Slavery - is it Biblical or not?

A PARODY

"Come, saints and sinners, hear me tell
How pious priests whip Jack and Nell,
And women buy and children sell,
And preach all sinners down to hell,
And sing of heavenly union.
"They'll bleat and baa, dona like goats,
Gorge down black sheep, and strain at motes,
Array their backs in fine black coats,
Then seize their negroes by their throats,
And choke, for heavenly union.

"They'll church you if you sip a dram,
And damn you if you steal a lamb;
Yet rob old Tony, Doll, and Sam,
Of human rights, and bread and ham;
Kidnapper's heavenly union.

"They'll loudly talk of Christ's reward,
And bind his image with a cord,
And scold, and swing the lash abhorred,
And sell their brother in the Lord
To handcuffed heavenly union.

"They'll read and sing a sacred song,
And make a prayer both loud and long,
And teach the right and do the wrong,
Hailing the brother, sister throng,
With words of heavenly union.

"We wonder how such saints can sing,
Or praise the Lord upon the wing,
Who roar, and scold, and whip, and sting,
And to their slaves and mammon cling,
In guilty conscience union.

"They'll raise tobacco, corn, and rye,
And drive, and thieve, and cheat, and lie,
And lay up treasures in the sky,
By making switch and cowskin fly,
In hope of heavenly union.
"They'll crack old Tony on the skull,
And preach and roar like Bashan bull,
Or braying ass, of mischief full,
Then seize old Jacob by the wool,
And pull for heavenly union.

"A roaring, ranting, sleek man-thief,
Who lived on mutton, veal, and beef,
Yet never would afford relief
To needy, sable sons of grief,
Was big with heavenly union.

"'Love not the world,' the preacher said,
And winked his eye, and shook his head;
He seized on Tom, and Dick, and Ned,
Cut short their meat, and clothes, and bread,
Yet still loved heavenly union.

"Another preacher whining spoke
Of One whose heart for sinners broke:
He tied old Nanny to an oak,
And drew the blood at every stroke,
And prayed for heavenly union.

"Two others oped their iron jaws,
And waved their children-stealing paws;
There sat their children in gewgaws;
By stinting negroes' backs and maws,
They kept up heavenly union.

"All good from Jack another takes,
And entertains their flirts and rakes,
Who dress as sleek as glossy snakes,
And cram their mouths with sweetened cakes;
And this goes down for union."

Sincerely and earnestly hoping that this little book
may do something toward throwing light on the
American slave system, and hastening the glad day
of deliverance to the millions of my brethren in
bonds--faithfully relying upon the power of truth,
love, and justice, for success in my humble efforts
--and solemnly pledging my self anew to the sacred
cause,--I subscribe myself,

FREDERICK DOUGLASS
LYNN, ~Mass., April~ 28, 1845.

 

In the times of Christ, in that part of the world, there was about 50% of the people were slaves, if folks like Dr. Charles Wagner , history and seminary classes and others are correct.

I'm not for slavery but in seminary I was taught that many believed that slavery could return (still going on today in parts of the world) in the millennial reign of Christ. Of course that was 40 years or more ago.

 

When you speak of slaveholders, you are including members of the churches which Paul started and commended. Understand that Douglass hated them as much as he hated my ancestors. That's the kind of persons abolitionists were, in large number, and why their writings drip with such venom.

Every human relationship is subject to abuses and has been abused. I could fill large notebooks with horror stories from newspapers in my lifetime about spousal abuse and call it Marriage as It Is and use it to argue against the institution itself. But it would convince none of you because you would say "I'm married, my friends are married, my parents were married and I grew up in their home -- and none of us live like that. Those stories are about a perverse fraction."

That is precisely the situation southern Christians found themselves in when they were slandered by their humble northern brothers. And though the slander has continued unabated until today, the truth has never died and never will.

Carry on.

 

Pipedude,
Do you think the writings and speeches of John Newton and William Wilberforce drip with venom?
Perhaps you have implicitly made the kind of argument you are objecting to.

 

Have you seen the movie Amazing Grace?
What was interesting to me (and a movie may not be totally accurate) is that they were trying to abolish the slave TRADE.
There where many inhumane practices that they were trying to end.
Yet the institution is not the problem.
Oh, and we will ALWAYS have slavery in one form or another.

 

Ok, I'm gonna ask, you do know Douglass was a runaway slave and not a "humble northern brother"?

I have no reason to doubt this man's first hand account of the institution of slavery in the US, and it's debilitating effect on both slave and master.

I think Paul would have called down fire upon anyone who used his writings to defend such hypocrisy amoung southern Christians.

Slander? I think a simple DNA test would verify most of F Douglass' claims if a whole generation of bright skined Africans isn't obvious enough.

I think that Christian slave owners in Paul's day would have been horrified by the dehumanizing abuses that were common place in the White Christian South.

Lacy

 

It will probably never cease to amaze me how these discussions/debates become void of scripture and scriptural points so quickly. More than oft it stagnates into vain babblings of theology, philosophy, opinions, beliefs, etc.

First, I don't own a slave, never have owned a slave, and will not be owning one. Please remember this when Christian hatred shines through for my wholehearted acceptance of the Bible, regardless of social acceptance or popular belief.

Of all the postings, the point of Onesimus rings true. Beyond that though, it was practically alarming to find no mention of I Timothy 6 in the postings (perhaps I overlooked?). And I quote:

1 Timothy 6:1-5 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


Paul says we are of "these things" to "teach and exhort".
Furthermore, Paul says that if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, EVEN THE WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, ....

​

~he IS:

​

*proud

​

*knowing nothing

​

​

*doting about questions and strifes of words... etc. etc. You can read the rest.


Furthermore, Philmon was approved and commended as a fellow labourer and as dearly beloved. Then look at:

Philemon 1:5-7 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints; That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus. For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

Why was Philemon not reproved for this? Why was Onesimus sent back?

I calmly plead for intelligent, SCRIPTURAL discussion on these two passages (Philemon, I Timothy 6), if at all possible.

 

I didn't give my opinion as to the main question of the OP. I think the question must be qualified. If the question is: "Is what went on in the southern US scriptural," then I'd say absolutely not.

IMHO, Paul would have never sent Onesimus back if his mother, wife, sisters, and daughters were treated like breeding cattle and the master's own mullatto sons and daughters were routinely scourged, kept illiterate, sold away ,and killed without consequence.

Lacy

PS. More vain babblings of theology, philosophy, opinions, beliefs, etc. for you.

 

The whole argument over whether or not slavery is today what it was then is the same argument a slick Campbellite tried to pull on me when I was a wee teen.

His argument was that I Timothy 2:12 was specific for Paul's time and the specific situation, but not today. There is no difference in the point of the argument, in the sense that those who try to use the "different forms of slavery" point, are doing the exact same thing that slick water dog tried to pull. You are wresting the scriptures for your own distruction by creating strawmen that do not exist.

Scriptually speaking, without the modern philosophies and hot air, one cannot defeat slavery in the Bible. It is simply, scriptual.

Note: I am not so unlearned as to not know the conditions of the south pre-civil war and on into reconstruction and post years. As a matter of fact, it is my job to teach history. Just to note, I do know about the wickedness of some of the actions that went on. To think though, that these type of situations did not go on from the beginning of slavery is simple ignorance. Where man is involved, much wickedness will breed. This again though, is not the question of the OP. The question is about where the Bible stands regardless of our thoughts, reasonings, opinions, beliefs, snippets, ignorance, two cents, etc.etc.etc.

 

I don't think Paul would have endorsed even the slightest abuse. It seems to me Paul is stongly suggesting that he treat Onesimus as a free man.

Lacy

 

Perhaps not. Quite frankly I have never tried. But ther are about a million things associated with slavery that I can rip to shreds with scripture in about a minute! If you want I could list some.

You might know about the conditions but I doube you "Know" the conditions.

I am as lilly white and as southern as they come. I'm one of those .38 special "Wild Eyed Southern Boys" from west Texas. But I will not defend what happened to my black brothers' ancesters in this country as scriptural.

Why does that make it better? or Ok? It seems to me to weaken your position.

And regardless of manstealing, murdering, beating, raping, starving, overworking, ignorance, two cents, etc. etc. etc.etc.?




Peace

 

Just because God tells us how to behave if we find ourselves under the yoke of slavery doesn't mean God endorses it.

If a system or institution inevitably and uniformly causes men to view other men, created in the image of God, as less than human, how can it be "scriptural"?

If it by definition, leads to abuse, then why is this even a question.

I'm not a bit ashamed of posting Emmet Till's picture. It was slavery that created the mentality that a beautiful little boy could be beaten beyond all recognition and discarded like a coyote carcass. It was slavery that created the mentality that two white men could do it and walk scott-free and live out their long lives.


I suppose if I want to go to Japan and buy a couple of geisha slaves, it would be scriptural. How about I come in to your house at night, steal your children and sell them? What part of slavery is scriptural?

 

Oops. My bad!