Robert Lewis Dabney And The Defense of Slavery In America

ROBERT LEWIS DABNEY

AND THE DEFENSE OF SLAVERY IN AMERICA

__________________

A Research Paper

Presented to

Todd Bolton

The Cornerstone Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for CH 799

__________________

by

Wes Wade

The Cornerstone Seminary

March 5, 2015

i

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1

SETTING UP THE PROBLEM ................................................................................................................... 2

SLAVERY AND THE DEBATE WITHIN THE COUNTRY ............................................................................................... 2

SLAVERY AND THE DEBATE WITHIN THE CHURCH ................................................................................................. 3

ROBERT LEWIS DABNEY ........................................................................................................................ 4

DABNEY’S ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE .......................................................................................................... 5

Old Testament Argument. ................................................................................................................... 6 Abraham a slaveholder ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Slavery in the Laws of Moses ............................................................................................................................................. 7

New Testament Argument ................................................................................................................... 9 The definition of douloj ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Slaveholders fully admitted to church-‐membership ........................................................................................................ 10 Philemon and Onesimus .................................................................................................................................................. 10

A CRITIQUE OF DABNEY’S ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 11

Critique of The Old Testament Argument .......................................................................................... 12 Slavery laws given to the Hebrews .................................................................................................................................. 12 Deuteronomy 23:15–16 ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Freedom and the Year of Jubliee ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Critique of The New Testament Argument ........................................................................................ 15 The definition of douloj ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Philemon and Onesimus .................................................................................................................................................. 15 1 Corinthians 7:20–21 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

TAKEAWAYS FROM THE DEBATE ......................................................................................................... 19

RELATION TO CURRENT ISSUES ........................................................................................................... 20

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................... 23

1

ROBERT LEWIS DABNEY AND A DEFENSE OF SLAVERY IN AMERICA

Introduction

Throughout the course of church history the question of how theology and politics

should interact has been answered in different ways. When the church began under the Roman

system Christianity was illegal. For the next 300 years if a person was found to be a Christian

they were almost guaranteed persecution and suffering. Once Constantine became the emperor

over the Roman Empire, Christianity was not only declared legal but also now the official state

religion. Within the next 1000 years, with the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, the church and

the state would no longer be two separate entities but one and the same. The question which had

already been a difficult one to answer had now become confounded further by the fact that the

church and state were no longer separate. This is why during the reign of the Catholic Church

and even shortly after the Protestant Reformation, church discipline issues would often be

answered with political punishments.

The American church has faced its own set of theological and political questions since

the writing of the Separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution. While not solely the

issue behind the United States Civil War, the question over the Bible’s stance on slavery and

what the American position should be on the issue had a major impact on the country and the

war. Not only was the political side of the country affected by the difference of opinion on this

question but the churches in American were as well.

Slavery has been dealt with in different ways in different denominations of the

American church. This paper will focus on the manner in which Robert Lewis Dabney in the

southern Presbyterian church represented the issue of slavery. This will be done in two ways.

First, I will summarize Dabney’s biblical defense of slavery. Second, I will critique his biblical

2

defense of slavery by examining the texts that he used and expounding upon overlooked and

misinterpreted texts in order to arrive at the most biblical answer. Ultimately I want to look at the

effects that the position taken by the southern Presbyterian Church has had on the state of affairs

in the modern American church. I intend for the conclusions of this paper to be highly practical

in regards to how Christians living in the American system should deal with issues with a proper

biblical understanding. My thesis is that the cultural and racial biases of Robert Lewis Dabney

contributed to his interpretation of slavery from the Bible and greatly affected the way that the

southern churches responded to the Emancipation Proclamation.

Setting Up The Problem

Rarely is there a situation in which the solution to a problem is black and white.

Slavery is one of those issues where the solution can be complicated. The problem is that in

dealing with slavery it is not merely a person’s freedom that is in question. Especially in the case

of American slavery where the economic system of a region will be vastly altered if legislation

were passed on the legality of owning people.1 There are religious, political, and economic issues

that must be dealt with in solving the problem of slavery.

Slavery and the debate within the country

Slavery had been a hotly debated topic simply in the political realm — divorced from

the religious side — since the founding of the United States.2 Slavery was not a new system by

1 Part of the problem for the country was not merely the moral and ethical question of slavery but simply the economic question. Since there were anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 slaves freed initially by the Emancipation Proclamation, part of the issue was simply that there would be farmers without workers and ex-slaves

2 John Hope Franklin writes on the growing tension between the north and south. According to him this divide largely occurred because of the difference between commerce in the north and south. The north was increasingly moving toward an industrial and business area while the south was increasingly agrarian. It was this divide and the need for slave workers that began the divide in political thought in the early 1800s. John Hope Franklin, From Freedom to Slavery (New York: Borzoi Books, 1974), 188. For a good resource describing the political side of the debate over slavery see: William Lee Miller, Arguing About Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress (New York: Vintage, 1996). For a good resource on both the political and religious debate within the country see William Dudley ed., Slavery: Opposing Viewpoints (San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1992).

3

any means but a socio-economic way of living carried over from the Old World.3 This does not

mean that the institution was simply accepted without question however. From the founding of

the country different political leaders were debating whether or not slavery should be a legal

practice within this newly founded free nation. For example, Thomas Jefferson attempted to add

a clause into the Declaration of Independence that would outlaw slavery as “a war against human

nature itself”.4 Part of the reservation for many Americans was their own recent history under the

oppressive hand of the British government. The debate within the country was a hot one, and

tended to be fought between the northern and southern states long before any thought of a civil

war.5

Slavery and the debate within the church

Politics were not the only reason for debating slavery in America.6 Within the church

slavery was hotly debated as well. During the 1800s in fact, the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist,

and Episcopalian churches all divided over the issue of slavery.7 Generally speaking the northern

3 William Dudley writes on this phenomenon in his introductory chapter “Slavery in Early America,” 22–24.

4 E.P. Barrows, “The State And Slavery,” BSAC 019:76, (Oct 1862), 750. Recent historical discussion notwithstanding on Thomas Jefferson. While he stands out as one of the most prominent early American opponents of slavery, there have been a certain number of findings that would suggest he also owned slaves. This does not take away from his desire to outlaw the practice even if the recent claims are true.

5 There are many misconceptions about slavery and the Civil War. Some would see slavery as the main reason for the Civil War and others would set it aside as if it did not play any part whatsoever. The Civil War was fought primarily over the issue of states rights verses federal rights. Slavery just happened to be one of the issues that many believed belonged to the state while others to the federal government. So while slavery was probably not the driving force behind the Civil War it contributed to the main issue of states rights verses federal.

6 It is important to note that at this time religion still played a major role in politics.

7 The Presbyterian Church broke off into The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States (later Prebyterian Church in the United States). The Methodist Church broke off into The Methodist Episcopal Church and The Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The Baptist Church broke off into The American Baptist Missionary Union (now American Baptist Convention) and The Southern Baptist Convention. The Episcopalian Church broke off into The Protestant Episcopal Church and The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America. Note, all of these churches have joined back together except for the Baptist churches.

4

churches were against the institution of slavery and the southern churches were for it.8 One can

already begin to see the effects that the political divide in the country was having on the religious

views of the people. The debate in the church essentially took two sides, “Is American slavery a

normal institution or an abuse?”9 Some took slavery to be inherently wrong, while others argued

that slavery itself was not wrong but that the way a slave entered into slavery was the problem.

So the debate in the church was not simply, “Is slavery acceptable?” rather it was, “How does the

way the Bible speak of slavery inform the way America deals with the issue?”10

Robert Lewis Dabney11

Robert Lewis Dabney was a southerner. He held firmly to southern ideals and saw the

southern way of life as highly important to America and the Presbyterian Church in the south.

Theologically Dabney is most well known for his Systematic Theology12 that he wrote and used

to teach his students at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. Politically he is best known as

Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff during the Civil War and his first and most famous

biographer.13

Understanding Dabney on slavery can be a convoluted subject because of the span of

8 Franklin, From Freedom to Slavery, 188.

9 This question is taken from E.P. Barrows, “The Bible And Slavery,” BSAC 019:75, (July 1862), 573.

10 Chapters 1 and 2 of Dudley’s Slavery summarize the breadth of the debate well, 22–117.

11 There are only two primary biographical resources on Robert Lewis Dabney, Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney: a Southern Presbyterian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2005); Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991). All of Dabney’s writing have been published in a 5 volume set along with his work on The Five Points of Calvinism: Robert Lewis Dabney, Edited by C. R. Vaughan, D D., Robert L. Discussions: Volumes 1-5, Vol I. Theological and Evangelical, Vol Ii. Evangelical, Vol Iii. Philosophical. Vol. IV., Secular, Vol V. Miscellaneous Writings (Discussions, Volumes One-Five). Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1982; Robert Lewis Dabney, and Rev. Jonathan Dickinson. The Five Points of Calvinism. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1992.

12 Robert Lewis Dabney, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. St. Louis: Banner of Truth, 1996.

13 R. L. Dabney, The Life and Campaigns of Lieut.-Gen. Thomas J. Jackson: (Stonewall Jackson) (Berryville, Virgina: Hess Pubns, 1998), 1.

5

time that he wrote on it and the different arenas in which he fought the battle. Before the Civil

War there were discussions simply on whether or not slavery was a moral evil, with Dabney

taking the side that slavery was good. After the Civil War — particularly after the Emancipation

Proclamation — there were discussions on how the Presbyterian Church should handle freed

slaves within the church. The latter discussion pertained more to Presbyterian polity structures

but did include arguments that will be helpful in understanding his view on slavery. Dabney was

quite the theologian, and of particular influence in the American Church. However his views on

slavery — especially his remarks on race — have tainted his reputation and influence that his

otherwise good theology could have on other issues.14

Dabney’s Argument From The Bible

In 1867 Dabney published a work called “A Defence of Virginia” which was

originally entitled, “A Defence of Slavery.”15 He outlines his book by speaking first of the

African Slave Trade, then the legal status of slavery in the US, followed by the history of

emancipation. The main part of the book is concerned with his argument for slavery from the

Bible. He then concludes with the argument from the ethical side and the economic side. For the

purposes of this paper the biblical argument only will be summarized and critiqued. At the

beginning of his chapter on the Old Testament argument he states, “That no misunderstanding

may attend the discussion, we must define at the outset, what we mean by that domestic slavery

which we defend. By this relation we understand the obligations of the slave to labour for life,

without his own consent, for the master.”16 In what follows I will summarize his biblical

14 Thomas Cary Johnson, writing shortly after Dabney’s death remarks, “Dabney’s Theology marks him out as very much superior to Dr. Charles Hodge as a thinker of profundity and power, and a stimulator of thought. Hodge’s great three-volume work is very valuable as a sort of encyclopedia of theological belief ; but for exposition and vindication of the creed, which they held in common, for wrestling faithfully with hard points, for mastery of difficulties, Dabney is vastly superior,” Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, 556.

15 He began writing the work before the Civil Ware began but because of set backs and his own inclusion in the war it was not able to be published until after the conflict.

16 Robert Lewis Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, And Through Her, Of The South, In Recent And Pending Contests Against The Sectional Party, (New York, New York, 1867), 94

6

arguments for slavery in “A Defence of Virginia.”17

Old Testament Argument.

Dabney’s defense of slavery from the Old Testament comes largely from the

Pentateuch with a couple of appeals to Joshua and some allusions to other books. His purpose in

writing is to show that “the Bible teaches that the relation of master and slave is perfectly lawful

and right, provided only its duties be lawfully fulfilled.”18 In essence Dabney is not seeking to

defend the actions of every slave owner rather to justify slavery as an institution.

Abraham a slaveholder

After some preliminary matters are settled he begins his argument with Abraham as a

slaveholder.19 The main point of this section is to show that Abraham as the father of the Israelite

nation was himself a slave owner and was not condemned for it.20 Dabney, who is not ignorant of

the Abolitionist’s arguments, discusses the Hebrew words for “hired servant” and “slave” here.

The Abolitionists claim that Abraham only had hired servants and not actual slaves.21 The

problem with their argument is that it is taken from the fact that “Abraham did not fear to arm

17 I will not summarize every point he makes here.

18 Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 100.


20 At this point the Abolitionists would claim that Abraham was also a polygamist and was not condemned for that either. Dabney does not pass over this discussion but rather faces it head on at the end of his Old Testament section entitled “Objections To The Old Testament Argument.” Dabney’s argument is essentially: “polygamy and capricious divorce never were authorized by Old Testament law, in the sense in which domestic slavery was; and, second, the latter was never prohibited in the New Testament, as polygamy and such divorce expressly are.” Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 124–145.

21 The Abolitionists are a difficult group to generalize, they could be likened to those who would fight against abortion in the current day. There are many that argue against it on theological grounds and seek to do away with it by using the legislative system to push through new laws. Others blow up abortion clinics in an attempt to scare and punish those who would practice abortion. So it is hard to categorize the Abolitionists into one group without overgeneralizing.

Also, Dabney rarely if ever cites an Abolitionist, so my critique of the Abolitionist is coming second hand by Dabney’s summarization of them.

7

three hundred and eighteen of them. For had they been real slaves [they argue] they would not

have continued so one day after getting arms in their hands.”22 The Abolitionists do not argue

this point by looking at the Hebrew words. Dabney says, “In every case, ebed and shippheh…

are defined by every honest lexicon to mean actual slaves.”23

Dabney’s arguments from Abraham do not simply state that Abraham had slaves as if

that should settle the matter, rather he writes about the way in which God directed him to interact

with his slaves. His point is taken from Genesis 27:10ff where God tells Abraham to circumcise

himself, his male children, and his slaves “born in his house, or bought with his money of any

foreigner.” Dabney writes to establish the fact that the parental tie that brought his children under

the covenant was of a similar nature to the bond between a master and his slaves. The question

that Dabney poses is, “Would a holy God thus baptize [sanction] an unholy relation?”

Slavery in the Laws of Moses24

Moving on from his discussion on Abraham, Dabney comments on the way that

slavery is handled within the Law of Moses. At the very outset of this section he remarks, “The

fact that God expressly authorized domestic slavery, among the peculiar and temporary civil laws

of the Jews, while it does not prove that it is our positive duty to hold slaves, does prove that it is

innocent to hold them, unless it has been subsequently forbidden by God.”25Dabney was not

arguing that Scripture mandates the Hebrew or the believer to own slaves, rather his point is that



24 Dabney as a Presbyterian would see the Ten Commandments as still binding on the Christians today. This is a large debate that is beyond the scope of this paper and I will not argue for a position. My purpose in even stating this is to show that Dabney sees a connection between the Mosaic Covenant and the church that others do not see. While I think that this certainly has an effect on the way in which he sees slavery in the Old Testament and its relation to the New Testament church, I do not think that he makes any assertions that those who are involved with the current debate on Law and Gospel would not see as impertinent to the discussion. I say this only to show that Dabney’s arguments are not arbitrary.


8

it was authorized by God. His argument is that since the authorization was never repealed there is

no scriptural authority for someone to argue against the institution of slavery. He then moves on

to show what God expressly authorized through Moses.

Dabney begins with Exodus 21:2–6, “If thou buy26 an Hebrew servant [Ebed,] six

years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing…”27 Arguing against the

“anti-slavery man” who says that this passage was only temporary servitude, he argues “but it

was involuntary servitude, though temporary.”28 Dabney is not concerned with the seventh year

where the slave would be let free or the year of Jubilee,29 his point is to highlight the fact that

this was involuntary slavery. This is because the issue for Dabney is over whether or not slavery

is a moral or ethical evil, not over whether or not there was ever a legitimate time to let the slave

go free. Dabney begins here in Exodus because he wants to establish the fact that even in the

case of Hebrews owning Hebrews, slavery could be involuntary.

Progressing in this argument, he continues to Leviticus 25:44–46 to show that in the

case of the foreigner [non-Jew] who sojourned among the Hebrews, when they would be bought

they were to be slaves forever — not expected to be freed on the seventh year or in the year of

Jubilee. He makes this case by showing that foreign slaves were inheritable property whose

children would continue as slaves under the Mosaic Law.30 To further illustrate his point, he adds

26 The word “buy” (ָקנָה) is more literally translated as “acquire.” George Bourne argues that in the context of Exodus 21 that the Hebrew is paying the slave for his time. So while the slave would be under him for 6 years it was not as if he possessed him. See chapter 7 (pages 27–30) for his explanation. While I don’t fully agree with his conclusions, his understanding of the lexical root here is important. The idea has to do with acquiring someone for some purpose, not necessarily the monetary exchange. George Bourne, A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument; By a Citizen of Virginia, (New York, New York, 1845).

27 Dabney continues, but this is the important point of the passage.

28 Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 117. He also makes the case that the year of Jubilee would probably end the slave’s servitude even if he decided he loved his master and wanted to continue under him (Leviticus 25:41).

29 The year of Jubilee is described in Leviticus 25:8–13 where every fifty years in Israel all of the Hebrew slaves would be set free.

30 Dabney is quite good at making use of exegetes who do are, as he calls them, “anti-slavery men” or “no friend of slavery.” He often cites Moses Stuart on these points to show that even the “anti-slavery men” concede that these non-Jews were to be slaves forever, something that was instituted by God himself.

9

weight by citing Joshua 9 where the Gibeonites were captured as slaves, and continued to be so

even as far as 2 Samuel 21. His point is that plenty of years of Jubilee had passed by that time; if

it were meant to be applied to the non-Jew there would be no more Gibeonite slaves.31

New Testament Argument

After having established the legitimacy of slavery from the Old Testament, Dabney

moves forward into the New.

The definition of douloj

The first argument that he tackles concerns the lexical use of douloj in the New

Testament. Dabney, writing in the mid-1800s, is dealing mainly with the Authorized Version of

the New Testament, which often translates the word douloj as “servant.”32 Dabney’s purpose in

this section is to, “briefly state the evidence that douloj, when not metaphorical, means in the

mouth of Christ and his apostles a literal, domestic slave.”33

He begins outside of Christian literature in other Greek writings and establishes the

fact that douloj “is confessedly the word used for slave by secular writers of antiquity, in

histories, statues, works on political science, such as Aristotle’s, in the allusions of Greeks to the

Roman civil law, where they make it uniformly their translation for servus, so clearly and harshly

defined in that law as a literal slave.”34 Dabney then shows that the LXX — whose idioms are

more imitated in the New Testament than any other book — uses douloj to translate ֶבד citing ,ָע֫

Leviticus 25:44 for reference. His purpose is to clearly establish the fact that in both the Bible

and outside literature, douloj always means “slave” when used in the literal sense.


32 Interesting to note, newer translations have translated the word as “slaves” in some instances and “servants” in others, depending on the context.


34 Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 147. He cites “Drs. Bloomfield, Hodge, and Trench” as well as Dr. Edward Robinson.

10

He also makes it clear that there were other words that could have been used if the

idea of slave was not the intended meaning, such as odiakonoj or misqioj, which can be

translated as “hired servant.” Lexically, douloj in the most strict sense implies the idea of “being

another person’s possession.”

Slaveholders fully admitted to church-membership

Dabney finds it odd that if slaveholding were an evil thing, those who held slaves

would be allowed to be church members. His first example is of Cornelius in Acts 10:5–17 who

himself owned two slaves, but was baptized into the church along with his slaves by Peter in

Acts 11:15–17. In the same vain, those people addressed in Ephesians — masters and slaves

(6:5–9) — were at the beginning of the book called “the saints and faithful” (1:1). These masters

and slaves continued to be masters and slaves even after being saved and gathered together in a

local church. For Dabney it would seem to make more sense, if slavery was evil, that the New

Testament writers instead of exhorting masters and slaves to behave properly, would rebuke

them for continuing in their evil practices and instead strive for freedom. This is in essence the

heart of his argument. It simply does not make sense to Dabney that there would be so much on

the master/slave relationship discussed in the New Testament if the whole practice was

inherently sinful.

Philemon and Onesimus

The last biblical argument that Dabney puts forth as reason why slaveholding cannot

be sinful is the case of Philemon and Onesimus. Dabney claims that the only way the

Abolitionists are able to use the letter to Philemon as proof that slavery is evil is “by the

distressing wriggling and contortions of logic, to which they resort, in the vain attempt to evade

its inferences.”35 There are a number of different things that Dabney comments on in relation to


11

Philemon, but most important for our purposes here are his comments on verse 16. Paul writes in

verse 16, “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother…” This is essentially

where the debate lies. The Abolitionists claim that this is the proof that Paul saw slavery as a

moral evil of which he ended by telling Philemon no longer to hold Onesimus as a slave. Dabney

sees this verse differently. He writes, “The obvious sense of these words is, that Philemon should

now receive Onesimus back, not as a slave only, but as both a slave and Christian brother.”36

Dabney’s proof of this is that Paul had no reason or authority to manumit another man’s slave.

Not only this but Paul had already admitted Philemon’s rightful authority in verse 10 by saying,

“I beseech thee for my son Onesimus.” Dabney states, “Why beseech, if he might have

commanded? If Paul had the right to emancipate, why did he send him back at all, when every

other motive prompted to keep him?”37 In Dabney’s mind it did not make any sense for Paul to

send Onesimus back to Philemon without a command to free him, when Onesimus had already

gained his freedom by running away.

In the end it is clear to see that Dabney’s arguments for slavery were not merely a

cultural bias, he had a well thought out and well intended idea of what slavery should be.

A Critique of Dabney’s Argument38

While Dabney’s arguments in “A Defence of Virginia” were well thought out and

reasoned along with what the Bible has to say on the subject, there are some issues that must be

addressed. I will critique Dabney’s biblical arguments in hopes of bringing to light pitfalls and

misapplications from his arguments in what follows.39


37 Dabney, A Defence of Virgina, 184.

38 Sean Michael Lucas has done an excellent job of writing on Robert Lewis Dabney. My critiques of Dabney find there seed in Lucas chapter “Patriot” in his book Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life, pgs. 122–128.

39 This is simply going to be a critique of his biblical arguments. In the book “A Defence of Virginia” Dabney offers much more than simply biblical arguments. After the biblical section Dabney moves into the ethical

12

Critique of The Old Testament Argument

The Bible does not speak of slavery as being a wrong or sinful thing, this much is

clear. The issue is how and why the person entered into slavery and the way in which the master

is treating the slave. Dabney confuses these two things and while arguing that slavery is not

wrong — the act of owning a person as a slave — blurs the line between how the person became

the slave and slavery itself. This can be witnessed in a number of places but perhaps of most note

is that way in which he makes Hebrew slavery, sanctioned in the Law, into an involuntary type of

slavery rather than voluntary.

The Bible makes it very clear that stealing a man is wrong.40 Dabney must establish

therefore other ways of entering into slavery, besides kidnapping, that would still be considered

involuntary. Since much of his argument hinges on the provision of Hebrew slaves, for the

argument to work he has to show that Hebrew slavery is involuntary and not voluntary. The

Abolitionists claimed, rightly so, that Hebrew slaves were to be set free either on the seventh

year of his service or on the year of Jubilee. Rather than concede this point, Dabney is interested

in showing that the Hebrew would not want to enter into slavery and therefore it would be

involuntary. There is no doubt that slavery would not have been the man’s first choice, but

abiding by the Law and entering into slavery is far different than being kidnapped and/or sold

into slavery. This is where Dabney was sloppy with his argument and began to betray his biases.

Essentially the rest of his argument hinges on this faulty premise that Hebrew slavery was

involuntary.

Slavery laws given to the Hebrews

A glaring problem of which Dabney makes no mention is the fact that these laws are

given to the Hebrews. Provision for slavery and a way for a man to enter into slavery to work off

argument and the economic argument.

40 Exodus 21:2–6, 16; Leviticus 25:39–47; Deuteronomy 15:12ff; Numbers 35:30ff, 1 Timothy 1:10. Note that these crimes are punishable by death.

13

his debt is something that was given to the Israelites. Even if Dabney were to argue that the

Church and Israel are the same, he would still have the problem of Americans owning Africans.

At the very least he would have to concede that the Old Testament Hebrew is the New Testament

Christian and therefore the only people who could be slaves of Christians would be other

Christians. But this type of reasoning would deny all of the New Testament texts that say that the

believer is no longer under the law (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:18). Stacked on top of this already

insurmountable problem are the texts that declare “the dividing wall of hostility” is torn down

(Eph. 2:14); Christ created “in himself one new man in place of the two [Jew and Greek], so

making peace (2:15); “There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). Who exactly is allowed to

own whom?

Deuteronomy 23:15–16

According to Dabney the Abolitionists would argue from Deuteronomy 23:15–16 that

a runaway slave deserved his liberty.41 The text says, “You shall not give up to his master a slave

who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that

he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.”

Dabney cites Moses Stuart who says that the language of the passage indicates that the escaped

slave must be a foreigner who has escaped his master and fled to the Hebrews. If he had been a

Hebrew slave and escaped to another Hebrew the whole situation would have been different,

requiring restoration or restitution.42 The reason that a foreign runaway slave should not be sent

back to their master, Dabney claims, is because this foreign master were inordinately cruel and if

the Hebrew was to send him back he would be robbing him of the chance to enjoy true religion.

Since this text iss dealing with foreign slaves, it did not apply to the American South.

41 Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 128–129.

42 Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 128–129. Unfortunately Dabney does not provide the citation for Stuart, he simply quotes him.

14

Freedom and the Year of Jubliee

It is at this point that Dabney’s southern biases begin to outweigh his exegesis. The

Abolitionists, by and large, were northerners. To the northerners, a slave who had escaped his

southern slave master — through something like the Underground Railroad for example — was

essentially a foreign slave escaping from inordinate cruelty.43 Also lacking in parallel and

completely missing from Dabney’s exposition was the fact that “true religion” also existed in the

northern states; the south was not the only land where someone had access to the One True God.

In fact as some historians have taken into account is the fact that until the 1840s and 1850s slave

owners did not see their slaves as being in need of any type of evangelism44 So to a northerner it

was possible to see this text applying to them in two different ways, both as the safe haven from

a cruel master, and as being the land where “true religion” could be had. It wasn’t until the Civil

War ended and the Emancipation Proclamation enacted that southerners began to wrestle with

the question of what to do with all of these newly freed slaves in the churches.

Dabney had previously argued that the seventh year of freedom and the year of Jubilee

were meant only for Hebrew slaves and not for foreigners that had been taken in as slaves. It

would be illogical then for Dabney to argue that Black slaves were anything other than

Americans and yet not allow for the enactment of the year of Jubilee for the American slaves.45

The problem for Dabney is that he cannot have it both ways, either the slaves who escape their

cruel masters and run to the north have a biblical basis not to return to their masters because they

are foreigners, or as Americans — like Hebrew slaves — the year of Jubilee would mean

freedom for them eventually even in the south.46

43 Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 123.

44 Erskine Clarke, Wrestlin’ Jacob: A Portrait of Religion in Antebellum Georgia and the Caroline Low Country (1979; repr., Tuscaloose Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 2000); Eugene D. Genovese, A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White Christian South (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1998), 3–33.

45 Lucas, 123.

46 Lucas, 124.

15

Critique of The New Testament Argument

Dabney’s argument is mainly established from the Old Testament with the New

Testament simply serving as his evidence that Old Testament slavery was never abolished.

The definition of douloj

When it comes to the use of douloj in the New Testament and the LXX, Dabney is

correct. When the word is used in a non-metaphorical sense it should be interpreted and

understood as “slave.”47 Dabney is correct in his assessment that the Abolitionists were trying to

change the word in order to support their agenda.48 A simple lexical study however does not

answer the problem. When Paul addresses masters and slaves in Ephesians 6:5–9 he is not

claiming that this type of slavery is the same type practiced in ancient Israel. Nor is he claiming

that there should be masters and slaves. Paul is concerned that the masters and slaves in the

church imitate Christ (5:1) in their daily lives. American slavery by and large reflected nothing of

the biblical teaching for how masters and slaves should interact. Dabney’s lexical definition is

hardly a reason for fighting to keep slavery in America or to push back against emancipation.

Philemon and Onesimus

Dabney’s interpretation of Philemon is strange. Dabney’s understanding of Paul’s

words in Philemon 16 is that Paul is telling Philemon to accept Onesimus back not only as a

47 George Bourne, who wrote a fantastic book arguing from the Old and New Testaments against slavery (himself being on of the original American Abolitionists), was one of these men who misused douloj as meaning “hired servant.” The problem is that his argument up until this point is fantastic and misusing douloj only serves to hinder his argument rather than promote it. For anyone looking for a great biblical argument against slavery see: George Bourne, A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument. For the reference of douloj see pages 82–85. BAG supports this as well. The idea is of someone who is in bondage under a person. BAG 204–205.

48 In a previous draft of this paper I was going to discuss Charles Hodge and his view of slavery. He was not a proponent of slavery necessarily. Being a northerner himself he wanted to see the practice of slavery ended in America. He however also had some problems with the Abolitionists because of their, sometimes, twisting of words and ideas in order to fit their agenda. In his paper published in 1836 entitled Slavery he essentially argues that slavery in and of itself cannot be argued for as sinful from the Bible, it is the way in which the slave enters into slavery and whether or not they are eventually let free. He argued against the twisting of scripture by the Abolitionists to make the point that the Scripture could be used rightly to defend freedom as “the better way” without having to resort to bad hermeneutics. Hodge has been criticized for this paper because he has been seen as a proponent of slavery.

16

slave but as a brother as well. The Greek is emphatic as to Paul’s instructions. The UBS 4 reads,

“οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον, ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν.” Oὐκέτι is the word for “no longer,”49

it would be a strange interpretation to see this word as saying “not only.” It is clear that Paul is

asking for Philemon to release Onesimus from his slavery and accept him as a brother in Christ.

Paul does not condemn slavery here, nor does he call Philemon sinful, but to say that Paul is not

instructing Philemon to release Onesimus is wrong. As for Dabney’s argument that Paul could

have used his authority to command Philemon to release Onesimus, Dabney is forgetting Paul’s

words in verse 8. Paul has just stated, “Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to

command you to do what is required [speaking of accepting Onesimus back without

punishment], yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you.” Paul says essentially that he could

command Philemon to do something based on his apostolic authority, but that he would rather

appeal to him in Christ. Dabney’s argument is based upon the fact that Paul does not command

Philemon. Other than being blinded by hermeneutical biases, there is no reason for Dabney to

have missed this.

1 Corinthians 7:20–21

In his section entitled “Slavery no Essential Religious Evil,” Dabney offers a rebuttal

to the Abolitionists who use 1 Corinthians 7:20–21 as grounds for stating that freedom should be

preferred over slavery.50 Paul writes, “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was

called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it (But if you can gain your

freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity).” Initially, Dabney seems to concede this point when

he says, “But if a convenient and lawful opportunity to acquire his freedom, with the consent of

his master, occurs, then freedom is to be preferred. Such is the meaning found in the words by all

49 BAG, 592.

50 Lucas calls Dabney’s work “Hermeneutical gymnastics” on this particular text, 124.

17

sober expositors, including those of countries where slavery does not exists.”51

Here Dabney’s political and racial biases begin to inform his hermeneutic. While

conceding that Paul was in fact claiming that it would be better for the slave to seek his freedom

if the opportunity were to present itself, Dabney argues that this must be understood in light of

first century Roman society. He offers four points to show that this text cannot apply to the

American Slave in the mid 1800s.52

First, Dabney argues that slavery in the first century was a much more harsh form of

slavery than America was experiencing currently. While evaluating the state of slavery in

America during Dabney’s day is not my purpose in this paper, this comparison is an arbitrary one

at best. There is no doubt that slavery in the first century was cruel in many instances, not all

slave masters treated their slaves the way they should have. But there is also no doubt that

slavery in the mid-1800s was cruel in many instances as well. This point should have no bearing

on the text especially considering the fact that Paul makes no reference to the state of the slave’s

welfare, simply that freedom would be preferred.

Second, Dabney says, “many masters among the heathen were accustomed to require

of their slaves offices vile, and even guilty.”53 While there is no doubt that this is the case —

many slave owners in the first century made their slaves do horrible things54 — Paul makes no

mention that this freedom is so that the slave would no longer be forced to sin. In fact, Paul’s

previous statement that the slave should stay in their condition unless they are able to get out of it

would be completely backwards if this were to be the understanding.

Third, he says, “society offered a grade, and a career of advancement to the ‘freedman’


52 Dabney does not lay out these points by numbering them in his text. Sean Michael Lucas supplies the numbers and categorizes the arguments in his book, 124.


54 See Franklin, From Freedom to Slavery, for example.

18

and his children.”55 This is an understandable argument. Paul is essentially saying that since

there are sometimes social systems in place that would allow for a slave to move out of his

servitude to something higher, he should take advantage of it given the opportunity. The issue

with Dabney using this as a reason slaves should not be let free in America however does not

follow. One of the main fights that Dabney is fighting is the push for the slaves not to be

emancipated.56 He later argues that it would be imprudent for a slave to be set free because of the

havoc that they would wreak upon American society.57 Essentially his argument then is: If there

are systems in place for a slave to gain his freedom he should do so, freedmen are dangerous to

society, so we should block the opportunity for slaves to gain their freedom for the good of

America. His reasoning is contrary to Paul’s meaning that freedom is a good and preferable

outcome.

Fourth,

“Master and slave were of the same colour, and a generation or two would obliterate by its union the memory of the servile condition. But in these States, where the servant’s rights were so much better protected by law and usage, and where the freed servant, being a black, finds himself only deprived of his master’s patronage, and still debarred as much as ever from social equality by his colour and caste, the case may be very different. Freedom to the Christian slave here, may prove a loss.”58


56 Charles Hodge argued that emancipation was bad for the nation. His reasoning was not driven by racial prejudice as Dabney’s was however. His thought was that emancipation was going to leave thousands of ex-slaves without food, work, or shelter, and leave the ex-masters without workers. This was going to cause an economic crisis. Hodge’s push was for the church to be creative in their planning to find a way to allow the slaves to go free but in a way that would be best for the slaves, the masters, and the country as a whole. He was also burdened that it was the white man’s responsibility to see for the care and education of the ex-slaves.

57 “[T]his miserable career must result in one of two things, either a war of races, in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the other, exterminated; or amalgamation. But while we believe that ‘God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,’ we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated; from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race, stamped with all the feebleness of the hybrid, and incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view.” A Defence of Virginia, 352–353.

58 Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, 160–161.

19

Strikingly missing from every argument is the fact that Paul makes no assertion to

anything remotely close to these. Paul does not even say anything about the slave’s race or

condition simply that freedom was preferable. In what should be a clear passage that freedom

should be the preferable choice for a slave, Dabney’s cultural biases and racism skew his

interpretation to be otherwise. Dabney could have used this passage as a reason for pushing to

have the slaves emancipated in an attempt to give the slaves a way to freedom, but instead he

chose to twist the passage in an attempt to continue slavery in America.

Takeaways From the Debate

Much of Dabney’s defense of slavery is built on arguments from silence. For example

in part of his section on the New Testament which I did not summarize, Dabney makes the claim

that because Jesus never condemned slavery the Abolitionists essentially have no leg to stand on.

The problem with something like an argument from silence is that one could essentially argue for

anything that isn’t explicitly taught in Scriptures. This is one of the things that the current

egalitarian and homosexual proponents do. Also inherent in Dabney’s argument is a distinction

between what Christ condemned explicitly and what the Apostles condemned.59 Jesus did not say

anything against slavery, and as Dabney argued, he actually affirmed of the Centurion who

himself owned slaves. While this is a weak argument at best it is all Dabney has to go on from

the Gospels. Missing from Dabney’s argument is an examination of Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy

1:10 where “enslavers”60 is listed as “contrary to sound doctrine.” Dabney has an agenda, and

that is to argue for slavery whether or not the Bible actually condones it.

The New Testament is full of language that speaks of the believer’s freedom.

59 I am not trying to say that Dabney has any problem with the sufficiency of Scripture. I believe that Dabney very much held to the views of the Reformers and would affirm that Jesus in the Gospels and the Apostles in the other writing spoke on the same authority. The problem is that sometimes our faulty hermeneutic betrays our theological inconsistencies.

60 Literally, “man stealers.”

20

Christianity as a religion is one that states implicitly that as sinners we were in bondage to sin,

but that in Christ we have been set free (Gal. 5:1). This does not establish any sort of rule or

regulation that Christians who were slave masters prior to their salvation are now to set their

slaves free. What this does establish is the fact that Christians, better than anyone, understand

truly what bondage looks and feels like when the Spirit opened up their eyes to be able to see the

state they were in as unbelievers (2 Cor. 3:12–18). More than anyone Christians should be a

people who love freedom and seek to promote it wherever possible. This was one of the driving

forces behind establishing America as “the land of the free.”

What does this principle have to do with someone like Robert Lewis Dabney? Dabney

for all of his faults was a great pastor and teacher,61 but what was missing from his theology was

a general love for freedom. It is one thing to argue that the Bible does not condemn slavery; it is

another entirely to fight against emancipation. Probably most revealing to this fact is the debates

that Dabney and his contemporaries ended up in after the Civil War. The question they were

facing was, “What will we do with the newly freed ex-slaves who now want to be a part of our

churches?” Dabney argued that the ex-slaves could be part of the congregation but that it would

be wrong for the black man to govern over the white man in church leadership.62 It is this later

debate that sheds light on the reasoning for arguing for slavery the way he did. Dabney was a

racist man and allowed that racism to influence his hermeneutic.

Relation to Current Issues

We as Christians stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us. More than

61 Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, 526.

62 “[Union with the Northern Presbyterian Church] means, of course, that we must imitate the church which absorbs us, in the ecclesiastical amalgamation with negroes; accepting negro presbyters to rule white churches and judge white ladies; a step which would seal the moral and doctrinal corruption of our church in the South, and be a direct step towards that final perdition of Southern society, domestic amalgamation. And the time would come in the South – yea, in the North also, as it found itself encumbered with this gangrened limb – a mulatto South, when all who had lent a hand, under the prompting of a puling sentimentalism, to this result, would incur the reprobation of all the wise and good, in terms as just, and as bitter, as those visited on Benedict Arnold.” Johnson, 378.

21

anyone we have the ability to learn from our past, to see where our predecessors succeeded and

failed, and to learn from them. Culture and context are two things that can influence the

expositor more than anything. By looking at the faults of those who came before us we can see

how detrimental it can be to allow our biases to affect the way we read our Bibles. Dabney

allowed the southern culture of his upbringing and his racism against the black man to influence

the way he read his Bible. This is not to say that everything he wrote on the subject was wrong;

there were many important points that Dabney made even as he critiqued the Abolitionist.

One of the sad effects that Dabney and other men like him had on the church was a

separation between the Blacks and Whites in the church. Four of the main denominations split

over the issue of slavery. The problem was that emancipation was seen largely as a liberal agenda

and therefore when the splits happened, the conservatives ended up in the churches promoting

slavery while the liberals ended up in the anti-slavery churches.63 The good seminaries and Bible

schools, i.e. the schools that held to inerrancy, inspiration, the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc.,

by and large continued to promote a separation agenda and did not allow blacks and freed slaves

into their schools and churches. By implication this means that the liberal schools — the ones not

holding to those core truths — ended up with the vast majority of rejected students from the

conservative schools.64

Looking at the church in America in the current day, most black churches are liberal

and preaching things such as the Prosperity Gospel which is contrary to the true gospel. While

this is in no way an excuse for those who would teach a false gospel there is a certain onus on the

shoulders of men like Robert Lewis Dabney who rather than seeking to disciple emancipated

slaves, cast them off while citing the Bible for justification.

63 This divide was generally north and south, but there was certainly overlap.

64 Not rejected because they didn’t quality, rejected for the color of their skin.

22

Conclusion

The question for the modern day Christian is, “With what biases am I reading my

Bible and how can I guard against it?” This is a question that must be posed. It is doubtful that

Dabney knew of the damage that his “hermeneutical gymnastics” would cause in the church 150

years later. The nation today faces a number of issues: homosexuality, divorce, racism, sex

slavery, feminism, and postmodernism to name a few. While the topic of slavery may seem far

off from any of the debates that are currently going on in the church today, it is not. Many

proponents of homosexuality and egalitarianism use wrongheaded arguments that have been used

in the past against the biblical understanding of slavery to push across their agendas.65

Robert Lewis Dabney made some grave errors in his exegesis that led the church

down a path that promoted racism, segregation, and numerous church splits within America.

These errors in interpretation were driven by his cultural context and his racist beliefs. Does the

Bible allow for slavery? Certainly there was provision to the Hebrews for slavery within their

nation. But the grotesque nature of American slavery is not what is written about within the

pages of the Bible. Rather than seeking to defend slavery, Dabney should have been exhorting

his people to follow the commands of Scripture in regards to how masters and slaves are to treat

one another. Most of all as a Christian — one who was at one time himself a slave of sin (Rom.

6:20) — he should have been overwhelmed with the message of freedom that the Bible presents.

Would the Church have spent the past 150 years since the Emancipation Proclamation

dealing with racial issues that divide us if Robert Lewis Dabney had never put forth these

misguided teachings? No one can say for certain. But what can be said is that there were

unnecessary wounds created because of his teaching, many of which are still felt today.

65 There are numerous resources that could be cited here. For a good refutation of a common argument for homosexuality and the bible see: Wayne Grudem, “’A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy’ (Ch 22) and ‘Gender Equality and Homosexuality’ (CH 23) by William J Webb,” JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005), 96–118.

23

Bibliography

Barker, William S. “The Social Views Of Charles Hodge (1797 – 1878): A Study In 19th-Century

Calvinism and Conservatism.” Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review I (Spring 1975): 1-23.

Barrows, E.P. “The Bible And Slavery,” BSAC 019:75, (July 1862).

Barrows, E.P. “The State And Slavery,” BSAC 019:76, (Oct 1862).

Bourne, George. A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument. New York, NY. 1845.

Clarke, Erskine. Wrestlin' Jacob: a Portrait of Religion in Antebellum Georgia and the Carolina Low Country. [Reprint ed. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press, 2000.

Dabney, D.D., L L. D., Edited by C. R. Vaughan, D D., Robert L. Discussions: Volumes 1-5, Vol I. Theological and Evangelical, Vol Ii. Evangelical, Vol Iii. Philosophical. Vol. IV., Secular, Vol V. Miscellaneous Writings (Discussions, Volumes One-Five). Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1982.

Dabney, Robert Lewis, and Rev. Jonathan Dickinson. The Five Points of Calvinism. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1992.

Dabney, R. L. The Life and Campaigns of Lieut.-Gen. Thomas J. Jackson: (Stonewall Jackson). Berryville: Hess Pubns, 1998.

Dabney, R. L. Systematic Theology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Banner of Truth, 1996.

Dudley, William, and book editor. Slavery: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Pr, 1992.

Franklin, John Hope, Alfred A. Moss, and Jr. From Slavery to Freedom: a History of African Americans. 8th ed. New York: Borzoi Books, 1974.

Genovese, Eugene D. A Consuming Fire: the Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White Christian South. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1998.

Griffioen, Arie J. “John W. Nevin on the Mystical Presence.” CTJ 32 (1997):334-343.

Grudem, Wayne. “’A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy’ (Ch 22) and ‘Gender Equality and Homosexuality’ (CH 23) by William J Webb,” JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005).

Hodge, Charles. “Slavery.” The Biblical Repertory and Theological Review (April 1836). 269–305.

Johnson, Thomas Cary. The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, Carlisle: Banner of Truth,

24

1977.

Lucas, Sean Michael. Robert Lewis Dabney: a Southern Presbyterian Life. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2005.

Lucas, Sean Michael. “Southern-Fried Kuyper? Robert Lewis Dabney, Abraham Kuyper, And The Limitations Of Public Theology.” Westminster Theological Journal 66:1 (Spring 2004). 180-201.

Miller, William Lee. Arguing About Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress. New York: Vintage, 1996.

Wallace, Peter J. “History And Sacrament: John Williamson Nevin And Charles Hodge On The Lord’s Supper.” MJT 11 (2000) 171-201.

Wood Jr., John Halsey. “The 1861 Spring Resolutions: Charles Hodge, the American Union, and the Dissolution of the Old School Church.” Journal of Church and State. 371-387.

Robert Lewis Dabney And The Defense of Slavery In America

Documents