Slavery: Why did Paul....

Hi SheEagle9/11. Thank you for the comments.

You said; "Paul was not in the position to free him because he was not Paul's slave." He WAS Paul's "son" (v10), though he could not be Philemon's "slave." In v17 Paul specifically requested that Philemon treat Onesimus as if Onesimus was literally PAUL HIMSELF. Could Paul possibly be Philemon's slave? GOD FORBID! Accordingly, neither could Onesimus be his slave if he stood in Paul's place - as "partner" - which v17 states.

If you believe that Philemon rejected Paul's petition as found in v17, then it would only mean that Philemon was an unsaved man, which is impossible given v1. V1 shows that Philemon was absolutely a saved man. As a result, Philemon could not be a "slave owner" (Mark 10: 42-44, Luke 22: 25-27, particular v26) nor would he have rejected Paul's v17 petition.

You said; "...not as he had previously been---a slave who stole from his master... There is nothing in Philemon that says Onesimus "stole" anything. I've seen some of those commentaries say this and point to v18 - but v18 says absolutely NOTHING about stealing. In fact, v18 does not even say that Onesimus wronged Philemon. It says "IF he hath wronged thee" which is not definitive, and in any event does not equate to "stealing."

You said; "...and ran away, but now he was being sent back as a fellow believer in Christ." There is nothing in Philemon that says Onesimus "ran away." Verse 15 merely says that Onesimus was "separated" or "departed" from Philemon for a short while. In fact, I'm more inclined to believe that Onesimus was SENT AWAY by Philemon because he was unprofitable (v11). Only when he became profitable to PAUL did it become an issue. Is it possible that "competition" played a part in any of this? (v13) Thanks SheEagle9/11. latterrain77

 

Hi SheEagle9/11. Thank you for the follow up. My apologies if I misunderstood. Thanks! latterrain77

 

Pardon me brothers and sisters:
But I seem to sense an air self-righteousness that is usually concurrent with white supremancy.

In watching your answers the innocence of the initial post has degenerated into the typical theological wizardry used by the slave owners of the Antebellum era and the Night-Riders (KKK) of the Postbellum and present era here in the US to scripturally justify the American institution of slavery.

I'm no liberal by any shake of the word, but maybe the problem so many are having with Joshua is that he insinuates the possibility of the like theology in those on this board.

How dare any to speak of the "Blessedness of Slavery" and its return(?) who know nothing about its purpose, effects nor victims? Why speak of slavery during the First Century, seeing that it is no longer with us, unless there is a need to make supposedly congruent sense between it and/or its present day (proposed?)return?

As to the Most High using it for His Will and Purpose...yes it is obviously true. However, was His Will and Purpose, providentially for white supremancy to be the final arbiter for all things?

Well ask yourself that one.. it will tell more about you than you think!

Your brother
John

 

katie Bond...007 said:

We studied Philemon a few weeks ago in Sunday school. We were told that they slavery in bible dasy was different then we think of slavery today.

Don't confuse the slavery of the Roman Empire with the regulation of slavery in the Law of Moses. The Romans were not subject to the Law, and there is no reason to assume Philemon and Onesimus were anything other than Gentiles.

In Roman society, slaves were indeed property - human tools. The slave's master had absolute power over whether the slave lived or died. He was perfectly within his legal rights to execute a runaway slave, or (if he was feeling merciful) to brand him with an F on the forehead (for "fugitivus").

Paul's purpose in writing Philemon was not to undermine the very basis of the Roman economy, but to reconcile Philemon and Onesimus. Thus, he does not come right out and say "slavery is wrong and you ought to set him free." Nonetheless, there is a strong subtext in the letter suggesting that Philemon manumit Onesimus:

</font>

• Paul insinuates that the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus has changed from one of master/slave to brother/brother (v. 16).</font>
• Paul requests that Philemon treat Onesimus as he would Paul himself (v. 17).</font>
• Paul further implies that Philemon owes him the favour (v. 19).</font>
• Oh, by the way - Paul will be paying a visit shortly, he hopes (v. 22).</font>

 

standing for what the bible teaches is not self righteousness. i cannot stand by while people claim god is immoral in what he allows/commands.

anyone advocating white supremacy needs to consider this:

Galatians 3:
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

Because the slavery of the first century is what Paul was writing about and if we are going to understand what he said, we must understand what he was talking about. To not talk about the slavery of the first century is bad exegesis if you are talking about the biblical text. To shoehorn the slavery of the 19th century into the biblical text is to rape the text.

 

When the term "slavery" comes up people here in the USA tend to equate it with slavery in our own history. Slavery in Paul's time was very different from slavery in American history. Our form of slavery was, by far, worse than that of Paul's day. In Paul's day slaves could own property, businesses, and generally had a much better lifestyle than that of slaves in America. So, it's really kind of hard to compare the two.

 

Not entirely true. You have embellished the facts a bit to serve your own purposes.

This could well be true. But it is not clear from the text. Paul's commands to slaves are to serve in faithful submission (Titus 2:9-10, Col 3:23ff; etc.). His commands to owners are to be fair (Col 4:1). If Paul wanted to tell Onesimus to release him, he could have come right out and said that. He didn't. He said to receive him as he would himself.

 

Dear Dr. Bob,
Granted that slavery in the Roman Empire was often different than in the American South. A blanket Biblical prohibition and instant freedom could have meant chaos and destitution for many.
Yet Paul in I.Cor. 7 certainly advised slaves to obtain their freedom if they could.
MANY aspects of slavery were sin. Perhaps not if a person willingly sold himself for a period of several years with the expectation of financial gain and eventual freedom. Not unlike, perhaps, going in the military now. Yet in the same I Cor. 7, Paul told those who were free not to seek slavery. Untold numbers of people, though, became slaves because of raiders decimating their towns for gain.

I find I Timothy 1: 9-10 interesting, and 1860 Alabama Baptists, I think, did not read it enough:
"We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful,........for adulterers and perverts, FOR SLAVE TRADERS and liars and perjurers---and whatever else IS CONTRARY TO THE SOUND DOCTRINE....." NIV

It would seem to me that slavery is put on the list of sins right along with sexual sins and others.

Karen

 

Karen;
You hit the nail with the hammer! According to none other than the Holy Spirit, Himself, as recorded by the Apostle Paul...SLAVERY (slave-holding, slave trading etc.) IS SIN and equated with homosexuality as Joshua attempted to explain in his post. (1 Tim.1:9-10)

Larry & Bob;
Contrary to your opinion, slavery/slave-trading, called manstealing in the KJV, is sin and punishable by death. (Ex. 21:16)
This must certainly mean that all of the "good Baptist slaveholders" of the South were guilty of continual sin and under a just condemnation of death...possibly even Hell because their full repentance would have to be suspect.

Obviously, C.H. Spurgeon had the right idea when he repeatedly denounced slavery in public. We know that it cost him MANY dollars here in the US.

THIS IS what the Bible says on the matter Larry & Bob,either accept it and change your views or reject it and deal with Jesus on the matter.

Isn't there a direct commandment against stealing?
What could be worse than stealing a man?

You seem to forget that slavery in the Bible was mostly a consequence of war and not money as here in the US. The Scriptures just told you that manstealing was punishable by death. Maybe this is really a case of SELECTIVE/ELECTIVE AMNESIA. People tend to forget very shameful actions committed by themselves and their loved ones and this qualifies as being very shameful.

To all;
My comments concerning white supremancy are directly meant to prick the conscience of all who claim a theological veracity for slavery and ATTEMPT to prove it by using the writings of Paul. It goes like this, "Paul doesn't openly condemn slavery...therefore he condones it.." or, "he sends Onesimus back to be Philemon's slave.." or, "Paul tells slaves to be good slaves and to continue being such..". Sound familiar? Actually these comments were given in the 1800's at the height of the American slave-era, but they sure sound similar to those espoused here!

White Supremancy basically says that if it is White then it is Right. Whites enslaved Blacks, so Whites are right and Blacks get back. Whites are Superior to every non-White and the God-mandated owners and rulers of all that they survey. GOD is White and the Devil is Black and that's a fact. When we are saved our soul becomes White because Jesus removes from us the blackness of sin.

Now to be sure we all have either used these cliches or similar ones, howbeit with different meanings. But the basic meaning is still there...White is Right..always Right!

Ask yourself, is this the true foundation for my theological viewpoint or is it truly the Bible. Because if it doesn't measure up (..the Only rule for faith and practice)then you need to get rid of it..or just get rid of the name Baptist.

Is it possible that the sin of racism and therefore white supremancy, could be so deeply rooted in you that it has gone unnoticed and unrepented? (2Cor 13:5)
Your brother
John

 

Actually, the Greek word in 1 Tim 1:10 does not mean slave traders/owners in general, but it has more of a stealing/kidnapping connotation. An online lexicon gives this definition:

1) a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
a) of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
b) of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them

There were legal means of dealing with slaves, and I think 1 Tim 1:10 is referring to illegal means.

 

against the law, and arguably not a good idea (today anyway), but not wrong. god determines right and wrong, not our government.

interesting aside, the 13th amendment does not abolish slavery:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

it limits slavery to being a punishment for crime. compare:

Exodus 22
22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. 2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. </font>[/QUOTE]I would bet that if someone made YOU a slave today you would change your mind. The truth of the matter is society in biblical times accepted the institution of slavery. Christ's teachings emphasize the value of every human life. No one has the right to take away the freedom of another person unless they've committed a crime.

 

Slavery is immoral and ungodly. It may have been acceptible in the society in which much of the bible was written, but it's not acceptible for a Christian, or any human being, to own any other human being as property.

My morality doesn't end with the Bible. My morality starts with the Bible and ends with my relationship with Jesus. WWJD? Jesus would not allow slavery today.

 

It doesn't make sense in 2003 anywhere.

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Are you saying that loving your neighbor as yourself means it's OK to enslave him? Please explain.

 

I would bet that if someone made YOU a slave today you would change your mind.

no, all things work for the good of all believers.
kidnapping and selling a person into slavery is a serious sin, however.

The truth of the matter is society in biblical times accepted the institution of slavery.

what people do or do not accept has no bearing on right and wrong. god not only allowed, but commanded slavery.

Christ's teachings emphasize the value of every human life.

the entire bible, old and new testaments alike, are christ's teachings.

No one has the right to take away the freedom of another person unless they've committed a crime.

agreed, if you include prisoners of war, i think. i'd have to look into it.

 

Slavery is immoral and ungodly. It may have been acceptible in the society in which much of the bible was written, but it's not acceptible for a Christian, or any human being, to own any other human being as property.

My morality doesn't end with the Bible. My morality starts with the Bible and ends with my relationship with Jesus. WWJD? Jesus would not allow slavery today. </font>[/QUOTE]it appears to me that you value your own opinions over what the bible plainly teaches, or that you have been blessed with a spirit of prophecy. do you have new revelations from god, revelations that replace the bible?

 

Not at all. I simply don't worship the Bible. I worship God, and use the Bible to assist me in my relationship with Him. Worshipping the Bible would be idolatrous.

You're implying that I should accept slavery as morally okay. I don't, and I never will. I know that God hates injustice and slavery. I know that God hates polygamy. I know that God hates people treating people like they're not human. Yet, these things are talked about, and often accepted in the bible. It's not that God condones them, it's that the passages in which they often appear are pertaining to a different issue at hand. If that were not the case, then we should all follow in Somolon;s footsteps, and be free to take not only multiple wives, but miltiple concubines, without fear over angering God.

If that's the "biblical" way ya wanna follow in, bon apetit. As for me, I will temper the biblical passages with Spiritual discernment.

[ July 07, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]