Philemon
Last night my buddy Chris Flanders taught on the book of Philemon. He named the elephant in the room: that Paul does not specifically condemn slavery.
Because he didn’t, the pro-slavery crowd (in American history) loved Philemon. Here was the one chance for scripture to condemn the ownership of a human being . . . and it didn’t.
Thankfully, over time we’ve rejected that understanding of scripture. We’ve come to understand that Paul’s “conservative social ethic” stems, at least in part, from his belief that the second coming was right around the corner. Besides, he was part of a tiny Christian minority that had little influence on the practices of Rome.
But that doesn’t mean that he was supportive of slavery. He was trying to control the damage in this fallen world. And in the process, he and the early Christians were putting in motion forces of love and justice that would eventually upend the evil of slavery in many places.
We look back with embarrassment on how some of our American brothers and sisters of the nineteenth century argued that God is pleased with slavery.
It makes you wonder where else people will be looking back in the future, doesn’t it?
- – - -
Buried in comments from a couple days ago were these words I wrote to Leland. They don’t solve any problems . . . but Leland raised the critical question of what we’re to do with so much of the violence of the Old Testament, especially those passages where the Israelites are told to kill every living thing. Here are some thoughts after years of being bothered by this problem.
Leland – I have no easy answers for you, my friend. The passages bother me, too. The whole idea of “herem” (Hebrew word for “a devoted thing” to be destroyed completely – Num. 21:2-3; Dt. 7:2; Josh 6:21; 8:26; 10:28; 11:11, etc.) is mind-boggling. It has always thrown me for a loop as a believer. If I was writing a book to upend faith this is where I’d start (as, e.g., Sam Harris has).
I understand the Marcionites well! They couldn’t reconcile the God who is revealed by Jesus Christ (”turn the other cheek” . . . “love your enemy”) with the vicious God of the OT, so they insisted these were two different Gods.
And it wearies me that people have a way of reading Jesus through the OT stories like these — rather than let Jesus be the center of scripture through whom we understand redemption history.
I plead ignorance. At the end of the day, I am a follower of Jesus who puts my trust in him and his ways — including his confidence in the story of Israel.
These stories are not the high points of the Old Testament, for sure.
But what if . . . God had been pleading with the people of Jericho to yield to him, to turn from their ways of violence and oppression (as in Sodom)?
What if we read this story like the flood — God’s attempt to create a fresh start? He has chosen a people to held restore the world. He, in his sovereignty, offers them a land that has been promised. And through that beachhead, he intends to bless all people — ever country, every group, every family.
I know. I know. It doesn’t solve everything for me, either.
You ask good questions, amigo.
Jim,
What I had in mind primarily was that “fundamentalists” may be so overly concerned with “how many people saw Jesus at the grave” or “who saw him first”– as if a logical “proof” of “historicity” would “prove” the truth of the Resurrection– that they largely miss the real meaning of the Resurrection, the theological import of it. But, I suspect many do not, further, understand the very thing they may first neglect. I’ve heard plenty of erroneous ideas of both the Resurrection of Christ and (thusly) the resurrection of humanity in the final day.
The Fathers of the Church had no problem believing the “literal historicity” of every single event described in the Bible. If God can create out of nothing, and physically rise from the grave after defeating the powers of Hades, he can do anything, including preserving St. Jonah in the belly of a great fish. I don’t really think that is the issue.
More to the point is whether the premodern ancients intended every detail to be understood as “literal fact,” or if such a question ever even entered their mind! It has been shown repeatedly that the ancients saw “truth” in different ways than we moderns do. We tend to see it more “scientifically”: if a story is told about an event of which a picture could not have been taken, thus proving it with footage, it wasn’t “true.”
I think it’s rather clear that there are two creation accounts in Genesis. I think, also, that the scribes of Israel were intelligent men. Were they really so careless as to miss the problem of this “contradiction”? Or, is the more likely scenario that they weren’t asking the same questions of “contradictions” that we moderns do? I think the latter is the case. The Creation stories/myths are TRUE. They tell exactly what they intend to. The Word of God shall not return to Him void. But, if they were not intended to spell out photographable events, then aren’t the atheists and the fundamentalists who argue over the harmony of Gen. 1 and 2 missing the real point?
In the prayers just prior to the Holy Eucharist in the Orthodox Church (to which I belong), we beseech God to receive us as he did “the harlot, the thief, the publican, and the prodigal.” Notice that the first two were “historical,” the latter two “parables”; but, all four were truth. Yet, we say that all four “were received” by Christ. The point is that truth is not always defined by what “literally happened.” This does NOT mean that “nothing had to literally happen,” only that this is not the only test of “truth.”
My response would be this, in a nutshell (and this is off the point of this thread, so I’ll make it brief): we know which things must be “historical” and which stories may just be pious “myth” (though still convey truth), by living in the Church and hearing the Church. Our Creeds and Traditions and Life are ongoing, and we live in a People, a history, and a Tradition. Striking out on one’s own with a Bible and good intentions will not end up knowing what must be insisted upon as “historical” and what as “allegory.” Only in the life of the Church of the Fathers can we know how to sort that all out. But, I speak as an Eastern Orthodox, so my view on this is likely not that of most on this thread. I offer it only as how I “make sense” of the difficulty of numerous texts and interpretations.
Blessings to you and all.
Thomas Kevin
If Jesus physically rose and ascended to heaven where up there it heaven, how did he not freeze or asphyxiate?
These are the simple questions I have.
While at FHU, the teacher there said that it is a non-issue in the Bible. That God is neutral on the topic, that it is not inherently sinful, but the conduct is the most important part.
http://www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org
Matthew, please specify what exactly you are referring to. What, precisely, is a non-issue?
Jesus, as well as the apostles lived under one of the most cruel and corrupt governments in the history of the world. Polygamy and slavery were common place, yet, not one word of condemnation from Jesus or one of His apostles. Why you ask?
The way of Christ is to change society from the inside out, one person at a time. Unlike the loud voices of “so called” black leaders who never met a camera or a public gathering they didn’t like.
What Paul did teach that slaves and masters alike had a duty to live together as brothers who loved and respected each other. The grand idea of Christianity is not to change our circumstances but to learn to be Christlike in them.
His peace,
Royce
Oh, Laymond..Ever hear of the word “supernatural”?