Slavery

The following needs to be followed very carefully for understanding to agreement, or dismissal, or rebuttal. Concepts here may be more common than we have communicated, but the proposals have not quite been offered in common context to my knowledge.  I learned long ago that ideas I thought might be original have been considered with some accepted and others rejected – and that sometimes long past with the students moving on from variant conclusions.  The following concepts are offered for consideration.

Human slavery found in the alleged ownership of a person by another person is opposed by scriptural standards.  Those ways related to spiritual freedom and human law are found in statements in Scripture – as noted in the verse cited above, and the call of Christian relationship noted by the Apostle Paul in the plea for Onesimus to his human master, Philemon.  A key phrase in the short epistle to Philemon offers the clue we want.  It is found in verse 14: But without thy [Philemon’s] mind, would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.  In other words the Apostle is commenting that Onesimus is bound by human law as a slave – unless and until the slave is freed by the owner.  The slave, though a person, has become chattel.  It is another evidence of a depraved context of mankind. The Apostle has no doubt that Onesimus ought to be free, but he is also concerned to keep the law so as to gain a continuing situation for the declaration of the Gospel.  The appeal of the Apostle is for Onesimus to be freed with Christian brotherhood.  The necessity of the law is countered by the freedom for all persons, especially those following Christ.  The Christian should follow that willingly.  Christian freedom implies human freedom, and the slavery that takes away human freedom is violation.  Even if the Apostle registers himself as the father of Onesimus so to proclaim precedence over Philemon and means for escape, Philemon remains the legal owner until he follows through to the legal freedom of his slave man, and that his (Philemon’s) mind be corrected about slavery.  This does not mean former slave gives up the work of a servant to his former owner, but it is now achieved through the decision of the former slave, and acceptance by the former owner becoming employer.  This is illustrated in the relationship between Abraham and the servant (now treated as family) sent out to find the woman, defined by Abraham, as the prospective wife for Isaac.  The attitude of respect between Abraham and the servant, included in mutuality of faith in God, is magnificent in scope and effectiveness. 

Israel had a law that the master and servant might continue in an authoritative relationship through the vows of the bond servant.  So great was the love and purpose between the owner and life servant that they could be bonded to remain in that authoritative context.  George Washington had a relationship with his close valet, with the man freed on the death of Washington.  The October, 2014, issue of The Smithsonian told the story of the slave of a southern white owner with whom he had a friend to friend relationship that permitted the slave to gain some wealth, even own a fine home.  The two men aided each other through various transitions personal and social to the benefit of both.  Mutuality/commitment solved the problem.

We remember that a pattern of search for truth is through parable (experience or alleged experience, true or made up and cast in teaching that made truth clear to the reader/listener).  God permitted slavery to remain as part of the human experience to clarify freedom.  All persons are free, no matter what man may do unto them.  The slavery of the biblical era was not the slavery of that emerging from the European discovery of the west, and the exploitation of persons.  Some slaves were educators of children from the wealthy and powerful who were less educated than their slaves.  Some slaves moved freely, but were bound as gladiators or for some other purpose desired in eras.  The context was sometimes superior to free citizens – but not free in all.  To find the true story we need to understand cultures.  In freedom we have the context we prefer, and we may become committed to it.  For the perceptive Christian it is the best of all choices.