Philemon was a brother in Christ. Onesimus was his slave. A contradictory situation. Employing people is one thing, and even that is subject to dangerous abuse by employer and employee; but keeping slaves is so completely alien to the Christian ethic as to be beyond comprehension. To own a person as one owns a chair to have the power to buy and sell a PERSON, to keep or discard a Person, to take from a person the right to be an individual is both to be degraded oneself and to degrade the other. People are not things. Man bears the image of the King and must not be devalued. God “suffered all nations to walk in their own ways…” and “did good, and gave us rain, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness”, as Paul pointed out at Lystra (Acts 14.16,17). But man must hunt his fellowmen like a beast of prey and boast of his riches in terms of the size of his hareem, the number of his slaves, and the flocks and herds he possesses.
No man can be a Christian and claim another as his slave. “But”, you will probably be eager to interrupt, “Why did Paul send Onesimus back to Philemon? Why did he not point out to Philemon that he had no Christian right to own Onesimus, and why was slavery not condemned in the New Testament and why was it allowed under the Law in the Old Testament?” Good questions, deserving much careful thought by minds educated in the principle of godliness. Godliness is not encompassed in a catechism or confined in a creed any more than knowledge and wisdom are synonymous terms. Godliness is Godlikeness and is expressed in a relationship in which one who is not God acts toward another in the likeness of God. Even this does not mean that a godly man may arrogate to himself the things which are God’s prerogatives.
There are divine paradoxes beyond our ability to handle. A Christian may be Christ’s bond-slave and in this relationship there is complete justice in which the slave to sin and death finds true fulfillment in service, the slave to fear finds confidence and boldness. But no man can enslave another and provide these benefits. It is a gross misuse of language to take the characteristics of man’s slavery and apply them to the liberation enjoyed by the bond-slaves of the Lord. Paul’s use of the techniques of the pugilistic does not endorse that vile activity. The pictures of the Christian warfare are not to be taken to approve man’s vicious warmongering. “True, true”, I hope you are saying, “but that doesn’t affect my questions about Old Testament and New Testament attitudes to slavery.”
I agree; but I wanted first to clear any misconception about what being Christ’s bond-slave involved. The pattern in the heavens is the guide to human activities, but never the reverse. The relationship of Christ and his bride is the pattern of true marriage; but not vice-versa. Man has twisted, distorted and counterfeited the sacrament of marriage and debased himself and womankind. God’s warfare against sin should be man’s guide in his – but it never has been, and we have gone so far astray as to imagine that God’s saints can even fight against man with man’s weapons. Man has counterfeited all God’s activities and arrogated to himself all God’s rights.
If men held slaves as God accepted His bond-slaves then there could be no savage exploitation, and no objection to the system. God provided Himself an offering to show men the right way.
What human slave-owner ever sacrificed anything other than his slaves? God proclaimed liberty to the captives and the opening of prison to them that are bound; He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. What human slave-owner ever liquidated his assets in this way? What slave-owner “having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him?” (Luke 17:7 – 9). The Lord Jesus certainly knew that human slave-owners never had the grace to serve those who served them. Yet it is his Father’s good pleasure to GIVE us the freedom of serving Him now and in the Kingdom!
What human slave-owner ceased to call his slaves by that name, but began to call them ‘friends’, and to tell them all his secrets? (John 15:15).
What slave-owner, ambitious to be chief, commended himself to his servants by serving them? (Matt.20:27). It is ludicrous and obscene even to imagine that Old or New Testaments give support to human forms of slavery.
“But what about Onesimus…” you are still thinking. Yes – but let us go back into the Old Testament first: some form of slavery was an early feature of Israel’s society. Joshua’s treatment of the Gibeonites (Josh.9) illustrates the fact that making slaves of defeated enemies is an accepted alternative to slaughtering them, though this was only done for the people of more distant cities. The indigenous tribes of Canaan, corrupt in mind and body, were to be removed by God before Israel, to avoid contamination.
A man might marry a woman captured in battle (Deut.21:10-14),but she was not to be treated as a toy, but with respect. Foreign slaves could be acquired (Lev.25:44-46), but who can think that they would not thus benefit by living in the Kingdom of God rather than where the tender mercy of the wicked was the rule of life.
There was provision that if an unpayable debt was incurred it could be discharged by service (Ex.21:7; Lev.25:39; 2 Kings 4:1; Amos 2:6, 8:6) but the ‘sentence’ could not exceed six years. After the expiry of this servitude, a slave might wish to remain, unwilling to accept the rights privileges and responsibilities of freedom. He then had to be branded to indicate his lack of moral fibre (Ex.21:2-6; Deut.15:12-18; Lev.25:39 43; 47-53; Jer.34:8-16). The rights of a woman in service prevented her being turned out to suffer the dangers of freedom for which she had no training.
The powers of a slave-owner were strictly regulated, and unbridled cruelty was punished (Ex.21:20,26). The Sabbath was provided for the servant to rest as well as his master (Ex.20:10, 23:12; Deut.5:14). An escaped slave was not to be returned to his master (Deut.23:15) – then what about Onesimus? Must we conclude that God sought to regulate the inevitable situation in which some men will dominate others and others will be subservient, just as he seems to have had to accept that men would be polygamous and warmongers even if from the beginning He did not intend these vices should be acceptable?
Slaves could be integrated into Israel by circumcision (Gen.17:13,27)and then enjoy the great feasts (Ex.12:44; Deut.12:12,18, 16:11 – 14; 29:10). A slave could become his master’s heir (Gen.15:2) and a priest’s slave might partake of holy food (Lev.22:11). How different from the usual concept of what slavery involved in which sheol might be the only place where freedom from exploitation could be found (Job.3:19). Better to be a slave under Kingdom laws than a free starving unemployable in a ruthless, competitive, uncaring Gentile society.
But why did the New Testament in general, and Paul in particular, not condemn slavery but seem to approve it by returning Onesimus to Philemon?
Peter in his 1st epistle, ch.2:18 – 25 does not discuss slavery,but simply exhorts the slave to the only practicable policy for the Christian in the 1st century A.D. Rebellion would have branded the Christian as a destroyer of society; willing acceptance, without resentment, of the example of their Lord Jesus in the present humiliations and sufferings would transform the service into a dignified, noble freedom.
Some served in fear of men – the Christian served in love of God and men.In returning Onesimus to Philemon, Paul made Philemon recognise his own responsibilities to Onesimus. Becuase Onesimus had run away, it did not mean Philemon could escape his own responsibilities. Because Onesimus had escaped Philemon, it did not mean he could run away from serving Philemon. Both would learn lessons. Philemon would recognise he was God’s steward towards Onesimus, not his owner; his example, not his exploiter. Onesimus would learn that he now was free to serve willingly as the Lord Jesus served men.
Let this mind, then, be in us, that was manifested by the Lord Jesus and motivated all his relationships. He did not snatch at an imaginary, fleeting freedom, but exalted service to an act of love.
To love one another is not an expression of words but of actions;it is to serve one another as our Heavenly Father and His Son graciously serve us, not in fear, but in love. We hope Philemon was wise enough to accept Onesimus back and minister to him in such a way that he never desired to escape again from the freedom to serve. We hope Onesimus was wise enough to return confidently to Philemon, to accept that true service is the most satisfying freedom.
Who is a slave-owner but he who is too cowardly to serve others,too insecure to stand alone? Who is a slave but he whose mind is captive to selfish motivations so that he resents offering himself willingly in exalting service? Who is free except he who has given himself to God and to his neighbour in loving service?
Reflections on the Potter and the Clay