Tom Head, who is a very sharp and good individual, and who is one I have no desire to cross swords with, has written recently here, "One canonical author had the opportunity to condemn all slavery in Philemon and chose not to." And that statement is true. But perhaps one could elaborate on it. It is true that the New Testament authors do not try to pull down the first century societal structures on a grand scale. Some people of Jesus' time wished Him to aid in throwing off the yoke of Rome, but He would not. Jesus would not even save His own life through the aggressiveness of Peter's sword. But this is not to say that interpersonal relationships between slaves and owners went unmodified as a result of instruction received particularly by Paul. Such instruction occurs in several places. In Colossians 3:11 Paul insists that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. Consequently the slave owner must be just and fair because both slave and free have a common master in Heaven (4:1). Owners are not to threaten their slaves(Ephesians 6:9). It should be recalled that in Roman law slaves had no rights. It is Paul who has just given slaves some rights in Christ by his injunctions to slave owners. Because if Paul had perfectly his way, then no one would become "slaves of men" (1 Corinthians 7:14)!! As to Tom's reference to Philemon (a book in the NT), Philemon's slave had done some mischief to his owner then had run away. He then fell under Paul's Gospel net. Paul at that time was imprisoned in Rome soon to be beheaded for preaching his faith! This also was a social injustice...the killing of Christians. So, Paul counsels the slave Onesimus indeed to go back to Philemon. But please witness the changes that Paul expected of Onesimus' master: "treat him no longer as a slave ;instead, treat him as a beloved brother."(v. 16) Did Paul seek to abolish slavery? No! Tom is correct, Paul did not . But did Paul try to change the relationships between master and servant? Obviously. Please remember that my comments concern only Paul, not the many doers of injustices who have while doing wretched acts named the name of Christ.
Excellent points, Bill; thanks. My position on Paul and slavery is much like my position on Paul and women: what he had to say sounds unpleasant today, but it was radically egalitarian by first-century standards. He did as well as anyone could have with the hand he was dealt. Cheers,
great topic guys I was just thinking about this on the way home today... is Paul endorsing slavery as a whole system... etc? Bill, are you saying that Paul allowed it in this case to continue because he had some pull with the master? Anyway, I'm wondering if Philemon could be an example of an understanding Paul may have had that throwing off old structures does not necessarily resolve the problem of sin. So maybe he just concentrated on the politics of a pure heart and left the structures to God's doing. Who knows. Shalom! Chris
