 6:17), as Paul says. Likewise, Christians are to be slaves of God in service to other people if they are to be first in the Kingdom (Matthew 20:27). Reckonizing this reality is essential to understanding the Biblical view on slavery. "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?" (Romans 6:16)

Can a slave own a slave? We, Christians, as slaves of all cannot possibly be masters of any man. We are all equal in Christ Jesus, one with Him. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
" (Galatians 3:28) This precludes Christian ownership of anyone, period. This brotherhood is the very basis for the liberation of millions of people throughout Christendom. This equality argument is the very one Paul used on Philemon when he returned Onesimus to him, a runaway slave.
"I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart.. For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave--a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." (Philemon 12-15)

However, there is still the issue of Christian slaves. Clearly, the Bible does not require the slave to rise up in violence against his master, as you have so stated. As servants of all, it is not a big deal if one's position in life is to serve one particular group of people in general. However, if the chance avails the Christian slave, he is to take it. As Paul says, "For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." 1 Corinthians 7:22-23.

This slave/master relationship is essential to understanding our relationship with God. This is why Christendom has been the ONLY people group to attempt to abolish slavery from their lands and influence other non-Christian countries to do the same. You will not get such a view from islam. History has proven the opposite to be true when it comes to our muslim neighbor.

"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:20-23

God bless, Jim!

37

tommythecat;
You can buy all the Canadians you want, just keep your receipt because, no doubt, you will soon want to return them.

38

gedi,

First, the issue of brutality toward slaves is a separate issue from the right to own slaves in the first place; this should be obvious upon reading the Old Testament, which forbade the former but allowed the latter. We can all agree that brutality toward any human being--slave, wage slave, whatever--is immoral.

I'm not surprised that you brought up the Philemon passage; I'm surprised, though, at this:
Can a slave own a slave? We, Christians, as slaves of all cannot possibly be masters of any man. We are all equal in Christ Jesus, one with Him. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
" (Galatians 3:28) This precludes Christian ownership of anyone, period.
Does this mean that men and women should take on all the same social, familial, economic, and spiritual roles as men, if there is no longer a distinction between males and females? I doubt any Christian would argue this, because the passage simply doesn't support it. It merely points out that from God's perspective, none of those human qualities matter concerning one's salvation. There is no implication of equal rights, a doctrine that might have a connection to Biblical ideas, but is certainly not inherent in the text.

Looking further:

This brotherhood is the very basis for the liberation of millions of people throughout Christendom. This equality argument is the very one Paul used on Philemon when he returned Onesimus to him, a runaway slave.
"I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart.. For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave--a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." (Philemon 12-15)

There is a hint of emancipation, possibly, but , as Unger's Bible Dictionary puts it, "Paul urges that the new convert be no longer considered a mere servant but also a brother in Christ." There is no strong condemnation of the practice of slavery itself. The "more than a slave" part seems to, again, refer to a spiritual understanding that goes above and improves (but does not otherwise change or destroy) the economic relationship.

In other words, certainly, one can draw anti-slavery arguments through a carefully nuanced reading of the New Testament--but they are necessarily eisegetical, reading into the text the principles that are already accepted outside.

Again, the issue of masculinity and femininity offers a useful contrast. Simply because "in Christ... are neither male nor female" does not mean that those categories are now imploded.

39

Jim,

My quotation of Galatians 3:28 did not in any way imply the removal of categories. "We are all equal in Christ Jesus, one with Him." This was simply my reason for stating this. "Equality" does not mean "the same". Sorry for the confusion. Re-reading my post, I can understand.
I think you understand because you argue the point from my same position :).

"There is no implication of equal rights"
If you are equating equal rights to emancipation, you are right. This is not the Biblical focus. The Bible does not speak of the need for bloody upheavals for the sake of emancipation *because* Christ's kingdom is not of this world but the next. I would argue that all have equal rights as Christians insofar as all are to be served, not be served, including slaves.

Jim wrote, " "Paul urges that the new convert be no longer considered a mere servant but also a brother in Christ." There is no strong condemnation of the practice of slavery itself."

There is a strong appeal to release Onesimus from the bonds of slavery. Paul specifically requests that he send Onesimus back to him, not "without your consent", but "that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary". What good deed would Paul be exhorting (and threatening to command) Philemon to do if it were not the releasing of Onesimus so that he might return to Paul to continue to be of service in the ministry?

He is to receive him "NO LONGER AS A SLAVE but more than a slave". How is this reading eisegetically rather than exegetically into the text. Philemon is being exhorted to no longer consider Onesimus a slave. If this is not requesting the emancipation of Onesimus, I don't know what is. Further, he requests that Philemon greet Onesimus as he would Paul himself. Would Paul request to Philemon to treat Onesimus in the same manner as he would Paul *if* he were requesting for him to continue in bondage? I think not. Otherwise, why would Paul write the letter at all? Likewise, he offers, as a last resort, to pay for Onesimus, if he "owes you anything". Indentured servitude, slavery the debts paid, the bondage removed by Paul should Philemon not be persuaded any other way.

Unger's Dictionary is really irrelevant for me on the subject, or any.

I have stated that Christians are Biblically speaking not to be masters of any man. We can discuss this point again if you like. The question remains as to whether slaves should be emancipated. Is Paul arguing only for Onesimus or for all slaves? I would argue for Onesimus solely. However, it is circumstantial evidence for the emancipation of all slaves, though NOT by any means necessary. Hence all are to stay in their given rolls serving their neighbors in reverence as Christ has served us all. When the opportunity arises, then the slaves should take the opportunity to make themselves free. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Corinthians 7:23).

Where exegesis finally departs and interpretation begins is when Christians begin to make every opportunity available for slaves to be freed as an obligation for a Christian person. In what better ways can a Christian serve his neighbor? Christians have come to the realization compassionately that there are few.

Thanks, Jim, for discussing the issue with me. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject more if you like. God bless!

40

"Hence all are to stay in their given rolls serving their neighbors in reverence as Christ has served us all."

rolls should be roles.

pass the butter.

41

gedi,

I am not willing to concede that the Bible's moral framework, in anything other than subtle hints, would ever precipitate the end of slavery without the injection of Enlightenment rationalism and the idea that humans are not just spiritual equals, but political equals.

If Christians could not own slaves, why did most of the exhortations to Christian slaveowners ask them to treat their slaves kindly, and not even encourage them (never mind command them) to release their charges The single example--Philemon--as you pointed out, is contextual, meant for Philemon alone.

Clearly, the issue isn't one of broader morality, unless the slaveowner is a brute. Paul sees nothing inherently wrong with the slave-master relationship (which is why he uses it as a lens for his theology of God-as-master, Christian-as-slave, as was pointed out above).

Be careful to quote 1 Corinthians 7 fully:

21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

"Don't let it trouble you." Accept your station; you're spiritually free, remember. This is my whole point: Paul isn't talking about political equality or political freedom; for him, freedom is a spiritual abstraction.

Back to Ephesians, sixth chapter:

"5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

Again, it can't be clearer. The overwhelming weight of Paul's words support a benevolent view of slavery.