St. Paul And The Evil Institution Of Slavery (December 18, 2005)

More from my son’s letter from college:

“The professor challenged the assumption that Paul's words could be thought of as divine. Of course, right away he pointed to Philemon, and asked, ‘Is slavery ok then?‘ When I brought up the fact that slavery was a very different practice at the time, as people could sell themselves into slavery of their own free will, or become slaves because of bankruptcy, etc., he vigorously denied my claim, saying slavery was, if anything, worse at the time. He talked about how masters could do anything they wanted with their slaves, including, as was often practiced, sending them to die in the arena. Now obviously, Paul's word is not absolute, as women don't wear cloth over their heads, but with what seems to us such faulty morality as was displayed with Philemon, why are we to believe that Paul was, in fact, divinely inspired?”

I responded:

FAULTY MORALITY AS WAS DISPLAYED WITH PHILEMON??? FAULTY MORALITY as was displayed with PHILEMON??? Einstein was an idiot, Mother Teresa a terrorist, Hitler a nice guy. Black is white, night is day. Education is dead.

Read Philemon.

Now that you have read Philemon, it should be clear that not only was Paul's behavior in this matter worthy of adoration, but that his words to slaveowner Philemon practically dismantle the institution of slavery! Paul orders Philemon to receive back Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother" (verse 16). Do not pass quickly over those words. Paul insisted that Philemon and Onesimus no longer relate to one another as owner and property but as brother and brother. I challenge the religion professor, or any historian, to find a more enlightened, egalitarian statement concerning slavery in all of ancient literature. Brothers! Abraham Lincoln was not this progressive. Not even the heroic abolitionists of the 19th century unanimously regarded Africans Americans as their brothers.

But for Paul the fundamental equality among human beings was a given, and he referred to it often. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male not female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28). "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (Colossians 3:11)

There is more. Paul does not simply suggest that Philemon take Onesimus back as a brother - he twists his arm into a pretzel to make him do so! He writes, "I could be bold and order you" (v.8) (but of course I wouldn't dream of doing THAT so) "I appeal to you on the basis of love." He plays the sympathy card, reminding Philemon that he is old (v. 9) and chained up (vs. 10, 13). He "won't even mention the fact" that Philemon owes him his very self (v. 19). He considers Onesimus his son (v. 10), his very heart (v. 12), and is reluctant to let him go (v. 13) - but "if you're my friend" then Philemon must welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul himself (v. 17)! And just in case Philemon neglects his obligation to take back Onesimus "as a man and as a brother in the Lord" (v. 16), Paul will be checking in on them to see how things are going: "Prepare a guest room for me" (v.22).

What more could you possibly ask of Paul? He even agrees to pay Onesimus' debts out of his own pocket! "If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back." (vs. 18-19).

Anyone who reads Philemon and still regards Paul's actions as anything less than righteous, heroic and phenomenally progressive should grab handfuls of sand and stuff them in his mouth to keep himself from saying any more unbelievably stupid things.

With regard to the meaning of the word "slave", you're right and the professor is wrong about slavery in Paul's day being distinct from American slavery. No African ever willingly walked onto a slave ship and offered his hands to the shackles, but slavery in Biblical times was frequently voluntary: "I offer you my service in exchange for a roof over my head and food in my stomach." Paul actually advised people not to make this particular life choice: "Do not become slaves of men" (1 Corinthians 7:23), and he told those who were currently slaves to take advantage of opportunities to become free: "If you can gain your freedom, do so" (1 Corinthians 7:21).

It is hard to make generalizations about slave treatment, because "slaves" then ran the gamut from what we would call "employees" to "maids and servants" to "serfs" to, yes, "war-booty captive foreigners" who might have to die fighting wild beasts in the arena. The latter was clearly wrong, as was American slavery. But to label a complex social phenomenon with the same term that we apply to the disgraceful American practice of the 17th to 19th centuries is misleading. If the experience of being a slave in the first century was as negative and degrading as that of blacks in the American South, then Paul would certainly not have adopted the metaphor of servitude in calling himself "a slave of Christ" (Romans 1:1).

To suggest, as I think the professor does, that if Paul were truly inspired he would have said "Free the slaves!" is about as realistic as saying that if he was so smart he would have been able to build a rocket ship and go to the moon. Inspired or not, all moral or scientific genius has to accomplish what it reasonably can within the confines of its time and culture.