Were any American slaveholders Christians?

[McCulloch]

Some will say, “You can’t judge people in the 1860s by today’s moral standard.� My response is: They’re not being judged by today’s moral standard; they’re being judged by Jesus’ moral standard.

If a slave-owner in 1860 read the Bible and became a Christian, he should have told his slaves, “Your family was kidnapped from your homeland. I cannot be right in God’s sight if I detain you against your will. Furthermore, I would not want to be enslaved and I must treat you the way I would wish to be treated. But if you choose to stay and work alongside me and my family, you will be family to us. We will love, serve, and provide for you as if you were our own flesh and blood.�

Perhaps some slave owners in America did something similar to that. But, sadly, most did not.

There is nothing we can do to change the past. But we can be opposed to the mistreatment of people in the present. We can truly love our neighbor as ourself. We can help break the cycle of violence, hatred, and strife that has plagued our world ever since the beginning. We can be Jesus’ covenant people; a people of love.

Were any American slaveholders Christians?

[bluethread]

Isn't it ironic that the God who liberated His people from slavery, would go ahead and condone slavery for others.

Is it God, or was it the writers of the Bible who had problems with consistency?

Not all of the slaves left Egypt at that time, only those who identified with Israel. In spite of liberation theology, the point of the book of Exodus was not the abolition of slavery. It was affirming of the Promise to the children of Israel. Ha Torah does say, (Ex. 22:21) "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger(ger), nor oppress him: for ye were strangers(ger) in the land of Egypt." However, note that the term is "ger" and not "'ereb, a general term for servant, which the NIV translates as "slave". It was the opposition to Adonai by 'Ra, translated as "evil" in English translations, exemplified in the crushing oppression of His people, that is the point of the book of Exodus.

[Elijah John]

Isn't it ironic that the God who liberated His people from slavery, would go ahead and condone slavery for others.

Is it God, or was it the writers of the Bible who had problems with consistency?

Not all of the slaves left Egypt at that time, only those who identified with Israel. In spite of liberation theology, the point of the book of Exodus was not the abolition of slavery. It was affirming of the Promise to the children of Israel. Ha Torah does say, (Ex. 22:21) "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger(ger), nor oppress him: for ye were strangers(ger) in the land of Egypt." However, note that the term is "ger" and not "'ereb, a general term for servant, which the NIV translates as "slave". It was the opposition to Adonai by 'Ra, translated as "evil" in English translations, exemplified in the crushing oppression of His people, that is the point of the book of Exodus.

So God liberates His people from "crushing oppression" but then gives permission for His people to inflict the crushing oppression of slavery upon others?

Why is that, because those others not heirs to "the Promise"? What if the slaves of the Hebrews also accepted YHVH as their God, could they then be liberated, and be spared the beatings?

Could they then be regarded as human beings, and not as "property"?

[onewithhim]

Isn't it ironic that the God who liberated His people from slavery, would go ahead and condone slavery for others.

Is it God, or was it the writers of the Bible who had problems with consistency?

I disagree with others that the Bible condones slavery. Laws regarding X do not imply condoning X.

However your remarks and nearly all knee jerk antislavery remarks just feel like they deny reality and the bible shouldn't be denying reality and if expect it to then perhaps we are in error?

I agree. The Bible does not condone slavery. God's feelings on the issue are able to be discerned by the article I posted a link to above, on post #9.

[onewithhim]

Isn't it ironic that the God who liberated His people from slavery, would go ahead and condone slavery for others.

Is it God, or was it the writers of the Bible who had problems with consistency?

Not all of the slaves left Egypt at that time, only those who identified with Israel. In spite of liberation theology, the point of the book of Exodus was not the abolition of slavery. It was affirming of the Promise to the children of Israel. Ha Torah does say, (Ex. 22:21) "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger(ger), nor oppress him: for ye were strangers(ger) in the land of Egypt." However, note that the term is "ger" and not "'ereb, a general term for servant, which the NIV translates as "slave". It was the opposition to Adonai by 'Ra, translated as "evil" in English translations, exemplified in the crushing oppression of His people, that is the point of the book of Exodus.

So God liberates His people from "crushing oppression" but then gives permission for His people to inflict the crushing oppression of slavery upon others?

Absolutely not! Jehovah never advocated crushing oppression on anyone! I am perplexed by your negative attitude concerning YHWH. You have been saying that you love Him and serve Him. What's going on?

[bluethread]

So God liberates His people from "crushing oppression" but then gives permission for His people to inflict the crushing oppression of slavery upon others?

Crushing oppression? I am surprised that you consider the extreme impracticality of owning slaves under Torah law to be crushing oppression.

Why is that, because those others not heirs to "the Promise"? What if the slaves of the Hebrews also accepted YHVH as their God, could they then be liberated, and be spared the beatings?

It appears that you have fallen victim to normalizing the extremes as one sees practiced by some nonbelievers on this site. However, to the crux of the question, as I stated, liberation is not the point of the book of Exodus. Establishment of Adonai's people as a nation is the point and, yes, those who identify with Adonai's people are equal citizens.

Could they then be regarded as human beings, and not as "property"?

Why can't one be viewed as both? Most of the rights granted to citizens are also granted to what are called "slaves". These rights are not granted to animals or inanimate objects. In fact, a "slave" of a Levite is permitted to eat of the offerings and "nonslaves" that are not Levite are not. The situation is not as simple as just plugging in the definition of the antebellum "slave".

[Elijah John]

So God liberates His people from "crushing oppression" but then gives permission for His people to inflict the crushing oppression of slavery upon others?

Crushing oppression? I am surprised that you consider the extreme impracticality of owning slaves under Torah law to be crushing oppression..

No, I'm considering the being a slave, (whether under Torah law or not), "crushing oppression", a phrase that you introduced to the conversation, which I took to mean your euphemism for slavery.

Are you actually asking for pity for the slave-owners?

[polonius]

Were any American slaveholders Christians?

RESPONSE:
Of course. As can be seen in the Bible, slavery was allowed and slave obedience mandated.

1 Peter 18 “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle but also to those who are unreasonable.�

Ephesians 6:5 Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Colossians 3:22 Servants, obey in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.

See www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

Theologian Laennec Hurbon may be cited as representing a belief among many authors that no Pope before 1890 condemned slavery when he stated that, ". . . one can search in vain through the interventions of the Holy See—those of Pius V, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV—for any condemnation of the actual principle of slavery."

Author John F. Maxwell wrote in his 1975 work on slavery that the Church did not correct its teaching on the moral legitimacy of slavery until 1965, with the publication, from the Second Vatican Council, of Gaudium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).

[JP Cusick]

As can be seen in the Bible, slavery was allowed and slave obedience mandated.

1 Peter 18 “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle but also to those who are unreasonable.�

Ephesians 6:5 Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Colossians 3:22 Servants, obey in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.

These verses you quote are about being a servant and not about slavery.

Any or all those verses could be instruction for being an employee in any business. FYI.

[onewithhim]

Were any American slaveholders Christians?

RESPONSE:
Of course. As can be seen in the Bible, slavery was allowed and slave obedience mandated.

Not in the way that slavery was administered in the early days of this country (and throughout the centuries up to recently). The Bible does not allow for mistreatment of any kind, and certainly not torture and treating slaves like animals. Slaves have been considered as low as animals and many racists have carried that opinion through to this day. The Bible instructs "slaveholders" to treat these people with kindness and justice.

I think someone already mentioned this, but slave-holding was not, in Bible times, like we think of slavery today. "Slaves" were basically employees, who entered into an agreement with their employers. Even when there was a lack of mutual agreement and slaves were bound to their masters, the Bible allows for them to be in that master's custody until the slave has performed whatever tasks he owed the master. I have to do more research on this.

It is significant that a Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his servitude, or in the Jubilee year, whichever came first. I think that that shows a great deal of love and concern on Jehovah's part. (During the time that the slave served his time, he was to be treated like we might treat a hired laborer. Much different than what people normally think of when they think of "slavery.")


P.S. I don't consider the Catholic Church as an authority on anything, so its attitude about slavery does not reflect what God's attitude about it is.

[polonius]

JP Cusick posted:

These verses you quote are about being a servant and not about slavery.

Any or all those verses could be instruction for being an employee in any business. FYI.

RESPONSES:
Perhaps you should research the subject of church approval of slave ownership more fully.

(1) The difference is that a servant works willingly and gets paid while a slave is forced to work and don't get paid.

(2) “Employees� are not the property of the employer. They are not property that is inherited'

(3) A slave is the property of the slave owner, just as it says in the Bible:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

“Theologian Laennec Hurbon may be cited as representing a belief among many authors that no Pope before 1890 condemned slavery when he stated that, ". . . one can search in vain through the interventions of the Holy See—those of Pius V, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV—for any condemnation of the actual principle of slavery."

“Author John F. Maxwell wrote in his 1975 work on slavery that the Church did not correct its teaching on the moral legitimacy of slavery until 1965, with the publication, from the Second Vatican Council, of Gaudium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World)."

The clearest restatement of this constant Church approval of slave ownership (not the slave trade itself) is Pius IX’s response following the American Emancipation Proclamation in 1866.

Instruction of the Holy Office (Pope Pius IX), 1862 “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given�.


But now,

Catechism of the Catholic Church #2414, 1995 “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise,..�

FYI: If you would like to research the topic of the Christian church approval more fully perhaps you would enjoy reading the on-line volume: Slavery and the Catholic Church.

anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf