Replies

While often presented as barbaric in contrast to the “liberating” but destructive (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html) of the ethos of the 60’s+ sexual revolution/rebellion, the moral Mosiac law and its penalties, actually worked to promote stronger and happier families and prevent needless loss of life. Slavery was regualated an an established institution, and served to keep enemies in subjection, while providing a means to deliver the Israelites out of debt, as they sold themselves in slavery in such a case (imagine GM), but were given release with generous “severance pay” (if they wanted it) after 6 years, to get them back on their feet. They also got their original land back due to debt, in case they had sold it, on the 50th year. (Liberals have a different idea.)

Non-Israelites could actually own Hebrew slaves, but when bought as slaves it and their descendants were for life, but they rested on the 7th day and had less work on the 7th year, and were partakers in the covenant of Abraham, being circumscribed and being part of the religious observances. Loss of such as a tooth would win them freedom, and murder of them was a likely a capital crime, and it was forbidden to return an escaped slave. All of which made it conducive to fair treatment.

Under the New Testament, the primitive church as a model organic community had no slavery (Acts 2:41-47), but it grew within a society in which Christians had little to no political power to change laws and were in fact persecuted, and opposition would have made it worse for the slaves. But while slavery as an economic practice was tolerated (and keeping one servicefully employed is needful, and is better than indolence or poverty), it was required of Masters, “give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven” (Col. 4:1), and mistreatment was forbidden (Eph. 6:9), and even the escaped slave Onesimus was to be treated as a brother, not a servant, if indeed he should be required back at all (Philemon v. 16).

Moreover, slaves were encouraged to obtain freedom if they lawfully could get it (1Cor. 7:21).

Such requirements to masters to give unto slaves just and equal pay and good treatment in the fear of God, and to accept them as brothers — and all that such entails — effectively disemboweled classical slavery, and would reduce it to more of an employer - employee type relationship, with the liberty to obtain the freedom (which even non-Christian wives were allowed), as this what the apostle Paul exhorted (1 Cor. 7:21).

The requirements of slaves owners in the N.T. would disallow the harsh treatment so often associated with slavery, and the preference to gain freedom indicates the opposite of an advocation of bondage, and it seems incongruous that one could receive a Christian slave as a brother and yet not offer him freedom. As the practice of slavery seems so antithetical by nature to the second [[Great Commandment]], esp. at least as was common practiced, the regulation of it rather than an outright repudiation of it by the church - in which all races are spiritually one (Gal 3:28), and which as an organic community had no slavery (Acts 2:41-47)- appears problematic.

But the early tolerance of slavery by the infant church might be understood that realizing that unless a slave was not able to obtain freedom, applying the requirements of equal pay and fair and merciful Christian treatment enable slavery to morally exist without a radical change in the economic model or society, and that Christians existed within a society in which they had little to no political power to change laws, and were in fact themselves often persecuted, and opposition to slavery at that time likely would have made it worse for the slaves. Instead, the primitive church, much of which was made up of slaves, focused on freeing souls from spiritual bondage and being a “holy nation” themselves. Later, the church became more institutionalized, and the people largely Biblically illiterate, though officially most of her time the Catholic church did condemn slavery. The more modern influence of Christians in influencing the abolition of slavery was much a result of the outworking of the Reformation and the evangelical second Great Awakening and the freedom to effect political change, and statesmen who were likeminded toward abolition and even equality (which was seldom initially the same).

Such resulted in evangelical Christians being the driving force behind the abolition movement in America, while Christian William Wilberforce labored purposely to outlaw slavery in England. “American Christians took it upon themselves to reform society during this period. Known commonly as antebellum reform, this phenomenon includes reforms in temperance, women’s rights, abolitionism, and a multitude of other questions and problems faced by society.”

“The Second Great Awakening (1800–1830s) was the second great religious revival in United States history and consisted of renewed personal salvation experienced in revival meetings. Major leaders included Charles Grandison Finney, Lyman Beecher, Barton Stone, Peter Cartwright, and James B. Finley. It also encouraged an eager effervescent evangelicalism that later reappeared in American life in causes dealing with prison reform, temperance, women’s suffrage, and the crusade to abolish slavery.” — http://www.answers.com/topic/second-great-awakening

But the greater bondage, freedom from which is to be the primary concern of a true church, is that of bondage to sin, which finally will make one far more miserable than physical slavery. Ultimately, “sin will take you were you did not want to go, keep you longer than you wanted to stay, and cost you more than you wanted to pay.”

And everyone serves something or someone. Jesus Christ, who served others selflessly and sinlessly day and night, and then took responsibility for our sins and paid for them with His own precious blood, and who now reigns in Heaven, is the only One that can save sinners from their master, the devil.