Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Does The Bible “condone” slavery, even as Darwin opposed it?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It seems, this issue is on the table here at UD again, and it needs to be publicly corrected for record.

As a first step, I link a discussion in response to the oppression thesis used to try to discredit and marginalise the historical contribution of the Christian faith (and to create the false impression that due to “obvious” ethical failure, the gospel can be dismissed). It is also worthwhile to link my recently updated discussion on moral government, objectivity of ethics and law. (While we are at it, here is a summary response on the rhetorical challenge of evil.)

Let me also again put up an infographic that has been featured several times here at UD in response to the rhetorical tactics of too many atheists and fellow travellers:

Now, let me headline a comment just made to Seversky in the boom in honesty thread, given his comment at 26: ” The Bible condones slavery, Darwin condemned it”:

KF, 34: >> 34 kairosfocusSeptember 10, 2019 at 3:46 am

Seversky,

The Bible condones slavery, Darwin [–> a product of the post evangelical awakening, antislavery movement era] condemned it:

With all due respect, over the years you have shown no basis of authority to draw such a conclusion responsibly, as opposed to reiterating convenient new atheist rhetoric, in hopes of exploiting emotive responses when in fact since Plato in the Laws Bk X 360 BC it has been known that evolutionary materialism has no basis for ethical comment. Indeed, it is demonstrably an open door to nihilism.

Perhaps, too, you are unaware of the significance of

[a] the difference between ameliorative regulation of what is present and established in culture due to the hardness of hearts (cf. Divorce regulations with the outright declarations that “I hate divorce” [Mal 2:16] and “what God joins, let no man put asunder” [Mt 19:1 – 6]. Also,

[b] the historical and current significance of this argument by undermining, written by the apostle Paul while literally chained to Roman soldier guards and while awaiting trial before Nero Caesar on a potentially capital charge where evidence of supporting Spartacus like uprising or harbouring escaped slaves would lend to the accusations already on the table. So, whatever he did to deal with an escaped slave [who seems to have stolen money] had to be subtly, carefully done. [–> it seems the latest form of WP is allergic to square brackets, another bug not a feature]

I draw this to your attention, as it literally is the textual source for the motto of the Antislavery Society: Am I not a man and a brother?

Philemon Amplified Bible (AMP)
Salutation

1 Paul, a prisoner [for the sake] of Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed), and our brother [–> a highly loaded term here] Timothy,

To Philemon our dearly beloved friend and fellow worker, 2 and to [your wife] Apphia our sister [–> cf the telling secondary Antislavery Society motto: “Am I not a woman, and a sister?”], and to [a]Archippus our fellow soldier [in ministry], and to the [b]church that meets in your [c]house [–> thus, of the upper classes; also, this is a PUBLIC letter to the church, to be read out to them and responded to by you as an instruction from God]: 3 Grace to you and peace [inner calm and spiritual well-being] from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philemon’s Love and Faith

4 I thank my God always, making mention of you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of your faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the [d]saints (God’s people). 6 I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective and powerful because of your accurate knowledge of every good thing which is ours in Christ. 7 For I have had great joy and comfort and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints (God’s people) have been refreshed through you, my brother. [–> notice power of repetition, building up what is to come; also framing his commitment to gospel theology and gospel ethics, with a major lesson to follow]

8 Therefore [on the basis of these facts], though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is appropriate, 9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—since I am such a person as Paul, an old man [–> thus, elder/senior brother], and now also a prisoner [for the sake] of Christ Jesus [–> note the implied comparison, prisoner, slave]—

A Plea for Onesimus to be Freed

10 I appeal to you for my [own spiritual] child Onesimus, whom I have fathered [in the faith] while a captive in these chains. 11 Once he was useless to you [–> a pun on the name: Useful], but now he is indeed useful to you as well as to me. 12 I have sent him back to you in person, that is, like sending my very heart [–> returning the escapee but in a new context]. 13 I would have chosen to keep him with me, so that he might minister to me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel; 14 but I did not want to do anything without first getting your consent, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. [–> heart softening through gospel ethics]

15 Perhaps it was for this reason that he was separated from you for a while, so that you would have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave, but [as someone] more than a slave, as a brother [in Christ], especially dear to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh [as a servant] and in the Lord [as a fellow believer]. [–> boom!]

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome and accept him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; 19 I, Paul, write this with my [f]own hand, I will repay it in full (not to mention to you that you [g]owe to me even your own self as well). [–> I will cover the costs of manumission and losses due to theft] 20 Yes, brother, let me have some benefit and joy from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.

21 I write to you [perfectly] confident of your obedient compliance, [h]

since I know that you will do even more than I ask. [–> As in, this is an ethical implication of the gospel]

22 At the same time also prepare a guest room for me [in expectation of a visit], for I hope that through your prayers I will be [granted the gracious privilege of] coming to you [at Colossae]. [–> I too hope for freedom, this is a natural right of the human being, made in God’s image and morally governed as responsibly and rationally free.]

23 Greetings to you from Epaphras, my fellow prisoner here in [the cause of] Christ Jesus, 24 and from Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Footnotes:

Philemon 1:2 Perhaps the son of Philemon and Apphia.
Philemon 1:2 Philemon was responsible to see that this letter was shared with his fellow Colossian believers.
Philemon 1:2 Prior to the third century a.d. churches customarily met in private homes.
Philemon 1:5 All born-again believers (saints) have been reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, made holy and set apart for God’s purpose.
Philemon 1:11 Paul makes a play on words here because Onesimus means “useful” or “profitable.”
Philemon 1:19 By writing this with his own hand, Paul accepted legal liability.
Philemon 1:19 Philemon evidently was saved through Paul’s ministry and therefore owed Paul a debt that could not be repaid.
Philemon 1:21 This was probably a subtle suggestion by Paul to emancipate Onesimus.

In 107 AD, there is record of a certain Bishop Onesimus of Ephesus. It has been suggested that this manumission letter was contributed to the then gathering collection of the NT by him. Thus, contrary to your ill-founded accusation above, the Bible contains in it a devastating counter to enslavement and by the like unto this and a fortiori principles, any other similarly oppressive institution. But, it does so in the context of heart-softened reformation and moral enlightenment, not ill advised radical calls for violence and imposition by force.

I suggest, you need to do some rethinking. Especially, as this has been on the table here at UD several times over the years.>>

In addition, we would be well advised to take note of Plato’s warning, which appears in my comment 35:

>>PS: I clip Plato’s warning, as it is directly relevant to any assertion of moral claims by advocates or fellow travellers of evolutionary materialism:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].>>

I think this needs to be noted for record, as a corrective to a now drearily familiar atheistical talking point against the heritage of Christendom and against gospel ethics. END

Comments
SB, sadly, yes. There is need for a common sense of commitment to truth, right reason, fairness and more. It seems, the deep polarisation against the heritage of Christendom is warping a balanced understanding of the dilemmas of civilisation and governance. Which, ironically, is precisely what Philemon is about. KFkairosfocus
September 19, 2019
September
09
Sep
19
19
2019
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
KF, When people start changing the meanings of words in order to perpetuate a false narrative, even after having been corrected, it is evident that they are not participating in a good-faith dialogue, suggesting the presence of anti-Christian ideology.StephenB
September 18, 2019
September
09
Sep
18
18
2019
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
SB, Thanks for taking up the themes I highlighted from the outset of this discussion; which, it seems,by and large, were being studiously ignored. I suspect that some objectors are so suspicious of us that it is warping their perceptions of what we have to say, starting with refusal to actually read things that require careful, responsible, responsive reading. That begins with the OP and particularly the texts of Philemon and 1 Cor 7:21 as was highlighted in the infographic responding to American Atheists and their abusive, out of due context misreading of the NT text Col 3:22. (Yes, NT texts are also abused like this.) I doubt that these objectors consider what would likely happen, for cause, to disobedient slaves and to movements suggesting disobedience -- i.e. slave rebellions. Those who romanticise radicalism, secularist social utopianism and linked ideas (after Robespierre and co. alone much less so many others across 230 years, I cannot understand how that can be) also reject the ideas of ameliorative regulation, heart-softening through such leading to reform, and even compensation for losses. For instance on Abolition in the 1830's the UK paid £ 20 million to masters (I recently learned that in Jamaica ~1/4 of these were owned by free blacks or mixed race "coloured" people), likely about £ 2 billions today. I note that in my Marxism-tainted classes and discussions, there was no serious discussion of the implications of widespread bankruptcies due to asset losses. Of course a big slice of the compensation went to debt holders in the UK. In addition, dissenters and others funded free villages, purchasing encumbered estates or crown lands and creating villages, the churches also being schools. To this day, my Mom's home village has a famous primary school that first met in the hall then was moved to an annex of the Anglican Chapel of Ease in the centre of the village. Also, Lady Mico's trust was converted through Court of Chancery into an education fund, with teachers and agriculture colleges established. I also note that right up to the 1830's it was widely thought dubious that a general emancipation was feasible. By that time ill health had more or less put Wilberforce off the stage and it was Buxton who argued on the pattern of the Haiti revolution and bloodbath and the Jamaica Baptist War uprising that the alternative was a war to sustain slavery. This was in addition to the Anglican Colonial Church Union razing IIRC 12 Dissenter-funded "chapels" for slaves during the uprising and attempts to hang dissenter missionaries for fomenting rebellion. 1830's, not 30's - 60's AD. The wisdom of following the Pauline counsels came out as slaves testified in the trials. One of these Dissenters, Knibb [who in my considered view by rights should be an official national hero of Jamaica], was sent to the UK and there -- at the Baptist Missionary Convention -- swore to take wife by the hand and barefoot if necessary walk from one end of the UK to the other to tell the Christian people of Britain what their BRETHREN were suffering in Jamaica. No one could withstand his eyewitness testimony and knowledge of the laws on the books etc, and then in May 1832 the Governor's report on the uprising coroborrated his testimony. Abolition was passed in 1833, with August Monday Aug 1 1834. That night, the slaves assembled at dissenter chapels, and Knibb (back in Jamaica . . . he had first come in the place of his brother, who had died as a Missionary) -- in a rebuilt chapel in Falmouth -- counted down the seconds left for the dying Monster then triumphantly proclaimed it dead at the stroke of Midnight. (I need not go into details on the attempted, failed "Apprenticeship" system, terminated four years later.) Knibb then ensured that Baptist free villages provided [subsidised] plots at size enough to grant the franchise, and actually set about founding a political party, but of course the Colonial Assembly tried to frustrate this. Such culminated in the 1865 Morant Bay Rebellion, which led to full Crown Colony rule. We could continue, but there are enough facts on the table for the fair-minded. I think that is a key problem and that this exchange here at UD is a test. One that, by and large is being failed in ways that are inadvertently revealing. KFkairosfocus
September 18, 2019
September
09
Sep
18
18
2019
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
EG
Repeatedly responding to atheist with the assertion that the Bible, under no circumstance, condones or allows slavery simply plays into their hands. It is a claim that anyone with an elementary knowledge of English (or whatever language the Bible you read is written) can prove is wrong by simply picking up the book.
There you go again implying that the word "allow" and the word "condone" can be used interchangeably. Of course the bible "allows" slavery, which is obvious, but it doesn't condone slavery for reasons that I have made clear. Why do you muddy the waters by doing things like that?StephenB
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
Ed George
For both slavery and divorce (and several other less than morally acceptable practices), the Bible clearly accepts them under specific circumstances and according to specific rules. If this is not true, why does it go to great lengths to describe these circumstances?
The bible doesn't find these things morally acceptable, but it does put up with them temporarily out of necessity because of the people's "hardness of heart. Those with hard hearts cannot respond to the full demands of the moral law until they finally rise above barbarism. The New Testament explains completely what is and is not morally acceptable and relates that standard to events in the Old Testament, clearing up whatever misunderstandings might remain. Anti-theists focus exclusively on the Old Testament because they can search for passages that are easy to misinterpret. The bible is a progressive revelation that must be taken as a whole. You cannot understand it or credibly argue against it by focusing exclusively on the Old Testament. The New Testament makes it clear that divorce and slavery are - and always have been - morally unacceptable. That is what Christ means when he says about the toleration of divorce that "it was not so from the beginning." Indeed, the Old Testament had already anticipated these standards (the evil of slavery and divorce) in the Ten Commandments. Thou Shalt Not Murder, for example, also forbids slavery, which murders the human spirit, and cruelty of speech, which murders relationships. So it is with "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and the problem of divorce. It is the strategy of anti-Theists (and anti-Christians) to focus exclusively on selective passages in the Old Testament in order to create a false narrative.StephenB
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
SB
So when anti-Christians say that the bible condones slavery, they are saying that the bible regards slavery, which is bad, as something that is acceptable. But the bible doesn’t regard slavery as acceptable, therefore those who say that it does are either mistaken or dishonest.
The Bible is a great text. But to say that it doesn’t accept slavery is to ignore the actual text. For both slavery and divorce (and several other less than morally acceptable practices), the Bible clearly accepts them under specific circumstances and according to specific rules. If this is not true, why does it go to great lengths to describe these circumstances? Why not just say that these practices are wrong and punishable by death, as it does with other practices? Practices that were as prevalent in the days when the biblical texts were written as slavery was. But I repeat, to claim that the Bible advocates for, or encourages slavery, or that it holds slavery to be acceptable under anything other than rare circumstances, or is harmless, is clearly false. Repeatedly responding to atheist with the assertion that the Bible, under no circumstance, condones or allows slavery simply plays into their hands. It is a claim that anyone with an elementary knowledge of English (or whatever language the Bible you read is written) can prove is wrong by simply picking up the book.Ed George
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
But the bible doesn’t regard slavery as acceptable.
Kind of amazing that you can be so sneery while saying something as silly as this. I look forward to the next 20 posts on the definition of "acceptable".Mimus
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
EG
I guess honesty and honest discussions aren’t something you have experience with. Good to know. It’s always good to identify those who are not worth my effort.
An honest person would have responded to my corrective in the following way: "You are correct, after all. To condone is to regard something bad as something that is acceptable. So when anti-Christians say that the bible condones slavery, they are saying that the bible regards slavery, which is bad, as something that is acceptable. But the bible doesn't regard slavery as acceptable, therefore those who say that it does are either mistaken or dishonest."StephenB
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
SB
When those in the second group get caught in their deception, they suddenly go silent, proving that they are even more dishonest than those in the first group, which can at least be credited for saying what they mean.
I guess honesty and honest discussions aren’t something you have experience with. Good to know. It’s always good to identify those who are not worth my effort.Ed George
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
F/N: Let us observe how we may read in The Oxford History of the Roman World, [a work that is in other contexts not particularly sympathetic to the Christian view or claims; even by contrast with, say, sympathy to the rampant homosexuality in the ancient pagan Mediterranean world], under the sub-heading "The Church and the End of the Ancient World," on p. 471, that:
. . . there were questions about [Christian] compromise with the political and social system. Gregory of Nyssa boldly attacked the institution of slavery. Augustine thought the domination of man over his neighbour an inherent wrong, but saw no way of ending it and concluded that, since the ordering of society prevented the misery of anarchic disintegration, slavery was both a consequence of the fall of man and at the same time a wrong that providence prevented from being wholly harmful. Slaves were not a very large proportion of the ancient labour force, since the cost of a slave to his owner exceeded that of employing free wage-labourers. Slaves in a good household with a reasonable master enjoyed a security and standard of living that seldom came the way of free wage labourers. But not all slaves had good masters, and in special cases the bishops used the church chest to pay the cost of emancipation. Refusal on moral grounds to own slaves became a rule for monasteries. [Henry Chadwick, "Envoi: On taking Leave of Antiquity," in The Oxford History of the Roman World, Eds. Boardman, Griffin & Murray, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press paperback, 1991), p. 471. Links added. NB: In the very next paragraph, the contributor goes on to discuss how the church also deeply disapproved of capital punishment [which in many cases of course would be by the utterly degrading death on the cross, and which would thus sharply contrast with Paul's remarks on the magistrates' power of the sword in Rom 13:1 - 7] and judicial torture. Indeed, he notes that "[a] Roman church-order of about 200 forbids a Christian magistrate to order an execution on pain of excommunication No Christian layman could tolerably bring a charge against anyone if the penalty might be execution or a beating with lead-weighted leather thongs . . . Torture forced so many innocent people to confess to crimes they had not committed that the Christian hatred of it commanded wide assent . . ." In short, the picture is far more complex than we might have thought.]
kairosfocus
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
SB, sad but revealing. And to date there is no serious engagement of the substantial matter on the table starting with the whole text and significance of Philemon. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
So here is where we are. One group of Anti-Christian partisans claim, falsely, that the bible condones slavery, while a second group of anti-Christian partisans says that the first group was misunderstood because the word "condone" doesn't really mean what the dictionary says it means. When those in the second group get caught in their deception, they suddenly go silent, proving that they are even more dishonest than those in the first group, which can at least be credited for saying what they mean.StephenB
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
PaoloV, Yup, seldom has a sum of money presented as a puzzle -- the original case of the handwriting on the wall -- been so significant. Up to 50 years ago we could read it directly: 2/1/6 -- £ 2, 1 shilling, 6 pence. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
KF has very timely pointed to this fundamental warning that we all should take seriously : “... have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored.”PaoloV
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
KF, That’s a very insightful and timely analysis you wrote about the handwriting on the wall we see all over around us. Many visitors here could benefit from reading your article about the words: “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN”. I hope that we all open that link you provided. And I pray that such reading lead us to read the entire chapter 5 of Daniel and that whole book, eventually leading all of us to carefully read what the whole Bible has to tell us about the relevant things in life. Thank you for calling my attention to this. I highly appreciate it.PaoloV
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
PaoloV, you may find this helpful. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
SB, Ironically, wrongs, sins, perversions, injustices etc can be forgiven, but the issue of repentance and reformation shows they are not condoned. "Forgivable" in Merriam-Webster itself is not well phrased, winked-at is probably more accurate, though archaic. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
EG, kindly cf OP, 98 and PS to 97 above. As with ever so many arguments by objectors, the fuzziness of a term is being used in arguments with a swivel. That is why precise terms and frameworks are needed, and it is noted that there are many matters where careful, highly structured definitions, statements and chains of reasoning are needed precisely because it is easy to go off the rails. Mathematics, Law, Physics and Chemistry [I am currently again pondering the Rebinder effect and lubricants etc], Philosophy and Theology (especially when systematising) are typical cases. In this case, the dynamic is not hard: addressing an existing cultural pattern that is entrenched (= the hardness of hearts and darkness of minds) through ameliorative regulation that gradually shifts culture. In that context, softened hearts and enlightened minds open up the approach Paul used in Philemon. Which, I note again is a charter of liberation and freedom for our civilisation with being the source of antislavery society mottoes as a clear marker of its impact. I further observe that until the rise of print, creation of cheap handbills and pamphlets (with linked elementary education and literacy . . . often energised by desire to read Scripture for oneself, indeed often that was the textbook), creation of regular newspapers and influence of gospel ethics through impacts of the Protestant Reformation [for all the evils and horrors that also happened] public opinion able to influence policy and a mature enough public to make informed decisions through voting were not credible. Notice, Plato's Parables of the Cave and the Ship of State, with issues of elite manipulation and demagoguery. Where, narrow, wealthy, privileged class power elites deriving from warrior classes are always going to be very hard to move peacefully. That means the late 1600's and such is exactly when key writings and the Glorious Revolution happened. Over the next century the first Constitutional Republic of democratic character emerged and onward we saw popular reform movements with the antislavery movement in the van. These are deep waters. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2019
September
09
Sep
17
17
2019
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
KF
EG, the problem has already been noted and corrected. KF
If you really believe this, then I will drop it.Ed George
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
Ed George:
I agree with what you have said with respect to the motives and intentions of some atheists. But rather than responding with convoluted rationale when someone says that the Bible condones slavery, wouldn’t it be a better approach to simply describe what “condone” means and state that this does not imply or infer that the Bible is advocating for slavery air claiming that it is harmless? Providing detailed and convoluted rationale only appears to egg them on.
It isn't convoluted at all. I think you are getting confused about the meaning of the dictionary definition. To condone is (as indicated above) *to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless * So when anti-Christians say that God (or the bible) condones slavery, they are saying that God (or the bible) regards something that is bad or blameworthy (slavery) as something that is acceptable, forgivable, or harmless. It's very straightforward.StephenB
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
EG, the problem has already been noted and corrected. KF PS: Merriam-Webster is perhaps the most direct:
condone verb con·?done | \ k?n-?d?n \ condoned; condoning Definition of condone transitive verb : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
kairosfocus
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
SB@88, I agree with what you have said with respect to the motives and intentions of some atheists. But rather than responding with convoluted rationale when someone says that the Bible condones slavery, wouldn't it be a better approach to simply describe what "condone" means and state that this does not imply or infer that the Bible is advocating for slavery air claiming that it is harmless? Providing detailed and convoluted rationale only appears to egg them on.Ed George
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Romans 13:1-7
13:1 Christians have a distinct rationale for an appropriate submission to the governing authorities: the recognition that God Himself is the source of government in society (Prov. 8:15, 16; Dan. 2:21). 13:2, 3 Rebellion against the authority implies rebellion against God’s ordinance. 13:4 God’s servant for your good. The state’s authority is for society’s benefit; this is its normal function, and Paul assumes it may be realized in practical terms even when governments are professedly non-Christian. the sword. The power of life and death. Capital punishment is undoubtedly in view. Elsewhere Paul accepts the principle of such punishment where appropriate (Acts 25:11). wrath. What the individual must not do out of a motive of revenge (12:19), the state may legitimately do in the pursuit of justice. 13:6 you also pay taxes. Christian submission is a response of the conscience instructed by divine revelation. Because the task of government is divinely ordained and requires financial support, the Christian can pay taxes with a distinctive motive and understanding, as an element of devotion to God. 13:7 Pay to all what is owed to them. See Matt. 22:21. Paul was evidently familiar with Jesus’ statement, and here indicates how it is applied.
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries.PaoloV
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
13:1 be subject. This Gr. word was used of a soldier’s absolute obedience to his superior officer. Scripture makes one exception to this command: when obedience to civil authority would require disobedience to God’s Word (Ex. 1:17; Dan. 3:16–18; 6:7, 10; see note on Acts 4:19). governing authorities. Every position of civil authority without regard to competency, morality, reasonableness, or any other caveat (1 Thess. 4:11, 12; 1 Tim. 2:1, 2; Titus 3:1, 2). there is no authority except from God. Since He alone is the sovereign ruler of the universe (Pss. 62:11; 103:19; 1 Tim. 6:15), He has instituted 4 authorities on earth: 1) the government over all citizens; 2) the church over all believers; 3) the parents over all children; and 4) the masters over all employees. appointed. Human government’s authority derives from and is defined by God. He instituted human government to reward good and to restrain sin in an evil, fallen world. 13:2 resists the ordinance of God. Since all government is God-ordained, disobedience is rebellion against God. judgment. Not God’s judgment, but punishment from the government for breaking the law (see note on v. 4). 13:3 not a terror to good works, but to evil. Even the most wicked, godless governments act as a deterrent to crime. Do what is good…have praise. Peaceful, law-abiding citizens need not fear the authorities. Few governments will harm those who obey their laws. In fact, governments usually commend such people. 13:4 God’s minister…for good. By helping restrain evil and protecting life and property. Paul took advantage of his government’s role in promoting what is good when he exercised his rights as a Roman citizen to obtain justice (Acts 16:37; 22:25, 29; 25:11). bear the sword. This symbolizes the government’s right to inflict punishment on wrongdoers—especially capital punishment (Gen. 9:6; cf. Matt. 26:52; Acts 25:11). to execute wrath. Not God’s wrath, but the punishment inflicted by the civil authorities. 13:5 be subject. See note on v. 1. because of…conscience’ sake. Out of a sense of obligation to God and to keep a clear conscience before Him (see note on 2 Cor. 1:12), not merely to avoid punishment from the civil authorities 13:6 because of this. Because God ordained human government and demands submission to it (vv. 1–5). taxes. The Gr. word referred specifically to taxes paid by individuals, particularly those living in a conquered nation to their foreign rulers—which makes the tax even more onerous. That tax was usually a combined income and property tax. In this context, however, Paul uses the term in the broadest possible sense to speak of all kinds of taxes. Jesus explicitly taught that taxes are to be paid—even to the pagan Roman government (Matt. 22:17–21). He also set an example by willingly paying the temple tax (Matt. 17:24–27). 13:7 Render…to all their due. “Render” translates a Gr. word signifying the payment of something owed—not a voluntary contribution—and is reinforced by the word “due.” The apostle reiterates that paying taxes is mandatory (see note on v. 6). customs. Tolls or taxes on goods. fear…honor. God demands that we show sincere respect and an attitude of genuine high esteem for all public officials. NKJV MacArthur Study BiblePaoloV
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
Romans 13:1-7
[ Submission to the Authorities ] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, …
13:1 be subject to. A significant theme in vv. 1–7. governing authorities. The civil rulers, all of whom were probably pagans at the time Paul was writing. Christians may have been tempted not to submit to them and to claim allegiance only to Christ. established by God. Even the possibility of a persecuting state did not shake Paul’s conviction that civil government is ordained by God (see 1Pe 2:13–17 and notes). 13:2 judgment. Either divine judgment or, more likely, punishment by the governing authorities, since v. 3 (“For”) explains this verse; see also v. 4. 13:3 do what is right and you will be commended. Paul is not stating that this will always be true but is describing the proper, ideal function of rulers. When civil rulers overstep their proper function, the Christian is to obey God rather than human authorities (see Ac 4:19; 5:29). 13:4 God’s servant. In the order of divine providence the ruler is God’s servant (see Isa 45:1 and note). good. Rulers exist for the benefit of society—to protect the general public by maintaining good order. sword. The symbol of Roman authority on both the national and the international levels. Here we find the Biblical principle of using force for the maintenance of good order. 13:5 as a matter of conscience. Civil authorities are ordained by God, and in order to maintain a good conscience Christians must duly honor them. 13:6 you pay taxes. Because rulers are God’s agents, who function for the benefit of society in general. NIV Study Bible NotesPaoloV
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
Did Jesus come to destroy the established social order? Not in the first century of this Age of Grace. Does that mean He agrees with it? No. He left the mess we humans made of this world after rejecting God’s offer in Eden. But one day He will come to get rid of all this mess. Then every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord.PaoloV
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
Long before the OT was written, we humans had established our own ungodly social rules, away from our Creator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_GreecePaoloV
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
Since we humans decided -right at the beginning of our history- to reject God’s gracious conditions and instead followed our own ungodly desires, we were warned that it ain’t gonna be as it ought to be. And our Creator patiently let us mess things up as terribly as we have done it. But now we want to blame our own mess on God? We don’t want God to tell us what to do but we demand Him to fix our own mess, resulted from us rejecting His wise precepts? Do we realize what we’re doing? Instead of doubting God’s words, we should ask Him directly about anything we don’t understand and He will give us sufficient wisdom to understand according to His perfect will. We should long to get back to where we once belonged.PaoloV
September 16, 2019
September
09
Sep
16
16
2019
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
EG, I cited the statement made by BB, in order to correct it.As RHK-Webster notes, this term carries with it the suggestion " to give tacit approval to." Hence, the importance of the yardstick case of divorce as was already noted; esp. Mal 2:16, "I hate divorce" and the associated note about the hardness of men's hearts. Philemon then becomes a pivotal work of global liberation (and more broadly of gospel ethics and the linked theistic approach to natural law), though it is in fact one of the smallest books in the Bible. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2019
September
09
Sep
15
15
2019
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Ed George
Perhaps the disagreement stems from your use of the word “condone” in the title of the OP. Perhaps a better term would have been “advocate” or “claim that slavery is good and harmless”, because only the completely irrational and unreasonable would say that the Bible claims either.
Yet the people who say that “God (or the bible) "condones slavery” usually mean to leave the reader with that sane irrational impression. Usually, they are challenging the Christian argument that the creator God is also a good and loving God, to which they say, “Oh really, then why does God condone slavery and “promote Genocide?” Surely, you are aware of this dynamic. The fact that they may not be using exactly the right word to express their cynicism doesn’t change the fact that they are, in effect, saying that God is a hypocrite, just as they are challenging the proposition that the bible, properly interpreted, is a sound moral guide. The one thing they are not saying is, “Don’t misunderstand, God may have permitted slavery out of respect to man’s free will, but it has no place in his moral universe.
This being said, I don’t really want to get into the weeds on this issue which, as I mentioned above, I find ridiculous.
An insistence on rigorous definitions is the sine qua non of a rational discussion. What you call "weeds" I call the tools of thought. It is ridiculous not to use them when they are needed, and they are certainly needed here.StephenB
September 15, 2019
September
09
Sep
15
15
2019
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply