Considering the directives in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy and Titus and how the pro-slavery antebellum Christians got them wrong. And what that means for us.
Introduction
Daniel at Doctoral Discipleship and Bobby Giles at Your Sons and Daughters will Prophesy: New Creation Musings have both, in a very general sense, written articles on the Christian understanding of slavery. I subscribe to both of these accounts and enjoy how both authors have me thinking new thoughts and considering the Bible in new ways.
I think it’s worth noting that before we go much further that Bobby is not putting forth his (or his friend’s) best understanding of Paul’s writing on slavery. He’s putting forth the faulty reasoning of pro-slavery, pre-Civil War Christians on slavery. What I hope to add to the discussion is a different look at what those antebellum Christians got terribly wrong, and then correct their misunderstanding.
More broadly, I hope that by considering how to make sense of Paul’s writings on slavery, we might have greater clarity on how to make sense of the whole Bible.
Daniel and Bobby
The thrust of Daniel’s article, “Devoted to Christ, Dependent on Slaves,” is this:
“[T]he question is not whether the early church participated in or accommodated Greco-Roman slavery. The question is—why did they?”
. . . what does it mean that many parts of the New Testament may have been physically written by enslaved people? That the words we hold as sacred, words that have brought us hope, dignity, and freedom, were shaped, at least in form, by those who had none?
Here’s how I’ve begun to cope with it.
Daniel points out that not only did Philemon, a Christian and personal friend of Paul’s, have slaves, but there is a scholarly possibility that Paul himself had a slave: the scribe Tertius. Within Daniel’s article, he lays out a very literal understanding of the New Testament scriptures: the apostle Paul neither condemned nor condoned slavery as a whole, taught slaves to be submissive to their masters, and may have even utilized slaves himself. Daniel then implicitly asks us: How are we to reckon with that?
Meanwhile, Bobby’s article (actually written by Jane Anne Tucker) entitled, “Do We Read Scripture Like Enslavers? How a Flat Reading Does Harm,” asks and answers a totally different question. Their article asks: how did Christians support slavery? Their answer is that those Christians had a literal understanding of Paul’s writing. That is, a literal interpretation of the Bible entrenched slavery in the US.
Bobby writes:
“I have been wanting to write an article about how ‘the Reformed and literal hermeneutic proved inadequate to address the injustice of chattel slavery in America,’ which is a sobering example of how a ‘flat or literalist reading of the Bible, and Paul’s letters in particular, can be wielded by the powerful to harm and/or preserve the status quo.’”
Taken at face value, Bobby’s claim seems to hold water. There is no way to escape the fact that the biblical writers did not denounce slavery, and that this lack of literal denunciation seems to have provided the framework for pro-slavery theologies, especially for a Bible student looking for a “chapter and verse” proof text.
This literal reading of the Bible, says Bobby and Jane Anne, led Christians to support “morally abominable” acts, such as slavery. Take a look at this paragraph:
“Christians rightly look to the Bible for wise and ethical guidance. But, as Wayne Meeks asks, what should we do when ‘an honest and historically sensitive reading of the New Testament appears to support practices…that Christians now find morally abominable?’”
The authors’ suggestion is to disregard “an honest and historically sensitive reading of the New Testament” in favor of alternative interpretive methods:
“Other interpreters, including Christian slaves and free blacks in the North, received and interpreted Paul’s writings differently. There are numerous examples of both white and black Christians appealing to the redemptive spirit of Scripture’s metanarrative and greater historical consciousness.”
I don’t necessarily disagree. I think Bobby and Jane Anne are on to something. What I would note, however, is that an “honest and historically accurate reading of the New Testament” should complement Scripture’s metanarrative, since Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. That is, if the two are at odds, then something is missing.
What could those pre-Civil War Christians have missed?
What’s Missing?
What is missing from the pre–Civil War Christian’s interpretation is an understanding of how to approach Scripture. This is where the harm is done. It’s not that they failed to find a proof text or read the texts too literally; it’s that they failed to approach the texts correctly.
Christians are not right to primarily (even secondarily) approach Scripture for “wise and ethical guidance.” To the contrary, it was their misstep.
I think we are prudent to consider the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 3. What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.
The Scriptures primarily teach us what we are to believe about God, and, therefore, of his character, his heart for his people, and his plan for them, etc. Secondarily, Scripture teaches us what duty God requires of us. We understand our duty to God (much like we come to see Him revealed) through both a “metanarrative” and a “flat reading” of the Bible; they will not contradict, but complement.
What Is Our Duty?
As a brief example, here are some Bible verses that describe our duty:
Exodus 20 – The Ten Commandments describe our duty to God and to people.
Deuteronomy 6:4–5 – Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might.
Micah 6:8 – Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 – Fear God and keep His commandments; this is the whole duty of man.
Matthew 22:37–38 – Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind (the greatest commandment).
Matthew 22:39–40 – Love your neighbor as yourself; all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commands.
Matthew 28:18–20 – The Great Commission: Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that Christ has commanded.
Galatians 6:10 – Do good to everyone, especially to the household of faith.
Romans 12:1 – Present your bodies as a living sacrifice; this is your spiritual worship.
Philippians 2:12–13 – Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you.
Titus 2:11–12 – The grace of God has appeared, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.
1 Thessalonians 4:11–12 – Aspire to live quietly, mind your own affairs, and work with your hands.
1 Timothy 2:1–2 – Pray for all people so that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
John 14:15 – If you love Jesus, you will keep His commandments.
Matthew 6:33 – Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Colossians 3:23–24 – Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it certainly more-than-hints at the sort of love and care Christians are to be known for, both toward God and toward people.
The Wrong Question
However, as clear as the Bible is that we are to love God, do good to everyone (especially the Church), seek the lost, make disciples, raise godly children, have God-honoring marriages, etc., the Bible is not overly prescriptive. What I mean is, the Bible is not laying out, step-by-step, how to live these godly, holy lives we are called to embody. There are some guidelines to be sure, but, again, the Bible is not primarily a list of rules or ethical guidance.
The Bible is primarily the revelation of God.
So the question is not, How do the Bible’s writings on slavery advise us for or against it?
The question is, How do the Bible’s writings on slavery reveal God, His people, and His plan?
This is where the pro-slavery theologians erred. This is where the harm was done.
Yet the question remains: what does Paul’s writings on slaves teach us about God, His people, and His purposes?
First and foremost, Paul’s writings on slaves taught the early Christians that in Christ and (more practically) in the Church all are equal; in God, there is no free person or slave. This is not because God is divorced from reality but because in Christ all Believers have the same standing before the Father. The earthly, social hierarchy does not apply in the Church / Family of God / Kingdom of Heaven. The LORD loves all His children equally.
Daniel puts it like this:
While Paul doesn’t tell Philemon to free Onesimus (which again, would have been possible), he tells him to receive him as a brother. In doing so, he places Onesimus and Philemon not only on equal footing, but in the same family. Even more, Paul refers to Onesimus as his son and urges Philemon to treat him as he would treat Paul himself. This isn’t just social reform, it’s a call to embody the Kingdom of God, where all are family. . .
. . . Furthermore, Paul takes the most dehumanizing labels of his world and transforms them into marks of Christian identity. For example, he was no stranger to the Roman prison system, which was brutal, yet he never called for its abolition. Instead, he reclaims the language: a prisoner for Christ Jesus (Eph 3:1). The same is true of slavery. A term loaded with class stigma, Paul adopts freely to describe his devotion: a slave of Christ Jesus (Rom 1:1).
Or as he summarizes later:
[W]hen we expect Paul to explicitly condemn slavery in Philemon, we risk missing what may be even more radical: a call to fully receive a slave as a beloved family member, as an equal in Christ.
The pro-slavery theologians read the texts but missed God’s heart and His plan for His Bride entirely.
Secondly and finally, I would say that Paul’s writings on slaves teaches us that our circumstances do not prevent us from pursuing holiness. The antebellum Christians missed this, too. Because Paul is not weighing in on whether or not Christians should be slaves. He’s weighing in on how they should glorify God in light of their circumstances. All Christians have both a calling (to gossip the gospel) and a manner of living as they pursue their calling. Slaves are not exempt.
Conclusion
Pre–Civil War theologians did not do harm with their “flat” literal reading of the Bible.
Pre–Civil War theologians did harm by taking Bible verses that were meant to describe the Christian slave’s soul—and that soul’s identity in Christ, duty for Christ, and community in the Church—and extrapolating those Bible verses to the greater (secular) body politic.
I believe this claim of mine marries both the literal understanding of Paul’s writing with the meta narrative of Scripture (see Post-Script); and that it is this understanding that the pro-slavery theologians missed and therefore did harm.
On the whole, we must not read the Bible for moral checklists, ethical guidance, or earthly politics. We must read it to help us understand God, his heart for his people, and his plan to walk with them once again in the garden, along with their right response to Him.
Note: This article only addresses Paul’s writings on slaves but if there’s interest I could do a follow-up on Old Testament writings on slavery!
Post-Script
Just as St. Paul’s writings were meant to clarify:
The slave’s standing before God
The slave’s right response to Him, and
The slave’s equal standing amongst the people of God
. . . so, too, the Torah’s instructions about the God-fearing foreigner were meant to clarify:
The God-fearing foreigners standing before God
The God-fearing foreigner’s right response to Him and
The God-fearing foreigner’s equal standing amongst the OT people of God.
That is, the Old Testament sojourner foreshadows the believing Gentile’s standing before God and their eventual communion with the saints. (Remember, in a nutshell, God called the Israelites enslave or destroy those that opposed him, Deut. 20). Read more here.
What I mean is neither the specific biblical writings on OT foreigners nor the writings on NT slaves were meant to inform secular policies. To use them that way is to take the verses out of their spiritual context and force them into a secular one they were never meant to occupy. We are right to speak in generalities regarding the Christian’s duty to fellow image-bearers (as in the bullet-list I mention above), but we cannot take verses that are meant to describe specific spiritual realities and transpose them to earthly politics (as the pro-slavery theologians did).
We do well to remember that both in the Old and New Testaments, the Lord God is concerned about honoring his name and saving the lost; that is, about transferring lost souls out of the domain of Darkness and into the Kingdom of His Marvelous Light. Read more here.
So we read His Word for a revelation of Him, His Heart, and His mission and manner for His people.
As a result we:
Preach the gospel. Shepherd the sheep. Seek out the lost. Do so in a manner worthy of the gospel: slander no one, be peaceable and considerate, and always gentle toward everyone (Titus 3:2 and others).
We good to all—especially to those in the church, slave or free, foreign or domestic (Gal. 6:10 and others).