Decades ago, I got into a discussion with a lady who believed that women should be ordained as ministers. I told her that the Bible clearly prohibits women from being ordained as ministers. To my surprise, she conceded that this was indeed what the Bible says, but then she confidently asserted that the Bible was wrong about women ministers. She mentioned some other things that she claimed the Bible to be mistaken about, and one of these was slavery. She argued that if the Bible was wrong on these things, then the Bible could also be wrong on women in the ministry. She must have thought that the Bible’s message had been distorted by an outdated patriarchy, and that she as a modern woman was more enlightened than the Bible about the place of women in society.
This lady was advocating what some call a cafeteria approach to the Bible. When you eat in a cafeteria with a buffet, you take what you want and you leave the rest. That is the way that this lady was approaching the Bible. She accepted what she already agreed with, and she rejected what she disagreed with. A problem with that approach is that if one accepts only the statements in the Bible that he already agrees with, then he can’t go to the Bible to find out where he is mistaken. If one accepts only the statements in that Bible that he already agrees with, then the Bible is no longer profitable to him for reproof and correction. According to the cafeteria approach to the Bible, wherever the Bible contradicts a person’s sophisticated beliefs and modern practices, then the Bible must be in error and not the person. The Bible is no longer that person’s final authority. That person has become his own final authority.
Back when I had this conversation with this lady, the liberal’s cutting edge issue was ordaining women ministers. That was a long time ago. The liberal’s cutting edge issue today is ordaining practicing homosexuals. The liberal’s cutting edge issue has become significantly more radical, but the argument is the same. If the Bible is wrong on slavery, then it can be wrong on homosexuality as well. If our society continues its rebellion against God, we can only guess what the liberal’s next cutting edge issue will be. Yet the argument will be the same. If the Bible is wrong on slavery, then it can be wrong on the next issue down the road of rebellion as well, regardless of how extreme that next issue might appear to many today. Many Christians today have difficulty responding to this argument because they do not know what the Bible does and does not teach on slavery.
In the New Testament, the Apostles Peter and Paul gave some guidance to Christian slaves (1 Corinthians 7:21-23; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-3; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-21). The Apostle Peter’s guidance was for Christian slaves who were enduring hardships under pagan masters. The Apostle Paul also gave some guidance to Christian masters in three of his later prison epistles (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1; Philemon). These texts gave guidance to Christians without condoning everything associated with slavery in the pagan Greek and Roman cultures of that day.
The Apostles Peter and Paul also supported the concept of the family. That doesn’t mean that the Apostles Peter and Paul condoned everything associated with the family in the pagan Greek and Roman cultures of that day. In the pagan Roman culture of that day, the father had the power of life and death over his children. When a child was born, the father could recognize the child and allow it to live. Or the father could decree that the newborn child must die by exposure. In the pagan Roman culture of that day, the standard for marital fidelity was much looser for the husband than for the wife. The husband could take significantly sinful liberties that were forbidden to the wife. When the New Testament gave guidance on family life, the New Testament wasn’t condoning every pagan Roman family custom of that time. There was much about the pagan Roman concept of the family which the Apostles Peter and Paul and other early Christians rejected as morally wrong.
We should similarly interpret the New Testament’s statements about Christian slaves and masters. There was much about the pagan Greek and Roman concepts of slavery which the Apostles Peter and Paul and other early Christians rejected as morally wrong. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle taught the concept of the natural slave. Some later Greek and Roman writers developed this concept into a more complete theory. In this theory, “[t]he natural slave is a deficient ‘anthropos,’ a human subspecies assimilated to irrational beasts requiring taming and domestication.” A common Greek word for the slave was simply the Greek word for “body.” The ancient pagan Greeks regarded the slave as simply a physical body under his master’s control, as simply an animated tool much like a domesticated animal. Some ancient Romans did have a higher view of the slave’s mental ability than the ancient Greeks. The ideal Roman slave was expected to anticipate his master’s desires and to perform his master’s will without needing to be micro-managed (location 304ff, Slaves in the New Testament, J. Albert Harrill). In both ancient Greek and ancient Roman society, slaves were routinely exploited and abused sexually (location 514, From Shame to Sin, Kyle Harper). The ancient pagan Greeks and Romans had a low view of the slave’s humanity.
This low view of the slave’s humanity was at the heart of pagan Greek and Roman slavery. The New Testament tore out that heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh. The Christian perspective was that all slaves are humans created in the image of God, and that Christian slaves are fellow Christians and therefore brothers and sisters in Christ. Thus, “… there is neither slave nor free…; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The Christian master was therefore obligated to treat his slaves in terms of Jesus’ Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This Christian perspective transformed the relationship between masters and slaves among Christians. From the Christian perspective, slaves were fully human laborers working under a long term contract and not merely property in a class with domesticated animals. This transformed understanding is evident in the guidance that the Apostle Paul gave to Christian masters. The traditional motivation for a slave to work was the threat of punishment. The Apostle Paul commanded Christian masters to give up the use of threats, to keep in mind that they have a Master in heaven who is no respecter of persons, and to give their slaves what is just and fair (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1).
The basic moral principle violated by the pagan concept of slavery goes all the way back to the Old Testament account of humanity’s creation in the image of God. The Old Testament contains some illuminating applications of this principle to slavery. Under Mosaic law, slavery through kidnapping was strongly prohibited (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). Hebrew slavery sometimes functioned as a social safety net for those in desperate need (Leviticus 25:39-43). The Hebrew slave was not to be treated with rigor (Leviticus 25:43), and was enslaved permanently only at his own request (Exodus 21:5-6; Deuteronomy 15:16-17). The fugitive slave, probably fleeing the severity of pagan slavery, was not forced to return to the master from whom he was fleeing (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). The Hebrew slave was generously provisioned after his time of service (Deuteronomy 15:12-15). These precedents give helpful insight into the fair and just treatment that the Apostle Paul commanded.
There should not, however, be a flat application of the Mosaic judicial laws on slavery to a Christian society. Many circumstances were unique to old covenant Israel, and judicial laws are time bound, situation specific applications of the moral law.
To [the people of Israel] also, as a body politic, [God] gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4
Certain elements of the old covenant judicial laws are not part of the general equity that has a continuing relevance. The cultural wall affecting the social status of Gentiles in Israel has been replaced by a moral wall excluding worldly sins. The holy war against Canaanites begun under Joshua has ended, and the emphasis now is on the spiritual battle with sin and Satan. These considerations which expired together with the old covenant nation of Israel should not affect judicial laws today.
Judicial laws do not classify all sins as crimes. Some judicial laws regulate sinful activity by defining legal limits. For example, Mosaic judicial laws regulated polygamy instead of prohibiting it (Exodus 21:10). Some of the Mosaic judicial laws on slavery overlapped Mosaic judicial laws on marriage. In the greater spiritual fullness of the new covenant, this bar of judicial regulation was in some regards raised. I believe that this is the case with the new covenant teaching on marriage as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The new covenant teaching mandates a more rigorous judicial application of the creation ordinance principle that in marriage one male and one female become one flesh.
The Mosaic judicial penal codes imposed significant restrictions on the master’s punishment of his slaves in contrast to prevailing ancient practices (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27). The Apostle Paul raised the bar by commanding masters to cease using threats (Ephesians 6:9). The application of Jesus’ Golden Rule would also raise the bar.
Some today claim to be continuing this new covenant raising of the bar of judicial application when in reality they are trying to eliminate the bar altogether. Those who insist on fluid to non-existent human sexual distinctions are violating a creation ordinance, not applying it more fully and consistently.
The New Testament didn’t call people to rise up in an armed revolt against the social injustices of their time. A few generations earlier, Sparticus had already led his suicidal slave revolt and had failed to make any lasting changes. The New Testament doesn’t teach the bringing in of the kingdom quickly all at once through violent revolutions. The New Testament doesn’t teach the burning down of everything with the baseless hope that something better will rise from the ashes. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is like a woman working yeast into a ball of dough until the dough rises with life and is ready to be baked into bread. We preach and live the gospel, the good news about Jesus and His kingdom, and the Holy Spirit uses that to work faith in people’s hearts and to transform them. Transformed people then gradually transform society and culture. The Christian’s first concern is the writing of God’s law on people’s hearts through conversion, through discipleship, through the teaching of God’s Word. Only later, as Christians become an increasingly significant influence in society, is there an effort to write God’s law on the stone tablets of a nation’s laws and institutions. In other words, social reformation is downstream from spiritual revival. Wherever Christianity has prevailed, the treatment of humans as mere property has withered away over time and eventually disappeared as socially accepted behavior. The social transformation may take generations, even centuries, but Christianity is both confident and patient. One can only contrast the social developments where Christianity has prevailed with those where atheism or Islam has prevailed.
There are still labor relationships today involving long term labor contracts. Some enlist in the military and obligate themselves to continue in military service for a certain number of years. Athletes, singers and actors sometimes sign long term labor contracts. There is nothing inherently immoral about someone’s having legal rights to the labor of another person over an extended period of time. Any labor relationship can be abused, but that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily wrong in and of itself or that it has to be abused. One can legally own someone else’s labor for an extended period of time without claiming to own his very person as if he were merely property and less than human.
If someone is going to argue against the Bible based on slavery, he is probably going to bring up slavery as it was practiced in the old South. Many Christian ministers in the old South, including Thornwell and Dabney, criticized serious flaws in that system. To read about these critiques, I recommend the book “A Consuming Fire” by Eugene Genovese (available online at archive.org and for sale at Amazon). Sadly little was done in response to these critiques either in churches or in legislatures. Taking those critiques seriously would have been a good start on a social reformation that might have eased some of the regional tensions of those times.
Accepting what the Bible teaches on slavery does not mean condoning slavery as it was once practiced in America. Some, such as William Lloyd Garrison, assumed that it did and rejected the Bible altogether. Others didn’t go that far but did begin to regard their conscience as a more reliable guide to morality than the Bible. In other words, they adopted the cafeteria approach to the Bible. The misunderstandings of that era were a significant factor in America’s transition to a more secular society.
When someone brings up slavery as an excuse for rejecting the Bible as a reliable moral guide, I would recommend referring to the Apostle Paul’s commands to Christian masters (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1). I would ask the skeptic if he is opposed in principle to long term labor contracts that operate consistently with this guidance. These guidelines prohibited the master from using threats and from being a respecter of persons and required the master to give the worker what is fair and just. Those are good guidelines whether a modern employer is paying wages to a temporary worker or entering into a long term labor contract with a more permanent employee.
Grover Gunn's Blog 