Thursday, April 7, 2016

Did the Bible Get it Wrong on Slavery?


 
 
 
Did the Bible Get it Wrong on Slavery?
Posted by Clark Bates
April 7, 2016
 
 
Introduction
 
      Commentator Dan Savage uses this quick statement to attempt to discredit the Bible's position on homosexuality. He is well known in the arena of homosexual activism and is often vitriolic against those of faith. Evidences of his frequently offensive positions can be found here and here. The approach he is attempting to make in this sound byte is a type of redirection. His particular interest is to prove the Bible to be antiquated on its perspective of homosexuals, but rather than address that issue directly, he points out an apparent moral failing on the part of the New Testament regarding a universally despised practice, slavery. 

      It should be stated immediately that this kind of reasoning engages in faulty logic. Given that there is no connection between the practice of slavery and the practice of homosexuality, a person being wrong about the former issue does not necessarily make them wrong about the latter. If Dan Savage were to address the issues objectively, it would require studying each position individually, rather than collectively. That being said, this is still a very effective communication tactic, for it plays on the emotions of the populace and draws a comparison, regardless of how faulty. Just as Dan reasons, if the Bible approved of slavery, which we all know to be abhorrent, how could we possibly listen to what it says on other social issues?

      So, rather than address the real point Savage is attempting to make (I will likely do that in a few weeks), let's examine the question, “Did the Bible get it wrong about slavery?” After all, if, by Savage's reasoning, the Bible was in fact correct on its position regarding slavery, it would follow that we must reconsider its position on homosexuality. Savage singles out the New Testament book of Philemon, written ostensibly by the apostle Paul, as his proof text, so it is there that I will place my defense, but before opening that particular letter, context is needed regarding the type of slavery which Paul, and other New Testament authors, were familiar with.

Greco-Roman Slavery in the First Century

     
As I said above, given that the direct quote upon which this article is based, addresses the New Testament book of Philemon, it would be best to examine Greco-Roman slavery rather than the entirety of biblical slavery. Much has been said against the Old Testament's depiction of slavery as well, which author Paul Copan has ably discussed here and here and therefore is not pertinent to this discussion. It's not surprising that modern readers bristle at the word “slave”, especially in light of the biblical context which neither seems to condemn the practice nor overtly promote it. Given this country's (and Europe's) experiences with chattel slavery of the past, it would seem nothing less than a complete moral failure to not stand up as William Wilberforce did and proclaim that God Almighty has set before us the suppression of the slave trade!1 While this sort of visceral response is understandable, it errs in one major point: it assumes that the twentieth century concept of slavery is equivalent to that of the Greco-Roman era.

 
      To begin with, Greco-Roman slavery was never based on race or nationality as it was in the recent West. In the ancient world there were many types of slavery. There is good evidence that much of it was brutal and harsh, but equally there is evidence that many slaves were treated well, with normal lives, even paid a going wage. Prisoners of war often became slaves, as did those in debt. It was not uncommon for criminals to be sentenced to a period of slavery as well, and to much surprise, slaves could own slaves. Many slaves were doctors, professors, administrators and civil servants. According to Andrew Lincoln, “No one in ancient times could conceive of an economic or labor structure without it. While there were brutal forms of slavery, the concept—indentured labor in which the laborer was not free to market his skills to other employers—was considered a given. . . this was so accepted one cannot correctly speak of the slave ‘problem’ in antiquity.2 In other words, no one, not even slaves, thought slavery should be abolished.
 
      This mindset pervaded the Greco-Roman culture long before the time of the apostle Paul. In the days of Aristotle (384-323 B.C.E.) the question of slavery was often posed and unequivocally seen as just. According to the great philosopher, slaves were those who, “are incapable of fully governing their own lives, and requiring other people to tell them what to do. Such people should be set to labor by the people who have the ability to reason fully and order their own lives. Labor is their proper use.”3 Aristotle referred to slaves often as “living tools” stating that, “those human beings who are naturally suited to be ruled but [are] unwilling…[is] by nature just.”4 Virtually every ancient Mediterranean culture had some form of the institution of slavery. Slaves were usually of two kinds: either they had at one point been defeated in war, and the fact that they had been defeated meant that they were inferior and meant to serve, or else they were the children of slaves, in which case their inferiority was clear from their inferior parentage. What is more, the economies of the Greek city-states rested on slavery, and without slaves to do the productive labor, there could be no leisure for men to engage in more intellectual lifestyles. The greatness of Athenian plays, architecture, sculpture, and philosophy could not have been achieved without the institution of slavery. Therefore, as a practical matter, regardless of the arguments for or against it, slavery was not going to be abolished in the Greek world.
 
      This is not meant to defend the institution of slavery, but only to reveal the obvious differences in practice with the modern conception of slavery and demonstrate the deeply ingrained, economic nature of the practice. Therefore, for a reader to dismiss what they perceive to be a moral failing on the part of the biblical authors, is to not account for the world in which the text was written. As will be developed further, it would not have been possible for Paul to simply denounce slavery and see any progress, nor, in the case of Philemon, would a freed slave have been seen as anything differently, given the Greco-Roman culture and its perception of those in servitude.


Pauline Thought on Slavery
 

      Given that brief background, we are better equipped to address Dan Savage's point, “Did The Bible (i.e. Paul in this case) get it wrong on slavery?” The New Testament presupposes the fundamental equality of man. In spite of the cultural norms in which it was written, regarding social status or even gender roles, being “in Christ” was to be equal in all respects. As Paul most famously stated in Gal. 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female – for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In place of the dualities and conflicts that mark human society in general, Paul asserts that Christians, not merely the Galatians, are one in Christ Jesus. This is the recognition of an equality that transcends beyond, but co-habitates with, social structures. According to Moo, “For all [Paul's] insistence that Jews and Gentiles are on equal footing before God in the new era of salvation, he also allows them to work out their relationship to Christ in terms distinctive to their particular backgrounds. And while setting in place principles that undercut the institution of slavery, the continuing social reality of slaves is also recognized.”5
 

      When writing to the Ephesian church on the subject of Christian living, again we read of Paul's encouragement both for slaves to submit to their masters, but also (and more strikingly) that masters submit to their slaves (Eph. 6:5-9). Here again, we often find the opposition cry that Paul does not denounce slavery, yet it does not take into account the effect such lifestyle change, were it practiced, would have on the institution as a whole. “There is no explicit criticism of slavery here, but the level of mutuality and reciprocity that is assumed to exist between master and slave creates an atmosphere in which it would have been difficult for slavery to survive if the advice of the passage had been rigorously followed.”6 It is evidenced in other writings of Paul and even Peter that when this attitude of service, instituted by Jesus (John 13:1-17), is practiced, socially divisive mores begin to fail. As Paul Copan notes,

"Given the spiritual equality of slave and free, slaves even took on leadership positions in churches. . . . Some of these people had commonly used slave and freedman names. For example, in Romans 16:7,9, he refers to slaves such as Andronicus and Urbanus (common slave names) as 'kinsman,' 'fellow prisoner,' and 'fellow worker' (NASB). The New Testament’s approach to slavery is contrary to aristocrats and philosophers such as Aristotle, who held that certain humans were slaves by nature."7

      For Paul to seek to overturn the institution of Greco-Roman slavery with bold proclamations in his letters, would do a disservice to the gospel, damage the young church and ultimately prove ineffective. As N.T. Wright also says, “It would have done more harm than good, making life harder for Christian slaves, and drawing upon the young church exactly the wrong sort of attention from authorities.8


Paul in Philemon

      While the letter to Philemon is in no ways a theological treatise, the nature of equality found in Christ that permeates the apostle's other writings is obviously the foundation upon which he makes his appeals. Todd Still notes, “In the course of twenty-five verses, Paul makes reference to Christ (or titles akin thereunto) no less than eleven times (“Christ” [w. 6, 8, 20], “Lord” [w. 16, 20], “Christ Jesus” [w. I, 9, ملو 2 “Jesus Christ” [v. 3], “Lord Jesus” [٧٠ 6], “Lord Jesus Christ” [v. 25]).”9 Paul is obviously appealing to the teaching of Jesus found in John and expounded upon within his other writings. Petronius, a Roman contemporary of Paul, once wrote “plane qualis dominus, talis et servus” which could be translated colloquially as 'like master, like slave' (Sat 58). In the letter to Philemon, the apostle, a self professed slave of Christ, is acting as his Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and encouraging both Onessimus and Philemon to do the same.

       Prevalent throughout this writing is Paul's filial tone. Both Philemon and Onessimus are his brothers (7, 15). Onessimus is his “child” (10), and he is like a father (11). Paul is within his rights as an apostle to direct or command Philemon to act in a certain matter, but given the nature of christological equality he has expressed prior, the apostle seeks to persuade through their shared love of Christ. It has been argued that Paul should still have encouraged Philemon to free Onessimus. To merely give him back as a slave was ethically lacking and morally offensive. The difficulties and ultimate futility of such an action in first century Rome has already been discussed, but a bit more needs to be said regarding Philemon and Onessimus specifically. The term often applied to slave owners freeing their slaves was “manumission”, which directly means to release from the hand. This practice was often done ceremoniously and, while the slave was now free, his owner became his patron and all submission and service to the owner still remained.

      The closest parallel in secular writing to the letter to Philemon is Pliny the Younger's Letter to Sabinianus, in which a freed slave has fled from his master, having offended him and seeks the intercession of the Younger. Commenting on this parallel account, Craig DeVos writes, “Manumission in and of itself did not fundamentally change the position of Sabinianus's freed slave. Offending his former master still filled him with dread, as it would have done when he was a slave. And, by implication, he was still subject to punishment and retribution, such that he sought out a mediator to intercede for him. He was still subject to punishment and behaved like a slave would have.”10 Given the parallel nature of this document to that of Philemon, it stands that Onessimus' circumstances, were he in fact a runaway slave, would not have diminished on the basis of a mere call for manumission from Paul.


      Paul's call to Philemon is to treat Onessimus as a fellow believer, a brother in Christ. This is a call for heart change on Philemon's part. Again, DeVos writes.


      "Rather than expecting Philemon to manumit Onesimus, he expected there to be a fundamental change in the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus, such that the master would treat his slave no longer as a slave, but as a brother or even an honoured guest. Therefore, in expecting a fundamental change in perception and relationship, Paul was actually asking for something far more radical than manumission. What he expected effectively undermined the collectivist, authoritarian and patriarchal values of Graeco-Roman society."11
 

      When modern critics decry Paul for his unwillingness to denounce slavery they overlook, or are ignorant of, the more deeply profound call the apostle is making. Paul does not call for the disillusion of an entrenched institution but the realization of a kingdom-focused lifestyle that would disrupt the societal landscape to such an extreme that the institution of slavery could do nothing but wilt and die.


Conclusion
 

      At no point in this article have I sought to defend the institution of slavery. As Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles taught, in Christ there is no hierarchy of individual, and outside of Christ all are made in the image of God. The owning of another human being is an attack on human dignity and consequently an attack on God. It is no mystery nor secret that Christians like William Wilberforce and the Quaker-led Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade were paramount in bringing an end to western, chattel-style slavery in Europe. Similarly, Theodore Wright and the Presbyterian-led American Anti-Slavery Society brought the end of slavery in the United States. One must ask the question, “If the Bible got it wrong in regards to slavery, yet it was devout men and women of the Christian faith that brought the practice to an end; how did they come to believe it was wrong?” The answer is that they found the very foundation of human dignity within the pages of that sacred text and could no longer stand idly by as it continued. 
 

      The Bible did not get it wrong on slavery. Rather, the Word of God saw beyond the mere need for political change and sought to change society in a more permanent way, through the hearts and minds of men. Lasting change comes from a change of worldview, not a change in policy. Given this, perhaps it would behoove Mr. Savage to re-examine why the bible states what it does, regarding slavery or homosexuality, but even if he does not, Christians may retain confidence in the power of Scripture to change the world.
 

1This is a loose paraphrase of Wilberforce's original quote, “God Almighty has set before me two Great Objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners.” which can be found in his book Real Christianity.

2Andrew T. Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, (Word: 1990), 415-420.

3Aristotle, Politics, http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/#SH7d, (viewed April 6, 2016).

4Ibid.

5Douglas Moo, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament: Galatians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 255. Other Pauline verses addressing this issue are 1 Cor. 7:17-24; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; and Titus 2:9-10.

6Frank Thielman, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament: Ephesians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 404.

7Paul Copan, “Why is the New Testament Silent on Slavery, - or is it?,” Enrichment Journal, http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201104/201104_108_NT_slavery.cfm, (viewed April 6, 2016).

8N.T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 169.

9Todd D. Still, “Pauline Theology and Ancient Slavery: Does the Former Support or Subvert the Latter?,” Horizons in Biblical Theology, 27 no.2, (Dec 2005), 25.

10Craig Steven DeVos, “Once a Slave, Always a Slave?:Slavery, Manumission and Relational Patterns in Paul's Letter to Philemon,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 82, (Jun 2001), 105.

11DeVos, JSNT, 104.

No comments:

Post a Comment