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
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