The Scriptures The Criterion For Interpreting Christ

You both miss the point. Apparently all Africans weren't anti-slavery. They were selling their own people off.

 

Have you studied anything about slavery here? I mean, I don't want to be rude, but this is very basic stuff. Open up a history and look at which people were selling people as slaves.

 

WOW we have really chased a few rabbits on this thread!

Gunther, you are absolutely correct that there were Africans that sold their own people into slavery, did that make it any more moral/ethical for people to buy them?

What would the impact have been if the Churches in the south had risen up against slavery and eliminated the buyers. Lets face it, it is not as if the thought of aboloshing slavey was a new concept. That is why I find Mark O's statement so offensive saying that the southern Baptist church was right in supporting the slaveholders.

 

1. It is no less offensive. Just for the record, I would never think of owning another person. It is such a foreign concept.

2. Is that part of the churches commission? No. The church is to proclaim the gospel of Christ, which will change hearts, and only then society.

IT DOES NOT VIOLATE CHRISTIANITY THAT SLAVERY EXISTS. That is part of the point here. Paul commanded slaves to honor their masters, seek freedom if you can. If you can't, stay and honor him.

3. Agreed.

4. They were right in encouraging them in following exactly what the Scriptures command. Slaves are to honor their masters and masters are to treat their slaves well. How was it wrong for the church to encourage this? It is exactly what Paul taught.

Now, once slavery became illegal, the church would have been out of line to encourage it.

 

It actually is part of our church's commission. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. Black slaves were the neighbors of so-called Christian slaveholders. Slavery as it was then goes against that principle.

The slavery that existed in the time of Paul, no. The slavery that existed in the time of pre-Civil war, absolutely.

In Paul's time, people sold themselves into servanthood.
In America, slaves were bought and sold by their master.

In Paul's time, servants were seen as a part of the family of the servant holder. They were given decent quarters, food, and medical treatment.
In America, servants were considered property alone. They were given concentration camp-like housing and food. Women and children were often raped.

In Paul's time, servants were allowed to raise a family on their own volition.
In America, slaves were forced to breed like animals to create stronger slaves.

Yeah, I'm sure God looked down upon pre-Civil War America and smiled, saying, "Those Americans! I'm so glad they're really doing well with these slaves." Please return to reality here.

Slavery in pre-civil war America was no different from what we saw in Nazi Germany to the Jews. The dehumanization of an entire people for the benefit of the majority, ruling class. How shameful a part of our history this was, and is. To say that God would approve of such things is quite sad.

 

I understand your point now Scott.

You are suggestion that because wrongs/sins were committed, that the slaves should have also committed sin in rebelling against God's word. So, when two parties are involved, and one is wrong, the other has the right to 'get even'.

Wow. This is just so sad.

P.S. Your assessment of Roman slavery is only partially correct.

Should I mention that many of the men in power spent a little too much time with young boys. That is as graphic as it gets folks. I bet those young boys who were going through a living hell would have gladly chosen a life of hard labor and poor food.

The church was never given the burden to clean up and fix government. Our roles are that of strangers and pilgrims.

 

No, apparently, you don't.

That's not what I am suggesting at all. The institution of slavery as practiced in Civil War is NOT the kind that is mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, slaves rebelling against injustice is not a sin.

What is sad is your belief that slavery is justified.

And Paul speaks specifically about this, doesn't he? We must also notice that children who were subjected to this were not slaves or servants - they didn't fall under the subject of "doulos."

Kathryn Welch, who has done extensive research on the Roman Empire makes these statements about slaves - the "doulos" that Paul speaks of:

So, the lot of the slave was not a hopeless one. There were many ways out, and many lived quite privileged existences. In many cases, it was a better life to be a slave than a free peasant.

Slaves could be freed by their masters, and a freed slave's offspring could become citizens (Welch, 1997:116). As a result, slaves were more inclined to try and please their masters than defy them. In fact, many were treated as family members, and some even inherited freedom and property from their masters (Welch, 1997:118). Although not legally recognised, many were allowed to have families (Welch, 1997:118-19). They could also be bought and freed, and it wasn't unusual for men to buy slaves, give them freedom, then marry them (Welch, 1997:119). So in many instances, the life of a slave was not as bad as many of us may have first thought.

Slaves did not just do the menial and dangerous tasks. Roman administration relied on educated slaves owned by the state to run and organise the bureaucracy; oversee the treasury, the mint, and archives; and the household administration for their masters (Welch, 1997:111). Educated slaves were a prize commodity of the Roman conquests.

So we see, that this slavery is much different from what is considered from the pre-Civil War. Slaves in the 1800's can IN NO WAY be considered "doulos", making your argument completely null and void.

Here is what we were commanded concerning those who are poor and in slavery:

Proverbs 19:17 “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord. And the Lord will reward him for what he has done.”

Proverbs 22:16 “He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty.”
(Sounds like slavery to me!)

Proverbs 22:22-23 “Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them.”

Isaiah 10:1-2 “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless.” (What a GREAT passage of Scripture this is! Lends itself perfect to the American institution of slavery!)

Jeremiah 22:13-16 “Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice, making his countrymen work for nothing, not paying them for their labor... Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. ‘Is that not what it means to know me?’ declares the Lord.”

Luke 4:18-19: [Jesus said,] "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord"

Matthew 25:45 ""Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me""

 

The majority of them were. As I referenced before:

Welch, Kathryn. The Romans. Sydney, Australia: Lansdowne Publishing, 1997.

There is a distinct difference between pre-Civil war slavery and Roman servanthood. To deny that is to be a revisionist.

 

This is just a little piece of historical reality for all of you to ponder.

My grandfather grew up as a sharecropper in post slavery Parkin, AR on a cotton plantation. All summer he and his family toiled from daylight to after dark working the small piece of dirt farm that was allotted to them. The only means of getting supplies was as the company store. They would live off of the meagerest amount that they could get by with in the summer but no matter how much they scrimped and did without when the books were settled in the fall all of their earnings from their part of the cotton harvest would be consumed by their debt at the company store. They would have to trap rabbits and other wild game just to survive through the winter months untill they got their allotment the next spring to plant the next cotton crop.

This was in the period of around 1905 to 1920.

On this same plantation (which was a slave worked plantation untill they were emancipated) reamined some of the former slaves who stayed on to work the land. These people were for all practical purposes still slaves. The only thing they had post civil war was that they had the option to leave when they wanted. However they nor their children and even their grandchildren left. They stayed on to work the land for NO pay. They did not want to leave. They got food shelter and clothing guarnateed. To many others starved or wandered about as homeless vagabonds.

My point in telling this account is that when my grandfather related this little piece of his past he said "I actually envied the little black kids because we almost starved during the winter and they could go down to the store and get whatever they wanted."

It wasn't all whips and rape and brutality like some on this board would have us to believe.

Did these things happen. Yes of course they did but did it always happen. No.

Now say whatever you want to but this is not some extraordinary example. It was quite normal and common even up until the fifties and sixties in this area. In fact I can take you to men today who are decendents of slaves who still work the same farms their ancestors did.

This is reality.

 

This is the key phrase here. What is in question is what happened before the emancipation, or do you believe that this scenario is exactly how it was before the Civil War?

How did they get food, shelter, and clothing guaranteed if your grandfather was close to starving? Was it given to them by the government?

I wonder if he would have envied them 70 years earlier in American history? I doubt not.

History is filled with these accounts. Read some of the abolitionist writings.

I have no doubt that once in a great while a slaveholder was kind to his slaves. However, looking at the body of literature, we see this was the small, small exception. The rule was much, much different, and no matter of historical revisionism can change that Truth.

But what does this have to do with the conditions pre-Civil War? Tell me, do these men get paid now? What kind of education are they given? What causes them to remain at this farm? Are there opportunities for improvement? Do these men get beaten daily? Are these men given beds a foot wide as they were given before the Civil War? Are these men forced to breed? Tell us, are things the same now as they were back them? HOw are they different?

 

Again, for the fourth or fifth time - the institution of servanthood as mentioned in the Bible is completely different from the instution of slavery found in pre-Civil War times. That is why your argument is null and void. All it takes is a little research into this, and I do not understand why you do not do this.

 

You don't listen. The concept of the "doulos" is intrinsically different from the concept of slavery. You can find a similarity here and there, but it is merely semantics.

Can you just admit that you have never studied the difference between the two, and then commit to doing so?

 

"We are one in the bond of love,
We are one in the bond of love..."

or

"I'm so glad I'm a part of the family of God..."

 

For several pages, this thread has gotten off into the issue of slavery, which is somewhat peripheral to the topic. But I believe that it reveals a fundamental difference of approach in interpreting the Bible. For lack of better terms, we might call this literal interpretation/application versus cultural interpretation/application. Actually both sides seem to have argued somewhat for the cultural idea concerning the slave issue - "the Roman times weren't like the pre-civil war times," or "the pre-civil war times were like the Roman times." IMO, that is beside the point. The important thing is the way we interpret and apply the Eph. 6:5-9 and Col. 3:22-4:1 passages. As I see it, our approach to these passages might wind up breaking down in about four different ways: (1) a literal interpretation/application which takes at face value the same instructions/commands for all servant/master relationships for all times, cultures, etc.; (2) some kind of application of the servant/master principle as taught by Paul; (3) the application of Paul's instructions should be applied to any cultural situation that is exactly like the Roman times; or (4) these instructions are purely cultural and have no application to the modern world. There might be some overlapping of these, and feel free to add what I may have forgotten. Under scenario one, pre-civil war Americans would have followed these instructions to the letter. Under scenario two, as the Ephesians/Colossians would apply their Christian principles to make the best of an imperfect cultural situation (e.g. masters were not commanded to free their slaves, but were commanded to treat them fairly & with kindness), so pre-civil war Americans try to make the best of their situation. In scenario three, pre-civil war Americans might say that since their situation is different from the Romans, they could work out the situation differently than Paul commands here. In scenario four, nothing Paul says really matters!

The matter of culture as it relates to Bible interpretation/application is a very serious and important issue. If we are not careful in understanding where we draw the line, there seems to be no end to how much of the New Testament we can dismiss as only applicable to that time and culture.

If Paul's master/servant instructions are interpreted and applied culturally, what are the implications for the rest of the context? Is the Roman husband/wife relationship the same as in all other times and cultures? Is the Roman parent/child relationship the same as in all other times and cultures? Are Paul's instructions to husbands, wives, children, and fathers only authoritative under the exact cultural conditions?

 

I say that the abolitionists were doing God's work; that the operators of the underground railroad were doing God's work; that the slave who fled from his master and headed for a free state was justified in escaping from his master.

I say that the the revolutionaries of 1776 were justified in rebelling against the king of England and moreover were led of God to do so.

Does anybody find fault with either of these assertions around here?