Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Colossians 3:22-4:1 – Masters, Slaves, Christianity
Janet and I have decided to adopt again. I would like to introduce you to our newest son, Sam. He is a shovel. More on Sam later.
There are certain realities within the Bible that make our modern sensibilities uncomfortable or even offended. These “archaic” realities are either God-based or society-driven. “Wives be subject to your husbands” is offensive to our modern society although that subjection is based upon God’s original creation (1 Timothy 2:13). “Slaves be in subjection to your masters” is not based upon God’s creation, and is offensive to our times.
Because our text specifically mentions the slave-master relationship we are going to make a few observations about slavery within the Roman world (some of which applies to our shared American history also). And while slavery at best is a sensitive subject, and at worst an offensive subject, it is imperative that we understand it not from a subjective viewpoint, but rather objectively.
Because the Romans were “free,” they considered work beneath their dignity. Working within our own times is getting disdained more and more, not from a position of being “free” and citizens but rather from the point of view of entitlements. Those today expecting society to support them because they are entitled have become the masters making society their slaves.
In Roman times, slaves performed most of the work, including medical, teaching, domestic work, and farming. Some slaves even performed highly skilled work requiring education. Again, it sounds a lot like our society where today’s “slaves” are the workers and the entitled sit back and expect payment and ease.
Periodically, there was some warmth in the relationships of some slaves and their masters; quite often, it was a dehumanizing existence. For slaves who were strong, plenty of demanding work was set before them. For those of a more delicate nature, they would be plied to illegal trickery and other softer jobs on behalf of their masters. When their usefulness was over, many would be given over to prostitution. The idea was that the master owned the slave, and that means owned the body like we own tools.
Vincent says, “The attitude of the law toward the slave was expressed in the formula…, ‘the slave has no right’.” Slaves had no rights to property or inheritance. Remember that, the slave had no inheritance. The owner had all authority over his human chattel. Owners considered them animate or living tools, alongside inanimate tools. After all, what rights do shovels have? And yet in Christ, the tool became equal to the master and received “the reward of an inheritance from the Lord” (Col.3:24).
The slaves’ masters had absolute authority over their lives, even to the point of taking that life if so desired. A slave’s life was so invaluable, Roman legislature pronounced death on one who killed a plough-ox, but none for murdering a slave. Augustus, after a slave ate his favorite quail, crucified the malefactor on the mast of a ship. Other inhumane indignities consisted of cutting out slaves’ tongues, throwing slaves into a pond of voracious lampreys, branding run-away slaves, and throwing them to the beasts.
In the Roman and Grecian world, unlike that of the Hebrews, slaves out-numbered the free citizens. Historians tell us that during this period there were some 60,000,000 slaves in theRoman Empire, making up about half of the population. This is one reason why the revolt led by Spartacus was so dangerous and boarded on success (73-71 BC). The philosopher, Seneca, told of how the Roman senate defeated a law proposing that slaves wear distinctive clothing because they feared the slaves would realize how numerous they were. A wealthy man could own 20,000 slaves or even more. Strict laws were a societal necessity.
Philosophy, a hobby not unheard of in Greece or Rome, was a friend of bondage. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) taught the law of “natural slavery” (i.e., some men were born unqualified for freedom). If you were not a Greek, you were born to be a slave. Similar to that is the concept that some races or cultures are naturally inferior to others. Racism is the name of that sin. Bigots believe they are superior, regardless of their own race or culture, whether or not the concept of freedom is invoked, revoked, or not. Even in America, the land of the free, in the beginning some people were considered inferior to others by some. Amazingly, some still do. For some in the beginning of America, slaves were inferior, and for others it was simply an economic system which existed even in Africa, the home-land of the slaves. Historians have wondered why the African slaves did not revolt like Spartacus and his fellow slaves. One reason might be many of the slaves became “Christians” and obeyed their masters although their masters did not follow the same teaching to treat their slaves knowing that they themselves were slaves of God. Another reason might be the history of the slaves themselves in Africa. Slavery to them was normal. Africans owned Africans and sold Africans. It was part of their tribal mentality and economic systems.
Christianity comes into a world of “natural” inferiority and claims slaves and masters are equal in Christ (Gal.3:28).
Galatians 3:28 (HCSB) There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Some have discredited Paul for not condemning slavery. If we believe in inspiration, then this becomes a discrediting of the Holy Spirit and ultimately God the Father. Those that say Paul was misogynic make the same mistake. These critics fail to see the principle teaching of the New creation and in original creation. In God, in Christ, in creation, both old and new, worth is not determined by rank; subjection does not equate inferiority. This was contrary to both pagan and Jewish thought. The pagans followed an Aristotelian philosophy and the Jews were religious egotists.
There are at least three basic reasons why the N.T. does not have a specific law forbidding slavery, plus a fourth reason why, specifically Jesus Himself could not outlaw it. Now admittedly, if our ancestors were slaves, in order to accept what I am about to say, we need to set our minds on things above, and not on the things that are on earth. (Col.3:2). It might appear self-serving or inappropriate in America for a white person like me to preach and teach on slavery, and the evils of it. After all, my ancestors most likely owned slaves since I am related to Lyman Hall, a signer of the Declaration of Independence from the slave state of Georgia. Being white gives me just as much a right as if I were black because I do not approach this from a stand point of master to slave, but rather as one whose ancestors were sinners. While the master-slave relationship itself might not be sinful, the way masters treated their slaves often was. Of course, this is not exclusive to American slavery. America did not invent slavery. In that sense, with me being the ancestor of slave owners, and remembering that the slaves did not rebel when they outnumbered the masters, I posit for your thinking the black slaves often showed themselves to be the superior “Christians.” Therefore I approach this topic not as the ancestor of those who were superior, but as the ancestor of those who showed themselves to be inferior. In addition, none of us, whether red, white, black, brown or yellow, are our ancestors.
So why isn’t there a specific law in the N.T. condemning slavery?
First, there is a greater concern for spiritual freedom than physical freedom. As Americans, historically we have made both equal:
1st Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Within the book of Colossians, there is a focus on holiness from the inside out. Spiritual freedom can exist without physical freedom and is superior.
Akin to this is the misconception that the purpose of Christianity is to change society. That is the misconception behind “Liberation Theology” which is a political movement in Christian theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions.
Changing society through the gospel is not the purpose of the Christianity. It is changing individuals through choice, not changing society through political means.
The Church is not a political nor a social organization. It is a spiritual organism. It is out to change individuals. If a soul is saved, and society is still evil, did the gospel succeed? In addition, if true holiness from the inside out is taught and lived by that society, will society change?
Second, if the Holy Spirit instructed Paul to boldly condemn slavery, then just like under Spartacus, an insurrection would have resulted. Sparking an insurrection is contrary to the Biblical concept of subjection. Slaves would have joined the Christian movement for all the wrong reasons. Remember, Colossians focuses on holiness from the inside out. Accepting Christ for material means is not accepting Christ. Anyone today who teaches the Health and Wealth gospel are making the same fundamental mistake that Paul would have made in preaching against slavery.
Third, Christ’s new law is basically principles to be applied by the Christian to particular situations as they mature spiritually. As people increasingly become holy from the inside out, they begin to understand and practice such principles, including the Golden Rule. But consider this, in countries today where the majority of people call and consider themselves Christians, does slavery exist? No. The message has triumphed! In Muslim countries, it is still practiced and preached not as an economic system, but as a right to enslave infidels.
Fourth, what would have happened if Jesus had broken Roman law, and become guilty of insurrection? He would have been guilty of the false charge made against Him by the Jews:
Luke 23:13-14 (HCSB) 13) Pilate called together the chief priests, the leaders, and the people, 14) and said to them, “You have brought me this man as one who subverts the people. But in fact, after examining Him in your presence, I have found no grounds to charge this man with those things you accuse Him of.
If Jesus could have been rightfully branded a political and societal revolutionary, He therefore would not have been a sinless sacrifice.
John Eadie’s explanation is fitting:
“Christianity did not rudely assault the forms of social life, or seek to force even a justifiable revolution by external appliances. Such an enterprise would have quenched the infant religion in blood. The gospel achieved a nobler feat. It did not stand by in disdain, and refuse to speak to the slave till he gained his freedom, and the shackles fell from his arms…. No; but it went down into his degradation, took him by the hand, uttered words of kindness in his ear, and gave him a liberty which fetters could not abridge and tyranny could not suppress [quoted by Vaughan, 108].
Westernized Christians today, cannot conceive of owning another person. And yet, sadly, even some claiming Christ as Lord still hold to the ungodly and unscriptural concept of natural inferiority and prejudice. I guess they never figured out that Jesus was not a blonde haired, blue eyed, white American! As Americans we are socialized to hold individual freedom above all else. The Law of Christ was meant for all generations under all cultural restrictions and freedoms. Therefore, laws for master/slave relationships were not only given, but also necessary and realistic. Think with me. The fundamental principle of human relationships has always been, and will always be, no matter the time or culture, one of rank and position. Christianity equalizes the people – not the positions (I Cor.7:22; Gal.3:28; Col.3:11; Phile.16,17).
Here in America in pre-civil war times, white bigots who owned slaves used the Bible to keep their slaves in submission. It was a great misuse, for in order to properly use the Bible, one has to use all of it. Just as the Bible does not give permission to a husband to put his wife into subjection, I see no Biblical teaching that would allow a Christian master to put a slave into subjection. For Jesus Christ not only gave orders to the masters, he made the slaves equal to the master – from the inside out, and from heaven downward to earth. In fact, within an early church you might find an elder who is a slave overseeing a master who is a deacon or saint.
Comments