DeBow's Review (1850) Argued that the Bible Supports Slavery

[Richard Amiel McGough]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeBow%27s_Review):
DeBow's Review "was a was a widely circulated magazine of "agricultural, commercial, and industrial progress and resource" in the American South during the upper middle of the 19th century, from 1846 until 1884. ... Before the Civil War the journal contained everything from agricultural reports, statistical data, and economic analysis to literature, political opinion, and commentary. The magazine took an increasingly pro-Southern and eventually secessionist perspective in the late 1850s and early 1860s. It defended slavery in response to abolitionism, published an article in the 1850s that urged the South to resume the African slave trade, and advocated southern nationalism as the Civil War approached.
The article mentioned was DeBow’s Review 9 (September 1850) (http://fair-use.org/debows-review/1850/09/slavery-and-the-bible) purported to prove that the Bible supports slavery. The article began as follows:


A very large party in the United states believe that holding slaves is morally wrong; this party founds its belief upon precepts taught in the Bible, and takes that book as the standard of morality and religion. We, also, look to the same book as our guide in the same matters; yet, we think it right to hold slaves—do hold them, and have held and used them from childhood.

As we come to such opposite conclusions from the same foundation, it may be well to consider, whether the Bible teaches us anything whatever, in regard to slavery; if so, what is it and how is it taught.

The anti-slavery party maintain, that the bible teaches nothing directly upon the subject, but, that it establishes rules and principles of action, from which they infer, that in holding slaves, we are guilty of a moral wrong. This mode of reasoning would be perfectly fair, if the Bible really taught nothing directly upon the subject of slavery; but when that book applies the principles it lays down to the particular subject in controversy, we must take the application to be correct. We think we can show, that the Bible teaches clearly and conslusively that the holding of slaves is right; and if so, no deduction from general principles can make it wrong, if that book is true.After presenting many verses to support their argument, the article concluded as follows:


We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.

What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.Note the concluding sentence: "If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will."

If the Bible is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for such contrary interpretations, how can anyone claim that it is a reliable source of moral teachings?

[Rose]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeBow%27s_Review):
DeBow's Review "was a was a widely circulated magazine of "agricultural, commercial, and industrial progress and resource" in the American South during the upper middle of the 19th century, from 1846 until 1884. ... Before the Civil War the journal contained everything from agricultural reports, statistical data, and economic analysis to literature, political opinion, and commentary. The magazine took an increasingly pro-Southern and eventually secessionist perspective in the late 1850s and early 1860s. It defended slavery in response to abolitionism, published an article in the 1850s that urged the South to resume the African slave trade, and advocated southern nationalism as the Civil War approached.
The article mentioned was DeBow’s Review 9 (September 1850) (http://fair-use.org/debows-review/1850/09/slavery-and-the-bible) purported to prove that the Bible supports slavery. The article began as follows:

After presenting many verses to support their argument, the article concluded as follows:

Note the concluding sentence: "If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will."
We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.


What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will. If the Bible is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for such contrary interpretations, how can anyone claim that it is a reliable source of moral teachings?

Following those same lines of thinking, one could say that all the advances women have made in recent history concerning equality would have to be rescinded....and women would have to go back to being treated as property, if we truly believe that every word in the Bible is given from God.

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus ever say that any law given by God is to be done away with, in fact he says that not one Jot or Tittle is to be abolished till all be fulfilled.

Matt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Following those same lines of thinking, one could say that all the advances women have made in recent history concerning equality would have to be rescinded....and women would have to go back to being treated as property, if we truly believe that every word in the Bible is given from God.

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus ever say that any law given by God is to be done away with, in fact he says that not one Jot or Tittle is to be abolished till all be fulfilled.

Matt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Rose
Rose and Ram;

I'm surprised that you, a preterist, would use this verse to support the continuation of the law; when "the law" included the very prophesies of it' ending and judgment and the full establishment of new heavens and new earth of the New covenant. Thus, it was thought that you were both in agreement that 'heaven and earth' of the mosaic covenant had already passed and all of the law had been fulfilled.
This was part of the point of this thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2014).

It seems your attempting to extract verses from here and yon to prove your judgment and attack over the 'morality' of the bible. This was evident in other verses you pulled from their contextual meanings; some of which were pointed out before. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27528&postcount=82)

Furthermore; even though it would seem that perhaps several here would think that the bible supports slavery; we have not broached the idea of the treatment of so called 'slaves' or what the contractual arrangements were with slaves. To what extent were 'slaves' employees or housemaids or housemanagers and perhaps treated better than todays 'employees'?

Furthermore; to what extent is political or economic slavery throuh one's political allegience evident even at the present time and how and to what extent is that possible mis-allegience imposed or coerced against ones conscience and will.??

[Rose]

Rose and Ram;

I'm surprised that you, a preterist, would use this verse to support the continuation of the law; when "the law" included the very prophesies of it' ending and judgment and the full establishment of new heavens and new earth of the New covenant. Thus, it was thought that you were both in agreement that 'heaven and earth' of the mosaic covenant had already passed?
This was part of the point of this thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2014).

It seems your attempting to extract verses from here and yon to prove your judgment and attack over the 'morality' of the bible. This was evident in other verses you pulled from their contextual meanings; some of which were pointed out before. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27528&postcount=82)

Furthermore; even though it would seem that perhaps several here would think that the bible supports slavery; we have not broached the idea of the treatment of so called 'slaves' or what the contractual arrangements were with slaves. To what extent were 'slaves' employees or housemaids or housemanagers?

Furthermore; to what extent is political or economic slavery throuh one's political allegience evident even at the present time and how and to what extent is that possible mis-allegience imposed or coerced against ones conscience and will.??

Hi Endtimes,

My point was that at the time those words were spoken from the mouth of Jesus the whole law was in full effect, and there was no mention of anything being wrong with those laws, only the fact that they would remain in effect until he fulfilled them.

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Note the concluding sentence: "If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will."

If the Bible is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for such contrary interpretations, how can anyone claim that it is a reliable source of moral teachings?
Your usage of Debows articles to support your perspective or attempted proofs of the immorality of the Bible and it's teachings assumes that Debow is correct in his exegesis and perspectives of the texts he uses. I would suspect that he is not.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Furthermore; even though it would seem that perhaps several here would think that the bible supports slavery; we have not broached the idea of the treatment of so called 'slaves' or what the contractual arrangements were with slaves. To what extent were 'slaves' employees or housemaids or housemanagers?

What is there to discuss? The Bible is perfectly clear on the sub-human status of the slaves in Hebrew society:
Exodus 21:20 "And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
And even if the status of "slaves in the Bible" can be debated, it only exacerbates the problem because it demonstrates yet again that the Bible is not a moral guide. We need to use our own moral judgment based on our own reasoning abilities. Just look at how the Bible has been used to justify the gross wickedness of American slavery:



We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.

What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.
If the moral truths of the Bible are so well hidden as to require decades of scholarly research to discern and even then they are only to be found by a few careful students, the point is proven: The Bible is not a "guide to the simple." Therefore, we must adhere to our innate moral intuitions.



Furthermore; to what extent is political or economic slavery throuh one's political allegience evident even at the present time and how and to what extent is that possible mis-allegience imposed or coerced against ones conscience and will.??
Granted, it is a complex issue. My point in posting this antique "defense of slavery" was not to argue it was correct! My point was to show that the Bible is not a moral guide on this issue, and if it were taken as a moral guide, it would lead in the wrong direction.

All the best.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Your usage of Debows articles to support your perspective or attempted proofs of the immorality of the Bible and it's teachings assumes that Debow is correct in his exegesis and perspectives of the texts he uses. I would suspect that he is not.
No, it most certainly does not! I did not write a word supporting his argument! My point in posting this antique "defense of slavery" was not to argue it was correct! My point was to show that the Bible is not a moral guide on this issue, and if it were taken as a moral guide, it would lead in the wrong direction.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi Endtimes,

My point was that at the time those words were spoken from the mouth of Jesus the whole law was in full effect, and there was no mention of anything being wrong with those laws, only the fact that they would remain in effect until he fulfilled them.

Rose
I disagree. From the time of Jesus and John the Baptist, the new law of the new covenant was being taught. Those of allegience and faith in Christ were beginning the foundations of seperation from the Pharisees and Mosaic law. See again Deut 18. Note again the tone of the author of Hebrews who would say; if the law had brought life; there would have not been a need for the new prophet and new words and his Covenant in his blood.

It was a progressive transition even after the teaching of Christ and through the 40 yrs of transition; but none the less, the restoration of individual accountablity to one's make and the Teaching of Christ to support it came through John and Christ. Theses principles were contrasted against the conditional / corporal mosaic law from the time Jesus began teaching. Recall how he healed on the sabbath and took grain and so forth. Recall he sermon on the mount and how it would have sounded different than the conditional blessings of keeping all the law of Moses.

They [the nation of Israel] were powerless at that time, and from the babylonian captivity, to keep every instruction of Moses in order to maintain corporal/national blessing because God had removed the very ark of that covenant upon which they were to sprinkle blood. The covenant of the law had already been broken. What remained were it's latter ends and the fulfillment of the Holy Spirit and the prophecies of the prophets.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It seems your attempting to extract verses from here and yon to prove your judgment and attack over the 'morality' of the bible. This was evident in other verses you pulled from their contextual meanings; some of which were pointed out before. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27528&postcount=82)

That is not a valid criticism. I am not "attempting to extract verses from here and yon to prove" my "judgment." I am presenting whole passages in context that prove there are fundamental moral errors in the Bible. Here are a few of the issues I think are most important:

1) The wholesale slaughter of the Midianite men, women, and children except the virgins, which were taken for use by the Israeli men (Num 31).

2) The divine retribution on 70,000 Israeli men for David's "crime" of taking a census (1 Chr 21).

3) The three year famine inflicted by God on Israel because of Saul's slaughter of the Gibeanites (whom God had ordered to be slain), and his refusal to hear their prayers until seven innocent descendants of Saul were murdered and hung up "before the Lord" for months in dishonor. (2 Sam 21)

4) The murder of every man, woman, and child in the tribe of Benjamin (except 600 soldiers that escaped to a cave) which was specifically directed by God who said that HE HIMSELF had delivered them into their hands. This was followed by the murder of everyone in Jabesh-gilead but the virgins (again) whom they took to replace the murdered women of Benjamin (Judges 20).

I could go on, but it is late. I am not interested in playing any intellectual "hide and seek" games with folks trying to save the Bible from itself. There must be another solution. I don't know what it is, but I do know, with absolutely certainty, that it will not be found in the insipid game of twisting words that has been the staple of the Christian apologetic approach on these issues.

All the best.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

No, it most certainly does not! I did not write a word supporting his argument! My point in posting this antique "defense of slavery" was not to argue it was correct! My point was to show that the Bible is not a moral guide on this issue, and if it were taken as a moral guide, it would lead in the wrong direction.

I don't see much of a difference....if your using his article as a support of your perspectives boldened above. Or are you just exposing the issues of the discussion?

In reviewing his use of Scriptures; he jumps from Abrahams having servants to a claim of justification of slaves as property. He mentions the Roman view of slavery in the interim.

It could have just as easily been that they were willing Servants who tug along with him and who Abraham accepted a certain responsibility.

Anyhow; thanks for the article. It seems as though this publication had a huge impact on agricultural south in the pre civil war political and cultural scene.

On another forum; there was a discussion of the Barberie wars of Libya around the 1800's. The moslems demanded money in order to allow U.S. commercial vessels to pass through the meditereanean. When Jefferson met with some in London, the moslems claimed that the Koran gave them the instruction to take unbelievers as slaves and to capitalize from them.
Jefferson disagreed and refused the money...[at first] and then after warring, agreed to a much lesser sum.

But, if war was fought for economc reasons; then Jefferson was also practicing slavery and submission of others ideologies to his perspectives and goals of free capitalism. It seems that the south had similar goals of capitalism and agriculteral dominion.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I disagree. From the time of Jesus and John the Baptist, the new law of the new covenant was being taught. Those of allegience and faith in Christ were beginning the foundations of seperation from the Pharisees and Mosaic law. See again Deut 18. Note again the tone of the author of Hebrews who would say; if the law had brought life; there would have not been a need for the new prophet and new words and his Covenant in his blood.

It was a progressive transition even after the teaching of Christ and through the 40 yrs of transition; but none the less, the restoration of individual accountablity to one's make and the Teaching of Christ to support it came through John and Christ. Theses principles were contrasted against the conditional / corporal mosaic law from the time Jesus began teaching. Recall how he healed on the sabbath and took grain and so forth. Recall he sermon on the mount and how it would have sounded different than the conditional blessings of keeping all the law of Moses.

They [the nation of Israel] were powerless at that time, and from the babylonian captivity, to keep every instruction of Moses in order to maintain corporal/national blessing because God had removed the very ark of that covenant upon which they were to sprinkle blood. The covenant of the law had already been broken. What remained were it's latter ends and the fulfillment of the Holy Spirit and the prophecies of the prophets.
That's all fine and good, but what does it have to do with the moral failings of "God's perfect law" which Paul declared to be "holy, and just, and good"?

That's the issue. If folks didn't claim the entire Bible to be the "infallible and inerrant Word of God" this would not be an issue. We could look at the corruption that got included (somehow, someway, I don't know) into the Bible. Why is it there? I don't know. But I can't deny that it is there! How do you understand it? Is, or was, the OT the "Word of God?"

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I am presenting whole passages in context that prove there are fundamental moral errors in the Bible. Here are a few of the issues I think are most important:

I could go on, but it is late. I am not interested in playing any intellectual "hide and seek" games with folks trying to save the Bible from itself. There must be another solution. I don't know what it is, but I do know, with absolutely certainty, that it will not be found in the insipid game of twisting words that has been the staple of the Christian apologetic approach on these issues.

All the best.
Agreed: There is another solution.
I think your missing for one the covenantal context. For example; I dont' think anyone implies that the church of the everlasting covenant of Peace (EZ 38) is to participate in activities of the mosaic covenant. Do you?

As Rose used to acknowledge, the law was added due to sin and disbelief.

I know your not judging old testament as inferior to present 'just war theory' for the present past century has likely produced similar actions of 'war' as these though perhaps not 'lawful' actions.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Agreed: There is another solution.
I think your missing for one the covenantal context. For example; I dont' think anyone implies that the church of the everlasting covenant of Peace (EZ 38) is to participate in activities of the mosaic covenant. Do you?

No I do not "participate" in the OT covenant. That's not the issue. The issue for me is the "status" of the OT. Was it from God? In what sense is it or was it the "Word of God"? If it is the Word of God, why does it contain such moral monstrosities? What do you think?

If it is the Word of God, why does it contain things so far below basic level of human morality? We can't say it's because God's ways are "higher" than our ways, because "higher" does not mean "lower."

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

That's all fine and good, but what does it have to do with the moral failings of "God's perfect law" which Paul declared to be "holy, and just, and good"?
I just noticed that you were referencing Rom 7:12.
In the context, I believe that Paul is saying that the law is holy, just and good in its' designed purposes of showing that attempting to keep conditional laws are not the way of pleasing God. That is accomplished apart from the law as he explains earlier in the book. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=righteousness&t=KJV&page=9)

An exegesis of chapter 6-8 would be in order; but just from what I gather in the surrounding text; Paul is saying that his failure in pleasing God through the condition of keeping the law [mosaic or commandment] cause a need to know another way; just as Adam/Eve had found.

Reading just a few verses earlier gives a contrasting 'verse'.6

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

This is not God's perfect law of Liberty which is justification through faith and empowerment in HIM and His work.
Rom 8:2. declares part of it.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I just noticed that you were referencing Rom 7:12.
In the context, I believe that Paul is saying that the law is holy, just and good in its' designed purposes of showing that attempting to keep conditional laws are not the way of pleasing God. That is accomplished apart from the law as he explains earlier in the book. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=righteousness&t=KJV&page=9)

An exegesis of chapter 6-8 would be in order; but just from what I gather in the surrounding text; Paul is saying that his failure in pleasing God through the condition of keeping the law [mosaic or commandment] cause a need to know another way; just as Adam/Eve had found.

No exegesis is necessary. I was only trying to make the point that the OT is supposed to be "good" and "just" and "holy." If you disagree, just say so. That's what I've been trying to clear up. What is you opinion of the OT? Is it the "Word of God" or not? If it's not the "Word of God" then I would guess there is no problem that it presents God as immoral.

[Clifford]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeBow%27s_Review):
DeBow's Review "was a was a widely circulated magazine of "agricultural, commercial, and industrial progress and resource" in the American South during the upper middle of the 19th century, from 1846 until 1884. ... Before the Civil War the journal contained everything from agricultural reports, statistical data, and economic analysis to literature, political opinion, and commentary. The magazine took an increasingly pro-Southern and eventually secessionist perspective in the late 1850s and early 1860s. It defended slavery in response to abolitionism, published an article in the 1850s that urged the South to resume the African slave trade, and advocated southern nationalism as the Civil War approached.
The article mentioned was DeBow’s Review 9 (September 1850) (http://fair-use.org/debows-review/1850/09/slavery-and-the-bible) purported to prove that the Bible supports slavery. The article began as follows:

After presenting many verses to support their argument, the article concluded as follows:

Note the concluding sentence: "If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will."

If the Bible is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for such contrary interpretations, how can anyone claim that it is a reliable source of moral teachings?


If the Bible is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for such contrary interpretations, how can anyone claim that it is a reliable source of moral teachings?

Hey Richard,

I think the Apostle Peter answered that question.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Peter 3:15-16

Trying to justify a practice by lifting it from a past cultural and historical setting can lead a person into serious error and is a distortion of scripture.

I am sure that's how the Mormons used to justify polygamy. Hey, God allowed his people in the OT to practice it so it must be OK to do it now. Just because God allowed something does not mean it was his will. As Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees Moses allowed them to write their wives a certificate of divorce for any and every reason, but that was not God's will from the beginning. He only allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts. I think God allowed many practices in the OT due to this reason.

Well you might say, the NT for the most part does not condemn slavery either. To understand why it doesn't I think you need to remember the whole thrust of the NT. It was to change men's hearts by the preaching of the Gospel. They knew the only way to truly change society was to change men's hearts. If they went around preaching against all the evil and unfair practices in their society they would have lost their focus and would not have accomplished their main mission of preaching the Gospel. I think the wisdom of this is born out by history. By about 400-500 AD slavery as a practice was almost done away with in the Roman Empire as the influence of Christianity spread through society. Also if they went around encouraging slaves to run away and break the law of their society it would cause civil unrest which would hinder the spread of the Gospel message.

But in 1Tim 1:8-11 Paul does lump slave traders together with other evil practices.

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

So if I wanted to justify the practice of polygamy I could point to the Bible and say that men of God in the OT practiced it so it must be OK for me today. That would be a classic example distorting scripture by taking it out of its cultural and historical setting. I think that would fit what Peter said when he wrote that men distort scripture to their own destruction.

Clifford

[Rose]

Hey Richard,

I think the Apostle Peter answered that question.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Peter 3:15-16

Trying to justify a practice by lifting it from a past cultural and historical setting can lead a person into serious error and is a distortion of scripture.

I am sure that's how the Mormons used to justify polygamy. Hey, God allowed his people in the OT to practice it so it must be OK to do it now. Just because God allowed something does not mean it was his will. As Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees Moses allowed them to write their wives a certificate of divorce for any and every reason, but that was not God's will from the beginning. He only allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts. I think God allowed many practices in the OT due to this reason.

Hi Clifford,

Of course the Mormons can justify polygamy from the Bible, and they have just as much right to do so as someone who justifies slavery because Yahweh allowed it! The reason polygamy is outlawed in this country is not because of the Bible, because the Bible doesn't condemn it....it's outlawed because people reasoned it was wrong! Jesus only spoke of divorce, not multiple marriages.

People have been arguing over the meaning of Scripture since it was written, so why would you think that the Hebrews could understand it any better than people do today? If God allows something that isn't his will because of the hardness of peoples hearts, how are mere humans suppose to know the difference between what is God's will and what is not?


Well you might say, the NT for the most part does not condemn slavery either. To understand why it doesn't I think you need to remember the whole thrust of the NT. It was to change men's hearts by the preaching of the Gospel. They knew the only way to truly change society was to change men's hearts. If they went around preaching against all the evil and unfair practices in their society they would have lost their focus and would not have accomplished their main mission of preaching the Gospel. I think the wisdom of this is born out by history. By about 400-500 AD slavery as a practice was almost done away with in the Roman Empire as the influence of Christianity spread through society. Also if they went around encouraging slaves to run away and break the law of their society it would cause civil unrest which would hinder the spread of the Gospel message.

But in 1Tim 1:8-11 Paul does lump slave traders together with other evil practices.

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

So if I wanted to justify the practice of polygamy I could point to the Bible and say that men of God in the OT practiced it so it must be OK for me today. That would be a classic example distorting scripture by taking it out of its cultural and historical setting. I think that would fit what Peter said when he wrote that men distort scripture to their own destruction.

Clifford

If the purpose of the Bible is to change the hearts of men it sure is taking a long time to accomplish its purpose! I can look back in history 2500 years to the time of Confucius and see a man who taught the "Golden Rule", so it is not an idea that is unique to the Bible, and in many cases the Old Testament does not teach equality at all, but quite the opposite especially in the case of women who were considered property, and other races besides the Hebrews who were considered pagans!

Blessings,
Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Rich n' Rose

Scripture says that slaves should be released in the 7th year (sabbath year), so slavery was hardly worse than a seven year apprenticeship. If I was captured in battle and, instead of being killed, was offered a nice 7 year period of slavery (servitude) with a well-to-do Jewish family to be followed by complete freedom, then I would not be at all sad.

Modern slavery, however, was for life - which is unacceptable.

Craig

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Rich n' Rose

Scripture says that slaves should be released in the 7th year (sabbath year), so slavery was hardly worse than a seven year apprenticeship. If I was captured in battle and, instead of being killed, was offered a nice 7 year period of slavery (servitude) with a well-to-do Jewish family to be followed by complete freedom, then I would not be at all sad.

Modern slavery, however, was for life - which is unacceptable.

Craig
Hey there Craig,

I think you missed a very important point. The command to set slaves free after six years service applies only to male Hebrew slaves:

Exodus 21:2 "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3 "If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 "But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. 7 "And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
Lovely. If the owner of a male slave gives him a wife, and they produce children, the wife and children belong to the Master! And female Hebrew slaves don't go free after seven years. And if the owner of a female slave has sex with her and doesn't like her, he can sell her, but not to foreigners. Are you really going to argue that these are good laws given by a holy God? I can't imagine that you would think these laws are defensible. They are a moral abomination!

But all that only applies to Hebrew slaves. Remember the Law of God concerning slaves in general:

Exodus 21:20 "And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
It doesn't get any more clear that that. The slavery commanded by Moses in the Bible dehumanizes the slave. We see the same thing with the female slave who is sold if she does not sexually please her rapist/owner. All these laws relating to slavery are moral abominations.

I think we need to rethink the Bible. If it is from God, it must be a TEST of our MORALITY to see if we have human hearts that reject evil, or if we are religious robots that believe whatever we are told to believe without !

Richard

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Exodus 21:20 "And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.



This passage is not quoted properly. It should read "If he gets up after a day or two" not "if he survives a day or two"

The meaning seems to be that corporal punishment of slaves is allowed as long as the slave is not killed or injured.


You said that female slaves are not released after 6 years. Well ........


"At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be
done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he made to his fellow Israelite. He
shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the
LORD's time for cancelling debts has been proclaimed.
Deuteronomy 15 v 1 - 12

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you
must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. GIve to him as the Lord your God has blessed you."
DEUTERONOMY 15 v 12

"If you buy a Hebrew servant he is to serve you for 6 years but in the seventh year
he shall go free, without paying anything."
EXODUS 21 v 2




As if the Sabbath Year law wasn't clear enough, God also instituted a Year of Jubilee.
Every seven sabbaths of years - or seven times seven years, a special year of
ATONEMENT was to be proclaimed throughout the Land. It was a special year of
LIBERTY when each person was to return home to his family and property.




"Count off seven Sabbaths of years - seven times seven years - so that the seven
Sabbaths of years amount to a period of 49 years. Then have the trumpet sounded
everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound
the trumpet throughout your land. Consecrate the 50th year and proclaim liberty
throughout the land to all it's inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of
you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan."
LEVITICUS 25 v 8


God's laws indicate that after a period of "seven", debts are to be forgiven and slaves are
to be freed and allowed to return home. How appropriate, therefore, that after 70 years of
captivity and enslavement to the Babylonians, the Jews were set free and allowed to
return to their homeland

The only time that this sabbatical law does not apply to female slaves, is if the man buys a female slave for marriage. If a man buys a female slave for marriage, then she has the rights of a wife. If he buys her for his son, then she has the rights a daughter. Even if he marries another woman, the female "servant" still has full food, clothing and marital rights - or freedom.

If he doesn't take her as a wife, then the sabbatical law still applies.

This policy of cancelling all debts after 7 years is so fundamental that it goes back to creation, when God rested from his labours on the 7th day. It is even intrinsic to Jewish history -


- the Babylonian captivity was deliberately set to 70 years, so after 70 years the Jews could return to their homeland. (Jeremiah)

- after 70 x 7 the Messiah would come to bring forgiveness for everyone. (Daniel)

- after 770 years the northern kingdom judged, but the southern kingdom finds grace (Isaiah)


The sabbatical laws are all about mercy.

This case study of slaves is interesting. After all, you can judge the ethics of a society by it's treatment of it's most unfortunate members.

The Sabbatical laws only applied to Hebrews. People of other nations could be held as slaves permanently. These were prisoners of war - the inhabitants of captured cities.

[Silence]

As I read some of the posts on the different threads the last few weeks, a thought came to me. Is there a difference between "The law of God" and "The law of Moses"? We have no idea what was on the first set of tablets that Moses received from God. They may have been different or they possibly could have been the same words, only written on stones that were "alive" instead of a cold slab. I noticed as a young Christian that some of the law's required sin offerings were detrimental to the "common person" in that they were required to sacrifice a female sheep instead of a male. It only takes one male to breed a lot of females so demand for males is not as high. If a female is sacrificed her future offspring are as well. I don't know how often they slaughtered males or females for meat or whether this had any effect on the value of either sex, but it seemed that the penalty was steeper when it was a female.

As far as a difference between the law of Moses and the law of God, could it be that God was giving the Israelites what they were willing or able to believe in? As they were camped in front of Mt. Sinai, it seemed that they had gone 39 days with no signs of idolatry and then on the 40th day Moses is sent down because they had gone that way. Actually the idolatry had been there all along. When Moses took so long to come back down the mountain their words showed it. "As for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.". They gave Moses credit for what God had done. Maybe God gave them laws like those which would come from a man as a result?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Exodus 21:20 "And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
This passage is not quoted properly. It should read "If he gets up after a day or two" not "if he survives a day or two"

The meaning seems to be that corporal punishment of slaves is allowed as long as the slave is not killed or injured.

I think you are correct. A better translation probably would be "if he gets up" rather than "if he survives." But that's just picking at nits. The two tone nit-infested elephant still sits front and center. The Old Testament endorses treating people as property.

And you overstated your case. You should have said "corporal punishment of slaves is allowed as long as the slave is not killed or injured so severely that it takes more than a few days to recover." By my standards, such a law is not morally acceptable, let alone praiseworthy as if it were the decree of a wise and loving God! Why are our human morals so much better than those attributed to God in the Bible?



The only time that this sabbatical law does not apply to female slaves, is if the man buys a female slave for marriage. If a man buys a female slave for marriage, then she has the rights of a wife. If he buys her for his son, then she has the rights a daughter. Even if he marries another woman, the female "servant" still has full food, clothing and marital rights - or freedom.

If he doesn't take her as a wife, then the sabbatical law still applies.

OK - I think your explanation is correct. But this point is really just another nit. It's the two ton nit infested pachyderm that concerns me.

And as a side note, this is one of the many Biblical laws that legitimatize polygamy.



This policy of cancelling all debts after 7 years is so fundamental that it goes back to creation, when God rested from his labours on the 7th day. It is even intrinsic to Jewish history -


- the Babylonian captivity was deliberately set to 70 years, so after 70 years the Jews could return to their homeland. (Jeremiah)
- after 70 x 7 the Messiah would come to bring forgiveness for everyone. (Daniel)
- after 770 years the northern kingdom judged, but the southern kingdom finds grace (Isaiah)


The sabbatical laws are all about mercy.

This case study of slaves is interesting. After all, you can judge the ethics of a society by it's treatment of it's most unfortunate members.

The Sabbatical laws only applied to Hebrews. People of other nations could be held as slaves permanently. These were prisoners of war - the inhabitants of captured cities.
Those are very significant observations.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

OK - I think your explanation is correct. But this point is really just another nit. It's the two ton nit infested pachyderm that concerns me.



I think it is important to recognize that whilst slavery was an intrinsic part of all ancient societies, Hebrew slaves had recourse to a system of mercy and grace - the sabbatical laws - that applied to both men and women -


complete freedom after 6 years +
golden handshake of personal flock, and goods


If this argument was important enough for you to raise in the first place, then this point is not just another nit (suggesting insignificance) now that it has been resolved. Infact it is nolonger a nit at all (suggesting something negative) - rather it is an ANTI-NIT - and a powerful one at that.

Already the two ton pachyderm has lost alot of weight - and is looking decidedly more healthy.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

As I read some of the posts on the different threads the last few weeks, a thought came to me. Is there a difference between "The law of God" and "The law of Moses"? We have no idea what was on the first set of tablets that Moses received from God. They may have been different or they possibly could have been the same words, only written on stones that were "alive" instead of a cold slab.

For the law came by MOSES;[temporal national/inferior law] BUT GRACE AND TRUTH [the eternal law of God and Perfect law of Liberty] by Jesus Christ.
John 1:17; The BUT is a contrasting but.

As far as a difference between the law of Moses and the law of God, could it be that God was giving the Israelites what they were willing or able to believe in? As they were camped in front of Mt. Sinai, it seemed that they had gone 39 days with no signs of idolatry and then on the 40th day Moses is sent down because they had gone that way. Actually the idolatry had been there all along. When Moses took so long to come back down the mountain their words showed it. "As for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.". They gave Moses credit for what God had done. Maybe God gave them laws like those which would come from a man as a result?

I think your on to some of the right observations. Recall when God was giving them the law [Deut 4 I think] through Moses. After they had heard the law; they said, " we will do all that is commanded, for now we have seen that God liveth and speaks with man. Then they say;... If EVER we should hear the Voice again [as a corporal nation] then we should surely 'die'. Because then they would understand that it was not the law which Gives relationship and LIFE with Father, which comes through His Revelation in Jesus Christ; his son incarnate.

God says to Moses; only if there was a heart within them which could do all that I command...and that they said right, that they would 'die' if they heard the voice of God again, but for now, tell them to get back in their tents; as he could not bear to look at them.

This sets the framework for Duet 18 and the prophet to come who would speak the very words of God, Jesus as the Living God incarnate' whos words addressed the inner condition, not the outer action. Jesus claims to be the new prophet in John 5:46 as confirmed by Peter in Acts 3:22-24

As Rose often mentions; The law was added because of unbelief or sin in heart till the promise would come.

What was the promise? I believe that it was the promise of the cancelation of the effects of seperation from Father [Daddy] God in Eden due to the failure in the conditional test [or 2 trees] made to cast out the hater and the disbelief. It was also the promise of the indwelling of the Spirit of God [Abba] to those who would believe and recieve the [total] forgiveness and adoption from God. This was part of the Edenic covenant, and was to come with the circumcision and indwelling of the heart through faith as noted in Deut 30. After Dan's confession in Chapter 9 as required by Duet 30:1-4, the angel informed Daniel that the circumcison and indwelling in vss 5ff [the messiahs 70th week] would come 483 yrs later.

In Rom 8:2 Paul talks about being set free from the law of sin/death through the Life of Christ, the Facts of His incarnation and his positive teachings about Life.

In early Romans 10, he talks about the difference betewen the law of Moses and the law of faith and he quotes from Deut 30 and the promised circumcision/indwelling of the heart as being fulfilled.

When the total, unbreakable forgiveness, Love, truth and approval of the living God 'hits' through faith, the heart [soul] and motives are 'changed'. And through a process of growth the heart/individual then comes to acknowledge the image and likeness of the Creator and if the other is born again; come to respect and encorage His Spirit, blessing and Way within others and the individuality of their life.


Through the progress of the covenants and experiences of man/menkind from Eden and the promise of the seed, through the flood, through babel and Nimrod, through Abraham the the blessing to the second Son of Grace of those in faith of God in Christ and his Goodness and Love, over the first son of the corporal and conditional law given by Moses, the HIGER Principles, Character, Way of Life, as well as proof of the Living God are Revealed.

Among the 'higher laws' of God through the New Prophet include the sermon on the mount and the principles, philosophies and truths of Christ and the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit as at Pentacost; not the 10 commandments. They are the unbreaking justification by faith and the indwelling Spirit of God; not conditional atainment of rules/regulations. The 'higher powers' of God in Rom 13 come through a growth of understanding and knowledge [John 17:3] of his Goodness, love, and relationship in the NEW Covenant and NEW beginnings of the new way.

Good observations; thanks for sharing.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The article in the OP (http://fair-use.org/debows-review/1850/09/slavery-and-the-bible) is quite relevant to current discussions. It shows how the Bible was used to support the wicked practice of slavery in the southern states. The defense ends with these two paragraphs:
We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.

What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.

Can anyone believe the Bible is a moral guide when it so very clearly supports slavery?