slavery (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation)

I am not in favor of slavery.

With that out of the way so that there's no misunderstanding, I want to point out that Burgy has given the pro-slavery advocates of the mid-19th century a bit more benefit of the doubt than they deserve. The biblical writers of course accepted the institution of slavery & encouraged slaves to be obedient to their masters. But what requires equal emphasis if one believes "the Bible to be a rulebook and inerrant" is that there are texts that limit the behavior of masters toward slaves (Ex.21:20 & 26-27, Eph.6:9, Col.4:1, Philemon 15-16.) Of course it will be pointed out that these do not rule out slavery in itself but the issue C.1850 was not slavery in the abstract but slavery as it actually existed in the United States, & in practice that often violated these stipulations, & especially their spirit.

But there is really a more fundamental point that the pro-slavery people ignored. Ex.21:2 shows that there was (at least in theory) an important distinction between Hebrew slaves & foreign ones. The former, at least if male, was to be freed (if he wished - vv.5-6) after 7 years. I.e., the slavery of an Israelite male was not to be permanent. If there is some parallel between Israel and the church (as Christians have generally held) then this indicates that slaves who are Christians cannot be held in a permanent condition of slavery.

I don't point out any of this to argue "Slavery is OK if we follow all the rules." I do not think that the Bible is an inerrant rulebook, or that the rules that it does have are applicable at all times & in all places. We have to recognize that scripture was to some extent accomodated to the understandings of social relationships (as to scientific knowledge) held by people in ancient cultures, & its acceptance of slavery is part of that. But the texts I noted - & even more the pattern of human relationships offered to us in the story of Jesus - are the beginning of a biblical trajectory toward something different. This is not 1000 BC or 60 AD & as Christians we should have learned well before 1850 that the idea of owning other people just doesn't fit with what we are called to in Christ.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burgeson (ASA member)" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
To: "gordon brown" <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
.......................
> They were good arguments, if one takes
> the Bible to be a rulebook and inerrant. Of course, by taking that
> position, one can also justify genocide as being "God's will."
.................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 20 15:55:12 2008