In a recent posting T.C. Robinson addressed the usefulness/purpose of the Epistle to Philemon. He concluded that this epistle is a microcosm of the salvific effects of the gospel. As we are freed from our enslaved nature by Christ so we see the gospel working outward to change more than our hearts but the whole structure of the world. He credits N.T. Wright with this insight.
Along comes Bill Ross to comment and he suggest that the Apostle Paul’s letter was “vindicating the owning of slaves”. As someone who has given years to studying the Apostle Paul I find this statement to be seriously misleading. It is one thing to not demand that Philemon release Onesimus; it is something altogether different to applaud slavery! We must read Paul in his historical context.
It is well known that the Roman Empire stood on the backs of slaves. Slavery was a given in the Greco-Roman world. For Paul to have made any attempt at overthrowing this institution he may as well have forsaken the spread of the gospel. He would have been crushed if he has tried to use force.
We must remember Paul did not have any political clout. He was not a government official. He did not have a voice in the court of Caesar. He was not the citizen of a democracy. He would have had little to no impact if he would have attempted to start some sort of riot. Rather, the gospel would have been seen by all people as something other than the message that it was for Paul. It would have been the loss of many audiences to his message.
Furthermore, it seems apparent that Paul was pacifistic. He did not support violence in any of his epistles. While the slave situation was gray in his world view it seems that violence was black and white. While the institution of slavery was something much too large for him to fix he could maintain control over any urge to use violence. Therefore, we can count revolution out as an option.
Even here in the United States it was blood shed that led to the freeing of slaves. Even though our current situation is better than it was before Lincoln even the northern victory did not fix root causes such as racism. Do we dare demand from a first century Christian what we may demand from a twenty-first century Christian? Hardly.
We must realize that Paul’s calling as an apostle is to call people to allegiance with his risen Lord. He lived in an apocalyptic mindset that was aware that what was of primary importance was not changing all of society but being ready to meet the returning King. Any social reform (which we have already seen was not even possible) would have been distracting.
When Paul writes to Philemon he does not demand that Philemon let Onesimus be free. He uses wise words reminding Philemon that he owes Paul but he must make the decision on his own. Furthermore, Paul realizes Philemon is a product of his era so he massages his ego emphasizing that Philemon has the opportunity to do the good on his own that will inevitably be a benefit to the Kingdom of God.
What if Paul would have demanded Onesimus’ freedom? I contend we would not have the letter preserved for us today. Philemon would have thought Paul had gone to far, wadded it up, and tossed it somewhere never to be recovered again. Onesimus would have remained a slave. Paul would have lost a partner in the gospel.
Rather, Paul’s pastoral wisdom likely softened Philemon’s heart. Why else would the letter have survived. It is said that Onesimus later became a bishop. If we were in Paul’s position and we did things our way would this have come to pass? I doubt it.
In his letter to the church of Colossi he encourages the slaves to work toward the Lord. How is this pro-slavery? It subverts the human masters if anything. It reminds the slaves that they can give their lives to God which is greater than they would have seen themselves otherwise. He ends this discourse by reminding the slaves that wrongdoers will be judged. Is this a criticism toward the slaves? No, it is a reminder that if they are mistreated God will avenge them (3. 22-25)!
He confronts all slave owners by reminding them their is a great “Master in heaven” (4.1). I can guarantee one thing: the Christian slave owners may have not released their slaves but I am sure that if they heard Paul they treated them differently. Even if they had released the slaves how many could have survived or avoided being enslaved by someone else? To accuse Paul of supporting slavery is misguided at best. It ignored the complexity of the society of which he was part.
Let us remember the plight of many American slaves after they found freedom. For many it meant poverty. Yes, freedom but even today the African American is usually going to face more hardships that the white American. Political power does help, but it doesn’t fix it all.
Paul writes similar things to the church in Ephesus (6.5-9). One thing of which I am sure is that slaves faired much better under Christian slave owners. Likewise, I would not be surprised if Paul had more people like Philemon that he eased into releasing slaves for the good of the Kingdom. Paul was a wise man who was perfect for his time.
So before we describe how Paul should have done it let us put ourselves in his world. It is easy to sit here comfortably under the assumption that moral progress is not a tough issue for those who live through the debates and the times of turmoil. Yet slavery is more prominent in today’s world than it was in Paul’s. Do Paul’s critics back up their righteousness by fighting the slave trade? Do they go to Portland, or San Francisco, or New York seeking to set people free? If not, do I dare say you are supporting slavery because you are not actively fighting against it? It is easy to be self righteous after society has changed (to the extent that it has which is obviously not far enough). If I were the one chosen to do Paul’s work would I have done as well as he did. I would like to hope so, but I doubt it. If we are going to judge Paul judge him as an amazing man of his time.
the archives near Emmaus 
Your straw man argument is that Paul was a Pacifist, and thus would not violently overthrow Rome. Fine. But could he not have mentioned to Philemon that men are not cattle, to be bought and sold?
Talking about cattle, Paul obviously doesn’t think that God is concerned with the considerate treatment of cattle:
1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
Obviously Paul is of the opinion that God doesn’t care if oxen are muzzled, only that preachers get money.
So it is small matter that Paul feels compelled to exhort women to shut up, (contrary to Roman norms), but won’t speak up against human body slavery.
Nah, this isn’t *honorable* deft maneuvering, just an indication that Paul was a man of privilege. (Only the wealthy could afford to spend their lives in religious study). Obviously, Paul never was a slave.
Obviously, neither were you.
Bill,
My argument that Paul was pacifistic is a “straw man” in what sense? Have you not read Rom. 12.17-21? He demands that Christians don’t return evil for evil but let God be the judge. Do you find any suggestion that Paul would have thought violent opposition to slave masters was an option? Or for that matter do you think Paul would have ever suggested violence as an option?
Your reading of 1 Cor. 9.9 says more than Paul says. He sees the passage as pointing forward to the preachers of the gospel. This has nothing to do with animal ethics.
I am sure you have read legitimate readings of Paul’s silencing of women. If you maintain that this is a gender issue then you stand with many Christians who do likewise. I disagree. It is situational ethics. So you must prove to me that Paul was being sexist before this random statement matters.
Paul may have been well off at some point but his own testimony to the Corinthians suggests he risked it all. History tells us he died by being beheaded. So no, he was not a slave. Nor have I been a slave. I assume you have not either?
By the way, there are many slaves in the world today. It is as much a part of our global society as it was then. We have more power as citizens than Paul did. I wonder what you are doing about it?
Labelling Paul as a Pacifist is a straw-man? What in the world? Now I have seen everything………
I’m a bit confused by it as well. I am not sure how it functions as a “straw man”. As I understand that fallacy you set up an argument that you know is easy to defeat in order to “prove” a point in the critique of someone else’s argument. I would like to know how I did this.
Oh, btw, Brian, the notion that Paul advocates a cross-centered, Christian non-violence (submission/subordination) is exactly what John Howard Yoder argues for in his The Politics of Jesus. If you have not read it, in your free time, I would recommend it. He has an interesting biblical hermeneutic, which is why his work appeals to evangelicals.
Brian,
You left this on my blog. I thought it was brilliant:
Yep. 😉
Rod: I have wanted to read Yoder. Often when I hear of things he has written it seems that I have reached similar conclusions already.
TC: Thank you!
Great post. This said it all, “We must read Paul in his historical context.”
But Paul does support Slavery… Us being slaves to righteousness of course :-P.
Borg and Crossan’s recent work, The First Paul suggests that he was quite radical within the context of his culture regarding slavery and the role of women. Their arguments are convincing. For a full review, click here.
I also deal with the issue in my own work of historical fiction entitled A Wretched Man, a novel of Paul the apostle which has received critical acclaim for its historical authenticity. Sorry for the blatant self promotion, but for those interested in an edgy and provocative interpretation of the man from Tarsus, many readers suggest my novel is entertaining and engaging while also being informative. Click here for more info.
Alex: This is true! I guess in that sense I can tell Bill that I am currently a slave. I doubt he’d by that though.
Obie: I have heard Borg and Crossan do a good job defending Paul in that book which I browsed through once before. My only disagreement is their denial of Pauline authorship of Ephesians and Colossians. I feel those two epistles expand Paul’s central themes in Romans to the point that if it was not Paul who wrote it there would have been a student who knew the implications of Paul’s theology better than Paul himself. The household codes have sufficient explanations which I provided above.
Your book sounds very interesting. What lead you do write it?
Brian,
It was my own “wonderings” at the enigmatic person who seemingly said harsh things but who also wrote the “Christian magna charta” of Gal 3:28. Experiencing grace in my own life, I wondered about Paul’s grace moment on the road to Damascus and about the man who has helped the church understand a graceful God.
Obie,
That’s good enough a reason for me!
to knom more about the poer empower ApostlePaul
One thing that seems to have been missed here is Pauls or should I say Sauls upbringing. He would have known very much about the Torah and the laws of it concerning slavery; Deuteronomy 23:15-16 comes to mind as a good example and thus giving reason for his letter to Philemon.
We as Christians do sometime need to remember where our line comes from.