“Could it be that we, too, have some serious blind spots? Could it be that we, too, are grossly ignorant in some ways?”

I wonder if first-century Christians who owned slaves would consider themselves "unlawful and wrong" for owning slaves? I understand that first-century slavery wasn't the same type of chattel slavery practiced in the 1400s-1800s. I also understand that many people living in the Roman Empire were slaves. But, is the mere practice of owning someone as a slave biblically "unlawful and wrong"? Was slavery a blind spot for Jews and early Christians who lived in the Roman Empire?

Or, did it become unlawful and wrong based on the type of slavery practiced or the changing views of the surrounding society about slavery?

Regarding slavery, I think that the process of "man-stealing" in Africa, combined with the permanent nature of the "peculiar institution", should have separated it from Biblical slavery, which was temporary and should not have resulted from "man-stealing", which was of course a capital crime. Then you've got the sexual use of female slaves which has led to the average U.S. African-American having about 25% caucasian DNA. That's a bit different from the stringent protections given women who became slaves in Israel when they were captured in the conquest of Canaan.

Regarding blind spots today, I can think of a few, many of them coming from the pervasiveness of legalistic organizations like those of Bill Gothard. I can also think of some blind spots regarding permissible vs. unpermissable contracts--I think we give too much leeway to "well, they agreed to it."

Regarding slavery, I think that the process of "man-stealing" in Africa, combined with the permanent nature of the "peculiar institution", should have separated it from Biblical slavery, which was temporary and should not have resulted from "man-stealing", which was of course a capital crime. Then you've got the sexual use of female slaves which has led to the average U.S. African-American having about 25% caucasian DNA. That's a bit different from the stringent protections given women who became slaves in Israel when they were captured in the conquest of Canaan.

I'm not referring to biblical slavery, but rather to slavery as it existed during the times of Paul.

Greco-Roman slavery consisted mostly of conquered people groups and debtors. That said, if you were a slave, you could be used for whatever purposes your master desired, from working the fields, serving members of the household (i.e. tutors, meal prep, cleaning, attendants, etc.), or for satisfying sexual lust.

The wives, daughters, and sons of conquered people groups would all be slaves. While that's not "man-stealing," you are taking a man's family away from him and forcing them into slavery. Female slaves would remain slaves (as would any children they would produce while enslaved) until they were freed by their master or were married to their master or master's son.

So, again, I'm trying to understand if first-century Christians and Jews who owned slaves also had a biblical blind spot regarding slavery.

....I have to wonder if passages like 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 would (at least if applied) prohibit the sexual use of slaves.

Regarding the brutality necessary to maintain the "peculiar institution", it strikes me that Paul puts the kibosh on that in Philemon where he subtly points out that while Philemon might have the legal right to harshly discipline or even kill Onesimus, Paul has the position of being the one to whom Philemon owes his eternal security. Obviously this was not consistently applied in either era, either, but I think Paul's letter to Philemon does a lot to re-package slavery in a state closer to its Old Testament model.

Bert,

I don't question whether a Christian slave owner having sex with his slaves is wrong. And, I don't question whether a Christian slave owner beating his slaves is wrong. Paul addresses both in his letters to his churches.

What I'm questioning is whether owning slaves in general is wrong, according to Scripture. Was slave ownership in general a blind spot for first-century Christians? In other words, should first-century Christians not have owned slaves at all? We can look back based on our modern sensibilities and say they should not have owned slaves at all. But, that was not an issue in the Greco-Roman society in which they lived. It only became a "blind spot" once society decided slavery in general is bad. But, that society came thousands of years later.