Bible vs. Bible

[matthew mckeon]

Let's move beyond trying to use the Bible to reargue the issue of slavery.

 

[alan polk]

Its must have been nice for slave holders to be able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow...

Wilber, the title of the thread is "Bible Vs. Bible." The title pre-supposes a "pick and choose." It is not, The South vs. The Bible. The OP has asked a specific question:

How did each side use the Bible to justify their position and what specific verses did each side site as justification for their cause?


I provided the Southern side with specific verses as the South's "justification," per the OP's request. I did not offer it up as proving the South was right or that I agreed with anything. My post was narrowly tailored to try to answer the OP's specific question on an interactive Civil War Forum. In today's climate, one (me) must be clear to the worldly internet that one doesn't endorse or support historical and factual occurrences, though one might cite or disseminate them for the understanding of a particular topic. So, if I was not clear in my initial post, I hope it is clear now.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Wilber, the title of the thread is "Bible Vs. Bible." The title pre-supposes a "pick and choose." It is not, The South vs. The Bible. The OP has asked a specific question:

How did each side use the Bible to justify their position and what specific verses did each side site as justification for their cause?


I provided the Southern side with specific verses as the South's "justification," per the OP's request. I did not offer it up as proving the South was right or that I agreed with anything. My post was narrowly tailored to try to answer the OP's specific question on an interactive Civil War Forum. In today's climate, one (me) must be clear to the worldly internet that one doesn't endorse or support historical and factual occurrences, though one might cite or disseminate them for understanding of a particular topic. So, if I was not clear in my initial post, I hope it is clear now.

alan polk, thank you for your explanation. That's certainly how I understood you.

 

[John Hartwell]

Obviously, as noted above, people can find some reinforcement in the Bible for just about anything, a skill not limited to antebellum slave owners.

Very true. It was the practice of both slave owners and slavery opponents. And from it both sides concluded they were in the right. Biblically speaking, perhaps they were.
jno

 

[DanF]

What both sides did is engage in "proof texts" a habit still common today.

As the saying goes "text without context is a pretext."

 

[Allie]

Do the scriptures in the New Testiment supercede those in the Old or add to them? If slavery is to only be viewed by whats in the New Testiment then how do some of the basic foundations of our faith such as the Ten Commandments fit in? Are we again just picking and choosing what we are to follow in the Bible just to justify slavery?

I'll attempt to answer the theological question in terms of history and major beliefs at the time of the Civil War, and the history of the use of the Ten Commandments within Christianity, without getting into what is correct. Hopefully this won't violate any rules.

Most mainstream Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant, regarded this as settled by the book of Acts, which describes early disagreement in the Church about whether or not gentile converts would have to be circumcised and follow Jewish laws. The decision was that the converts had to follow the moral but not the ceremonial parts of the law. In Acts, this was defined by four things: no eating of sacrifices to idols, no fornication, no eating strangled animals or blood. This set of rules is known to theologians as the Apostolic Decree, and is still observed by Orthodox Christians and a few Western sects such as Seventh Day Adventists.

The Apostolic Decree doesn't mention murder, theft, etc., so generally theologians assume that other, more specifically moral codes of behavior were considered too obvious to be disputed at this time. Both Jesus and Paul in the New Testament give a list of commandments paralleling five of the ten - but not the same five. Paul mentions coveting, Jesus does not, and Jesus mentions honoring parents while Paul does not. Both Paul and Jesus then go on to explain that all laws can be summarized by the Great Commandment to treat others as you wish to be treated.

Interestingly, most Jewish theologians historically did not hold that the Ten Commandments were intended for non-Jews. The Jewish code of moral behavior for non-Jews is the Noahide law, seven laws felt to be binding on all people descended from Noah, in other words, everyone alive today. These laws aren't found in the Bible but in the Talmud, although they are felt to be derived from the Bible (or, rather, the Torah). They don't mention slavery, either.

1. Do not deny God.
2. Do not blaspheme God.
3. Do not murder.
4. Do not engage in incestuous, adulterous or homosexual relationships.
5. Do not steal.
6. Do not eat of a live animal.
7. Establish courts/legal system to ensure law and obedience.

It's not clear to what degree the Ten Commandments formed a part of early Christian teachings. However, they were extensively discussed by many foundational Christian writers such as Augustine, and by the Middle Ages they were being taught as part of catechisms. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) established, for Catholics, the belief that the Ten Commandments came directly from God and were binding on everybody, as well as the first official church-wide catechism. At about the same time, Protestants were creating their own catechisms such as Luther's Small Catechism (1529) which also incorporated the Ten Commandments. From this point forward, the Ten Commandments were regarded as a statement of laws binding on Christians by the majority of Christians.

As you can see, none of this defines any specific church position regarding the morality of slavery.

However, early Colonial laws defined a slave as someone from a non-Christian nation brought to the colonies by force - which indicates that at an early date (from the perspective of. American slavery) who could be enslaved in America was seen in the context of a religious question.

 

[kepi]

Wilber, the title of the thread is "Bible Vs. Bible." The title pre-supposes a "pick and choose." It is not, The South vs. The Bible. The OP has asked a specific question:

How did each side use the Bible to justify their position and what specific verses did each side site as justification for their cause?


I provided the Southern side with specific verses as the South's "justification," per the OP's request. I did not offer it up as proving the South was right or that I agreed with anything. My post was narrowly tailored to try to answer the OP's specific question on an interactive Civil War Forum. In today's climate, one (me) must be clear to the worldly internet that one doesn't endorse or support historical and factual occurrences, though one might cite or disseminate them for the understanding of a particular topic. So, if I was not clear in my initial post, I hope it is clear now.

Thank you for responding and, yes, you provided revalant information to the question.

 

[wilber6150]

I'll attempt to answer the theological question in terms of history and major beliefs at the time of the Civil War, and the history of the use of the Ten Commandments within Christianity, without getting into what is correct. Hopefully this won't violate any rules.

Most mainstream Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant, regarded this as settled by the book of Acts, which describes early disagreement in the Church about whether or not gentile converts would have to be circumcised and follow Jewish laws. The decision was that the converts had to follow the moral but not the ceremonial parts of the law. In Acts, this was defined by four things: no eating of sacrifices to idols, no fornication, no eating strangled animals or blood. This set of rules is known to theologians as the Apostolic Decree, and is still observed by Orthodox Christians and a few Western sects such as Seventh Day Adventists.

The Apostolic Decree doesn't mention murder, theft, etc., so generally theologians assume that other, more specifically moral codes of behavior were considered too obvious to be disputed at this time. Both Jesus and Paul in the New Testament give a list of commandments paralleling five of the ten - but not the same five. Paul mentions coveting, Jesus does not, and Jesus mentions honoring parents while Paul does not. Both Paul and Jesus then go on to explain that all laws can be summarized by the Great Commandment to treat others as you wish to be treated.

Interestingly, most Jewish theologians historically did not hold that the Ten Commandments were intended for non-Jews. The Jewish code of moral behavior for non-Jews is the Noahide law, seven laws felt to be binding on all people descended from Noah, in other words, everyone alive today. These laws aren't found in the Bible but in the Talmud, although they are felt to be derived from the Bible. They don't mention slavery, either.

1. Do not deny God.
2. Do not blaspheme God.
3. Do not murder.
4. Do not engage in incestuous, adulterous or homosexual relationships.
5. Do not steal.
6. Do not eat of a live animal.
7. Establish courts/legal system to ensure law and obedience.

It's not clear to what degree the Ten Commandments formed a part of early Christian teachings. However, they were extensively discussed by many foundational Christian writers such as Augustine, and by the Middle Ages they were being taught as part of catechisms. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) established, for Catholics, the belief that the Ten Commandments came directly from God and were binding on everybody, as well as the first official church-wide catechism. At about the same time, Protestants were creating their own catechisms such as Luther's Small Catechism (1529) which also incorporated the Ten Commandments. From this point forward, the Ten Commandments were regarded as a statement of laws binding on Christians by the majority of Christians.

As you can see, none of this defines any specific church position regarding the morality of slavery.

However, early Colonial laws defined a slave as someone from a non-Christian nation brought to the colonies by force - which indicates that at an early date (from the perspective of. American slavery) who could be enslaved in America was seen in the context of a religious question.

Thank you for that, very intersting stuff

 

[dvrmte]

Translation: Kidnapping people and selling them is evil. But buying the kidnapped, and keeping them and their children under bondage is ok.

Not being judgmental, just trying to clarify what they believed.

- Alan

No, the buyers, or those forced(colonists) to use that source of labor, equally sinned. Later generations defended the continuance based on the greater good of society, both the slave and the free.

 

[dvrmte]

Really? How many slaves did Jesus own?

Did Jesus own anything? Actually all believers in Christ were considered His and the Lord's slaves. So I guess that would make him and the Lord the largest joint slaveholders of all time.

 

[dvrmte]

Its must have been nice for slave holders to be able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow...

Then please show us where the Bible condemns slavery or slaveholders. You won't find it.

However, helping fugitive slaves escape from fellow citizens was theft, and the abolitionists misuse of the Bible is false prophesying.

Matthew 7:15
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

1st John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1st Corinthians 11:13
For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

 

[jgoodguy]

One more time. Please concentrate using evidence from the time. What did the folks of the time think.

Modern theology is all over the map on everything. There is no theological principle that does not have one and most likely a number of competing principles all held by very passionate people. This is not the place to discuss.

 

[brass napoleon]

Did Jesus own anything? Actually all believers in Christ were considered His and the Lord's slaves. So I guess that would make him and the Lord the largest joint slaveholders of all time.

Actually it was one of the abolitionists arguments that since man belonged to God no man could own him.

 

[jgoodguy]

Actually it was one of the abolitionists arguments that since man belonged to God no man could own him.

Have some examples of period arguments?

 

[brass napoleon]

I'

Have some examples of period arguments?

I'm out of town working on my ereader this week, but I do know of some examples. If I can get to a real computer today I'll try to post them. If not, when I get back.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I agree with jgoodguy. Unless one of has a divine revelation, I don't see the point of trying to argue whether God was OK with slavery or not. I'm sure anyone can construct a biblical justification for nearly anything.

Obviously 19th century America thought in religious terms. It would be useful to know what religious rationales and justifications were used and believed, not go through the Bible today and see what we can pick out.

Both jgoodguy and myself have urged people to stick to history.

 

[matthew mckeon]

My own view is that the origin of antislavery ideology wasn't really the Bible, but the Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinking about human rights was often framed in religious language, which was the language available to the people of the time.

 

[James B White]

Then please show us where the Bible condemns slavery or slaveholders. You won't find it.

However, helping fugitive slaves escape from fellow citizens was theft, and the abolitionists misuse of the Bible is false prophesying.

Could you give an example of someone in the period claiming that what abolitionists were doing was false prophesying?

 

[jgoodguy]

As info

Rev. Ebenezer W. Warren, b. 1820
Nellie Norton: or, Southern Slavery and the Bible. A Scriptural Refutation of the Principal Arguments upon which the Abolitionists Rely. A Vindication of Southern Slavery from the Old and New Testaments.

Macon, Ga.: Burke, Boykin & Company, 1864.

Other Formats

ABBYY GZ DAISY EPUB FULL TEXT GENERIC RAW BOOK ZIP KINDLE PDF

 

[jgoodguy]

As Info.


On the Negro's Place in Nature
by James Hunt , Anthropological Society of London
Published 1863

Other formats

ABBYY GZ
DAISY
EPUB
FLIPPY ZIP
FULL TEXT
KINDLE
PDF