The Egyptians did the same thing when the Pharaoh was cruel and nutty.

-------
Jammin' in the name of the Lord.

---

Depends on the true meaning of slave and masters. I believe the Bible would of made exceptions given the circumstances at the time.  

antebellum south and old egypt where pharaohs ruled, not smelly ol' confederates.  

---

The Biblical slavery refers to more than just the Egyptians.  Old testament Jews such as Abraham had slaves (remember the story of Hagar?).  And in the new testament it refers to the Romans as well.  Not to mention the history of the Isrealites in and out of slavery, whether it was by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, etc etc...(Story of Esther).

-------
"Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery."

The same is true of the New Testament slave.  The only difference that I have been able to isolate between past forms of slavery and the black slave trade is that the latter was racially motivated.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

The verse from Peter is particularly convincing. Suffering unjustly but righteously is the example Christ left, so it is hard to justify a slave uprising. There is Liberation Christianity which would say the slaves did not sin. Liberation theology doesn't seem to make alot of theological sense to me though I must admit I don't know enough about it to judge it completely baseless.

I'd have to say yes they did overall. It seems wholly unfair but beyond the verses quoted it also seems to break Jesus command of turning the other cheek.

---

I don't know the passages off hand, I'm sure you do, though. Doesn't it say somewhere about slaves being offered their freedom after a certain amount of time? That opportunity was not an option for the American slaves. And from something I read somewhere I got the impression that biblical 'slaves' were much more like indentured servants than what we consider 'slaves' now.

---

sure, God commanded the Israelites to practice a form of indentured servitude that was vastly different from antebellum slavery.

But Paul and Peter are not talking to Jewish slaves being held by jews but rather to slaves to Romans and Greeks...Slaves to a system outside of Israelite custom or practice.

These were slaves in every sense of the imagination and often very similar to antebellum times.

-------
Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money
come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and
without cost.-Isaiah 55:1
www.wateringmalawi.com

To the Christian sense, yes, but it could be considered no if you want to change the definition of slave and master into a metaphor for follower and god.

-------
I made it rain on my hoes.Then god smote me for trying to play god.

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:04 pm on July 16, 2008

---

I don't know the passages off hand, I'm sure you do, though. Doesn't it say somewhere about slaves being offered their freedom after a certain amount of time? That opportunity was not an option for the American slaves. And from something I read somewhere I got the impression that biblical 'slaves' were much more like indentured servants than what we consider 'slaves' now.

---

 

sure, God commanded the Israelites to practice a form of indentured servitude that was vastly different from antebellum slavery.  

But Paul and Peter are not talking to Jewish slaves being held by jews but rather to slaves to Romans and Greeks...Slaves to a system outside of Israelite custom or practice.  

These were slaves in every sense of the imagination and often very similar to antebellum times.

---

---

In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality - many slave owners truly believed black people to be "inferior human beings" to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

---

---

In the Old Testament era, no Hebrew could permanently become the slave of another. Slaves had to be freed when they paid the debt for which they were sold. Also, in the seventh year of their service, whether or not the debt was paid, they had to be released. And when the Year of Jubilee arrived, all slaves were set free.

Slavery in the Roman world did not generally involve inhuman treatment. Slaves often managed money, guarded children, cooked food, and sometimes were even family doctors. We generally associate the word "slave" with the ideas of forced subjection, involuntary service, and harsh treatment. Those terms are not accurate descriptions of slavery in the Roman Empire.

We need to know what slavery was like in New Testament times so that we can know how to apply the New Testament instructions to situations in our own day. Kent Hughes, in his commentary on Ephesians (Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL), page 206, documents much helpful information on Roman slavery. It is estimated that there were 60,000,000 slaves in the Roman Empire, but the average slave was not abused and exploited. Some slaves did suffer at the hands of their owners, but slaves under Roman law could usually count on being set free. While slaves remained their owner's property, they themselves could own property---including other slaves.

We note too that being a slave did not indicate one's social class. Slaves were accorded the social status of their owners. And outwardly, one could scarcely ever distinguish a slave from a free person. A slave could be a custodian, a merchant, a salesman, a teacher, or a government official. Slaves were often highly educated. There were a few slaves who were elders in the church, and thus had authority over the masters whom they served all week. Selling oneself as a slave was commonly used as a means of gaining Roman citizenship.

Roman slavery in the first century was far more humane and civilized than the African-American slavery practiced in the he United States during the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. This does not suggest that ancient slavery was not evil. Slaves were still considered property and could be bought and sold and severely punished-but understanding the nature of slavery in New Testament times helps us to understand why the apostolic writers were not as quick to attack slavery.

---

Post edited at 5:02 pm on July 16, 2008 by Forever Angel

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Pectus Pectoris Memor

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:51 pm on July 16, 2008

---

Isn't there a slight difference between 'slave' in the biblical sense and 'slave' as it was used in early American culture? Based on my believing there is a difference, I'd go with 'no' they weren't sinning.

---

That's fair.  Just explain what difference between the two specifically made it wrong for Bible-slaves to actively resist their masters but not US-slaves.

---