Slavery and The Apostle Paul
While studying for this week's message I have been learning how an ancient context can provide principles for a modern context even though they do not correspond exactly. That is definitely the case in Colossians 3.22-4.1 as Paul addresses slaves and masters. In the ancient context during the first century this would have made perfect since due to the presence of slavery. Today, in our American culture this is obviously not the case. In fact, in Paul's day it made perfect since for him to include this section of Scripture with the text in verses 18-21 on the marriage and parenting relationships because all of it dealt with the home. So, it was the context of the home.
So, this week my goal is to address the second part of ordering our relationships by the book in looking at 3.22-4.1 with the focus on our work relationships (employee and employer). In doing this I will not spend much on the issue of slavery, which will of course come to our mind as we read it, though I will let the ancient context help in giving us principles from this text that do translate over to our present day work relationships.
So, what about slavery (in short)? Scripture does not condone it, but it does address the relationships and how a new creation, whether a slave or a master is to function. As studying I found these great words by Pastor Sam Storms that helped me. Here they are:
First, Scripture is known to regulate undesirable relationships without condoning them as permanent ideals (see Mt. 19:8; 1 Cor. 6:1-8). Paul’s recommendation for how slaves and masters relate to each other does not assume the goodness of the institution.
Wayne Grudem (“Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth”) explains: “The Bible does not approve or command slavery any more than it approves or commands persecution of Christians. When the author of Hebrews commends his readers by saying, ‘You joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one’ (Hebrews 10:34), that does not mean the Bible supports the plundering of Christians’ property, or that it commands theft. It only means that if Christians have their property taken through persecution, they should still rejoice because of their heavenly treasure, which cannot be stolen. Similarly, when the Bible tells slaves to be submissive to their masters, it does not mean that the Bible supports or commands slavery, but only that it tells people who are slaves how they should respond” (341).
Second, the institution of slavery is not grounded in creation but is a distortion resulting from the fall.
Third, on several occasions in the New Testament the seeds for the dissolution of slavery are sown. This is especially seen in Paul’s words to Philemon (vv. 12-16; cf. also Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2).
Fourth, no permanent moral command is used with reference to the institution of slavery in Paul’s writings. He is obviously adapting to a temporary and ultimately repugnant social construct.
Fifth, and finally, Paul explicitly envisions and endorses the possibility of a slave obtaining freedom (1 Cor. 7:21).
I appreciate these notes on the issue of slavery.
In closing, a brief warning because some in different theological camps have been tempted with this. One thing we must do is never take the issue of slavery and how Scripture deals with it and apply it to marriage. These are two different institutions that do not correspond at all. Marriage is grounded in creation and a good institution that is to be permanant. Slavery has been abolished, but it does not mean the husband's role of headship is abolished. The complementary roles in marriage that God has ordained are not to be abolished due to slavery being rightfully abolished. The argument does not correspond.
