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.