About Jesus  - Steve Sweetman

Home Page    

 

 Appealing For
Freedom

 

     

My commentary on
Paul's letter to Philemon

 

 

 

written 2021

 

Unless otherwise stated, the Biblical text used and quoted for this commentary is the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) as seen in the authorization statement below.

 

Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

 

 

Table Of Contents

 

PART ONE

 

Preface

 

Introduction

 

Chapter 1 - Paul's Greeting

verses 1 through 3

 

Chapter 2 - Paul And Philemon
verses 4 through 7

 

Chapter 3 - Paul's Appeal
verses 8 through 22

 

Chapter 4 - Final Greetings
verses 23 through 25

 

Chapter 5 - Closing Remarks

 

PART TWO

 

Chapter 6 - The Bible And  Slavery

 

Chapter 7 - The Human Condition

 

Chapter 8 - Slavery In The American South

 

Chapter 9 - Slavery Banned In England

 

Chapter 10 - Slavery In Noah's Day

 

Chapter 11 - Slavery In The Law Of Moses

 

Chapter 12 - Diakonos And Doulos

 

Chapter 13 - Slavery And Jesus

 

Chapter 14 - Slavery In The Roman Empire

 

Chapter 15 - Ephesians 6:5 Through 9

 

Chapter 16 - More From Paul

 

Chapter 17 - Paul's Letter To Philemon

 

Chapter 18 - My Biblical Based Conclusion

 

Chapter 19 - The Bottom Line

 

About The Author

 

Other Books By Stephen Sweetman

 

Contact Information

 

 

PART ONE

 

 

Preface

 

I began writing Biblical commentaries in 2002.  This particular commentary on Paul's letter to Philemon is a total revision of my original commentary written in 2004.

 

Due to the fact that I have been legally blind since birth, that I am not a professional editor, and, this book has not been edited by an outside source, you may, how about probably will, find some grammatical errors as you read.  Hopefully and prayerfully there aren't too many mistakes for you to muddle your way through.  If you do encounter some while reading the following pages, I hope they do not detract from the content of the book. 

 

This commentary is divided into two parts.  Part one is a verse by verse commentary while part two is a reprint of my book entitled "What The Bible Says About Slavery."  In part two I outline from both the Old Testament and the New Testament the pertinent information concerning the subject of slavery.  I attempt to show that even though the Bible does not command "thou shall not own slaves," the Bible does oppose slavery. 

 

When it comes to the topic of slavery, Paul's letter to Philemon becomes extremely important.  It is my opinion that what Paul wrote about Philemon concerning his slave Onesimus, is the fundamental view concerning what the Bible says about the practice of slavery.  So, consider what you are about to read as you do your own study and research concerning all that the Bible has to teach us.  The Bible is truly God's message to you and I that should form the convictions of our hearts by which we live.         

 

 

Introduction

 

Of all of Paul's letters that we read in the New Testament this letter to a man named Philemon is the shortest of them all, but short does not mean insignificant.  What Paul wrote in this letter, in my opinion, is vital to how we should understand what the Bible says about the issue of slavery.  Although there is no specific verse that says "thou shall not own a slave," what Paul wrote here tells me that no one should own a slave.    

 

We know next to nothing about this Christian brother named Philemon to which Paul sent this letter.  A reading of this letter obviously tells us that he was a Christian and that he owned at least one slave.  We will see that the local community of believers used his house in which to gather for their meetings.  It appears from what Paul wrote to Philemon that he, in some format had ministered with Paul.  Paul also seems to suggest that he and Philemon had a very good and productive relationship as co-workers in the service of the Lord.  Beyond that, much that could be said is speculation, and I will not concern myself with too much speculation. 

 

Paul mentioned being in prison at the time of writing this letter.  Paul had been imprisoned on a few occasions, but the majority opinion seems to be that on this occasion he was imprisoned in Rome , probably around A D 61 to AD 63.  Paul was executed by the Roman authorities somewhere between AD 64 and AD 66. 

 

The purpose of this letter, concerned a slave named Onesimus who apparently had run away from Philemon, his owner.  Paul strongly encouraged Philemon to receive Onesimus back as a brother in the Lord, and beyond that as I believe, to actually free him from slavery. 

 

The name Onesimus was a common name among slaves in the first-century Greco-Roman world.  The name Onesimus means "useful" or something along those lines.  You can easily see why the name Onesimus would be a common name among slaves back then.     

 

Commentators always like suggesting a theme for the books of the Bible in which they comment.  There should be no debate over the theme of this little letter.  The primary theme of the letter concerned slavery, and in particular, one slave named Onesimus, who had become a dear brother in Jesus, a fellow worker in the service of the Lord, and a son in the faith to Paul.  For this reason I have titled this book "Appealing For Freedom."   

 

 

Chapter 1

Paul's Greeting  -
verses 1 through 3

 

The Text

 

Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother:

To Philemon our dear friend and coworker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church that meets in your home.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

 

My Commentary

 

Verse 1

 

"Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother: To Philemon our dear friend and coworker,"

 

The first word we read in this letter is the name Paul.  Many people think that after his conversion to Jesus that Paul changed his name from Saul to Paul.  That was not the case.  Saul was his Jewish name while Paul was his Roman name.  While with Jews he would have been known as Saul and while being with Gentiles he would have been known as Paul. 

 

Paul was a Jew but he was also a Roman citizen by birth.  Either his father or grandfather would have become a Roman citizen for some reason, and thus the reason why Paul was born a Roman citizen, as seen in Acts 22:25 through 27 and Acts 23:27.    

 

Acts 23:27 reads:

 

"When this man [Paul] had been seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them, I arrived with my troops and rescued him because I learned that he [Paul] is a Roman citizen."

 

You can read my book entitled "Who Was Paul" for more information on the life of who I believe was the most important, most instrumental, and most productive Christian ever.  The fact that we are reading what he wrote about two thousand years after his death proves that to be true, or so I believe.  Beyond that, he, more than anyone else, including Jesus Himself, defined Christian theology and practice for the church to embrace and practice.  I have always said that if Paul got his theology wrong, then we as Christians are in very sad shape.  We would have based our entire lives on one huge mother of all falsehoods.    

 

The name Paul means "little."  Second century tradition states that Paul was little, balding, sunken eyed, and bull legged.  Whether this is an accurate portrayal of Paul is true, we do not have one hundred percent proof of this claim. 

 

As stated in my introduction and as stated here in verse 1, Paul was in prison, as he was a few times after giving his life to Jesus.  The majority opinion is that this imprisonment was probably his time in prison in Rome from about AD 61 to about AD 63.  He was subsequently executed by Caesar Nero's court in and around AD 64 to AD 66.

 

Paul knew from day one of his new life in Jesus that he would face many trials and tough times.  He would suffer greatly for his association with Jesus.  We see his God-appointed calling which is recorded in Acts 9:15 and 16.  In this passage a man named Ananias was asked by God to pray for Paul.  Ananias was somewhat reluctant because he knew of Paul's past where he had persecuted Christians.  Nevertheless, the Lord told Ananias why he needed to pray for Paul.  The text reads:

 

"But the Lord said to him [Ananias], 'Go, for this man is my chosen instrument to take my name to Gentiles, kings, and Israelites.  I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.'"

 

Paul called himself a "prisoner of Christ Jesus."  You might ask why he called himself a prisoner of Christ Jesus when in fact he was a prisoner of the Roman authorities.  The answer is simple.  It was because of his association and witness for Jesus that he was in prison.  So, in that sense of the word, he was a prisoner of Jesus.  If he had not been a Christian, he would not have been in prison.  A life of suffering was just par for his specific Christian ministry, as we have seen in Acts 6:15 and 16.       

 

We see the name Jesus here in verse 1.  The name Jesus means God saves, or God is saviour, or something similar.  The very name of Jesus that the angel Gabriel told Mary to call her son speaks to the Deity of Christ, which means, that Jesus was God in a human form while He was on earth.  He is now God in some kind of spiritual human form in heaven.  Luke 1:31 through 33 reads:

 

"Now listen: You [Mary] will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus.  He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.  He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end." 

 

Jesus being God in a human form is the most basic aspect of who Jesus is that we must know and believe.  If you do not believe that Jesus was in fact God in a human body while on earth, and, is now God in some kind of human spiritual body in heaven, you do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible.  In modern vernacular, you believe in a fake Jesus and a fake Jesus benefits no one.   

 

Jesus' title Christ that we see in verse 1 speaks to the fact that He is the Jewish Messiah, the one God has chosen to bring salvation, not only to the Jews, but to all people everywhere who will devote their lives to Him as their Lord and Saviour. Any time you see the title Christ in the New Testament as it is applied to Jesus, you can think of Jesus being our Saviour, the One who rescues us from eternal torment in the Lake of Fire . 

 

We see that Timothy was with Paul on the occasion when this letter was written.  Paul chose Timothy to go with him on his second missionary trip, as recorded in Acts 16.  Acts 16:3 reads:

 

"Paul wanted Timothy to go with him; so he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, since they all knew that his father was a Greek."

 

Paul wrote two letters to Timothy.  You can read those letters and learn more about him.  Paul thought of himself as being a father figure for Timothy.  Paul considered Timothy his son in the faith, as seen in 1 Timothy 1:2.  

 

"To Timothy, my true son in the faith. Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

Note that Paul called Philemon both his friend and co-worker.  I believe the words "friend" and "co-worker" are two very good descriptive words to use for those who share in Christian ministry.  I believe that it is the Lord who draws people together in friendship.  Then, once establishing their relationship, I also believe Jesus would have the friends work together in a specific God-appointed ministry.  It is what Christian brotherhood is all about.  Jesus joins us as Christians to a few other Christians in the Body of Christ whereby we can support each other as friends but also support each other in a common ministry.  In short, we should expect our Christian friends to be co-workers in the work of the Lord.  This was the case with Paul and Philemon.    

 

Our English word "friend" in verse 1 is translated from the Greek word "agapetos."  Paul could have used another Greek word that we could translate as "friends" but he didn't.   Within this Greek word is the Greek word "agape" that signifies "sacrificial love."  Sacrificial love is the love of God, meaning that by virtue of His very nature, God is one who constantly sacrifices Himself for his creation.  Agape is the pure love of God.  It is the love that Jesus desires to be demonstrated in our lives.  If there is no sacrifice in your attempt to love, then you have not demonstrated the love of God.  You have demonstrated a lesser kind of love that can be expressed in other first-century Greek words.  According to Paul, he and Philemon possessed this loving relationship where they were willing to sacrifice themselves for each other.      

 

It is my thinking that the English word "friend" in the Christian Standard Bible, as quoted above, is a weak word to use in this particular situation.  In our 2021 culture we talk about friends, and that does not always imply that we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for those we call our friends.  In our time, there are a variety of levels of friendship, as there probably was in Paul's day. 

 

Paul could have written the Greek word "philos" that is also translated as friend in the New Testament, but he didn't.  Philos suggests a brotherly love, a reciprocal love.  That is to say, "I love you as you love me in return."  Philos love is a free flow of love between two or more people.  There can be some sacrifice in philos type love, but it is not implied in the meaning of the Greek word philos. 

 

Paul chose to write the Greek word "agapeto."  In my thinking that meant that both he and Philemon had such a relationship that they were quite willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the other.  The choice of Paul's wording here says volumes about his relationship to Philemon.  It says volumes about both Paul and Philemon's friendship.  Although we know little about Philemon and lots about Paul, what we do know about Philemon from this verse gives us a brief hint into the type of person he was, and that was, one loving man.

 

 Paul and Philemon certainly had a close net, loving, relationship that clearly included mutual sacrifice for one another.  It is this kind of friendship that enables us as Christians to be effective co-workers in the service of the Lord.       

 

Verse 2

 

"to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church that meets in your home."

 

First, of all, note that Paul greets a lady Christian in this verse, a lady that must have been somewhat important for Paul to mention her in his opening remarks.  There has been much controversy over the years concerning women in ministry, especially, women in church leadership.  There are a number of women involved in ministry that we read about in the New Testament that clearly suggests that women should not be excluded from Christian ministry in the church.  I will now spend a fair amount of time and space in explaining what I believe the New Testament has to say about the issue of women in ministry.      

 

Most segments of the church today employ women pastors.  This has not always been the case.  In many respects, the acceptance of women in ministry has little to do with a Biblical perspective.  It has more to do with our secular cultural influence on the church that places women in equal prominence with men.  A secular culture should never determine our theology and practice.  Biblical truth, as best we can understand it, should be the basis for all we believe and for all we do.     

 

Another reason for the prominence of women in ministry these days is due to the lack of men stepping up to the plate of ministry.  Kathryn Kulhman, a well-known lady preacher during the 1950's, 60's and 70's, maintained she was in ministry because some man refused his calling. 

 

From my perspective, the fundamental issue to the debate over women in ministry stems from how you understand the role of God, Christ, man, and woman, in both marriage and society.  Paul addressed this in 1 Corinthians 11:3.  That verse reads:      

 

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

 

What Paul wrote here is often called "headship," meaning, God is head over Christ, Christ is head over man, and man is head over woman.  I believe this was fundamental to Paul's thinking concerning men and women's issues in life, including the church. 

 

The debate over headship is whether the word "head" should be understood as "having authority over someone" or "being the source of something."  Both concepts are possible and are relevant to this discussion. 

 

When headship is thought of as being authoritative, it often becomes cold-hearted and dictatorial.  As a means of balancing what he said in verse 3, Paul refuted dictatorial rule of man over woman in 1 Corinthians 11:11 and 12. 

 

"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman.  For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God."

 

When thinking of headship, we now turn to 1 Timothy 2:12 and 13, which, according to many, denies women any role in Christian leadership.  Those verses read: 

 

"I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

 

Without knowing something of first-century paganism, its influence on the church, and the definition of Greek words and their usage, you will exclude women from ministry based on this verse.  That is problematic because we see women in ministry, including teaching, throughout the New Testament.  How, then, should we understand 1 Timothy 2:12 and 13? 

 

Understanding the words "to teach" in their contextual, cultural, and linguistic setting may provide a different viewpoint to these verses than what you are used to hearing.  Everywhere we read the words "to teach" in Paul's writings they are in reference to some specific teaching.  One might conclude that to be the case here.  If so, what teaching could Paul have had in mind when he penned the above to Timothy?   

 

In the first-century, Greco-Roman world, women had been experiencing a social liberation in many aspects of life that included business, sexuality, and education.  This women's liberation movement began in the mid first-century B C.  Along with that, female goddess worship had been prevalent in some parts of the Roman Empire, especially around Ephesus for centuries.  Ephesus is where Timothy lived when Paul wrote this letter to him.

 

Men who gave themselves to the goddesses, especially the goddess Cybele, subjected themselves to these goddesses and their female priestesses.  They would castrate themselves, dress like women, and do their best to live like a woman.  Inherent in goddess worship was the teaching that woman was "the source" of all life, including man.  Eve (Eve means life) was a goddess, and she, along with the serpent god gave Adam his life.  Woman was seen as both "the source of man" and "the authority over man," and thus the relevance of the word "headship" noted above.  Women, in this form of paganism, effectively killed the role of men in the society in which this form of religion prevailed.  Prior to the first-century A D, some men were literally killed as an act of worship to Cybele.  In Paul's day, men were symbolically killed in the process of worship of Cybele.

 

When Paul wrote his letters to Timothy, some older Christian women were mixing Christian doctrine with paganism.  If the words "to teach" in other Pauline passages refer to a specific teaching, the heresies associated with goddess worship as they applied to men could be what Paul told women not to teach in 1 Timothy 2:12.  The point to be made here is that Paul was not telling women they could not teach.  He was telling women not to teach this specific heresy.  This is significant because in verse 13 Paul made reference to Adam being created before Eve.  In other words, Eve was not the source of man.  Adam was the source of woman, thus refuting the heresy certain women were teaching.         

 

The phrase "to have authority over" in 1 Timothy 2:12 is also relevant to our discussion.  Many Greek words had a variety of meanings which have to be considered in translating the text.  The Greek word "authenteo" translated as "have authority over" can mean to dominate, to kill, or to be the source of something.  All three of these definitions must be considered when translating the Greek text.  All three might be a valid translation in the verses I am addressing, although one might be more valid.   

 

If you understand "having authority over" referring to authoritative domination, as many do, you will believe Paul was excluding woman from dominating men in ministry.  If you understand "having authority over" to "be killing,' then you will believe Paul was refuting the teaching that killed the ministry of men.  If, however, you understand "having authority over" to mean "being the source of something," then you may understand Paul was saying that a woman cannot think of herself as being the source of man.  This last view seems to fit both the pagan cultural context of Paul's letter and the literary context of his letter, which was, Adam was the source of Eve, as seen in verse 13. 

 

1 Timothy 2:12 and 13 might not be denying women from ministry as many believe.  It might be denying women from teaching the heresy that woman is the source of man, thus subjecting man to woman in every aspect of life. 

 

I understand this view might b foreign to many who read this book, but, it is a valid view that needs further thought and attention.   

 

For an exhaustive commentary on 1 Timothy 2:12 and 13, I recommend "I Suffer Not a Woman" by Richard and Catherine Kroeger, published by Baker Publishing Group, 1998.  For a detailed study on the liberation of women that began in the first-century B C, I suggest reading "Roman Wives and Roman Widows" by Bruce Winter, published by Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company, 2003.  

   

As an aside, the most impactful pastor in my life as a child was a woman.  She led me to Jesus, and when she laid her hands on me in prayer at the age of six, Jesus healed me of Juvenile Diabetes.  I would not be alive today, but for the grace of God and this dear lady pastor. 

 

One New Testament example of women in ministry is seen in Romans 16:1 and 2.  Paul sent a woman named Phoebe on an "apostolic" mission.  Paul called her a servant, "diakonos" in Greek.  Diakonos was also the word used for a deacon in a church, thus the reason why some suggest Phoebe was a deaconess.  Paul called Phoebe a helper, "prostatis" in Greek, which may also be translated as patroness.  A female patroness in the first-century, Greco-Roman world would have been one in a place of authority, even authority over men in some respects.  I suggest that this verse says a lot about how Paul felt about women in ministry, something we cannot overlook.             

 

In Romans 16:7 we note the name Junias, a female name.  Paul called this woman an apostle.   

 

We read the names Pricilla and Aquila in the book of Acts.  This couple was a husband and wife teaching team.  Pricilla was the wife of Aquila .  History states that both were martyred together because of their faith in Jesus.  Out of the six times their names appear together in Acts, Pricilla's name appears first, four times.  In the Greco-Roman culture of the day, this could imply that Pricilla was the primary teacher of the two. 

 

More must be considered that is beyond the scope of this commentary when thinking through the issue of women in leadership ministry.  The little I have written might suggest that we cannot exclude women from ministry, and that might mean, as well, women as elders/pastors.  In order for you to lead others concerning this issue, it is necessary for you to be well informed about the issue.  That requires further study than what I have provided here.       

 

Leaving the topic of women in ministry, note in verse 2 Paul called Archippus a soldier in the Lord.  This should remind us that the Christian life can be seen in terms of a battle, as in, a battle with ourselves, a battle with the world around us, and a battle with the devil.  Paul wrote about the issue of life being a battle in Ephesians 6:10 and following.  It is there that he lists all of our weapons of warfare at our disposal as Christians, weapons, that if you study out, are all defensive, not offensive, in nature.    

 

Who Archippus was, is unknown.  Some suggest that he might have been an elder in the local church.  If that is true, then, the lady named Apphia might well be some kind of a church leader as well since Paul mentioned her in the same breath with Archippus.    

 

Note the word "church" in this verse.  It is translated from the Greek word "ekklesia," which in its common usage in the first-century, Greco-Roman world meant a group of people taken out of a larger group of people for a specific purpose.  In that era of human history a fishing guild, a farmer's co-operative, the Roman senate, the Jewish Sanhedrin, or other such groups, were considered an ekklesia. 

 

Ekklesia is a good word to describe the church because Jesus has taken people for Himself out of the world for a specific reason, that is, to perform a specific service or task that is to accomplish his plans on this planet.    

 

It is my opinion that our English word church as we think of it in today's western world, does not look much like how the New Testament defines and describes church.  I often substitute the words "the community of believers belonging to Jesus and to each other" for the word church as I read the New Testament because those words better reflect the Biblical meaning of ekklesia as it pertains to the people of God.   

 

In New Testament terms, there was one community of believers, one church, for every city or locality.  Elders, not one elder, led and cared for those believers, the church.  Paul said that such a community of people gathered themselves together for their meetings in the house belonging to Philemon.  We do not know how many believers gathered in his home.  We don't know where his home was located.  We know next to nothing about what Paul called the church that met in Philemon's home. 

 

For further information on the meaning to the New Testament church you can read my book entitled "The Community We Call Church," subtitled, baptized into the Body of Christ.  For further reading on church leadership as taught in the New Testament, you can read my book entitled "Plurality Of Elders."

 

Verse 3

 

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."                               

 

Verse 3 is a general greeting that Paul wrote in most all of his letters.  Many people believe that such a greeting is a combination of both Jewish and Roman style introductory remarks to a letter that was common in Paul's day.    

 

The word "grace" is used in two ways in the New Testament.  The first way is defined by God's favour and love directed towards us who do not deserve it.  It is often called "unmerited favour."  The second usage of the word grace seen in the New Testament is defined by God's ability given us that is able to accomplish His plans and will in our lives.  This second definition of grace is not always considered when defining grace, but if you read all of the verses where the word grace is seen in the New Testament, you will note that the definition of unmerited favour does not fit into all of these verses.  An example of this is found in 1 Corinthians 3:10. 

 

"According to God's grace that was given to me, I have laid a foundation as a skilled master builder, and another builds on it. But each one is to be careful how he builds on it."

  

In this verse God's grace enabled Paul to do God's will, which was, to become a master builder of the church. 

 

The word "peace" also has two usages in the New Testament.  We have peace with God, meaning, we are in right standing with Him.  We also have peace in God, meaning, we have peace in our hearts due to the fact that we are in right standing with Him. 

 

Paul, as he often does, connects God our Father with the Lord Jesus Christ.  This hints at the Deity of Christ, meaning, Jesus was God in a human form while He was on earth, and, Jesus is presently God in some kind of spiritual human form in heaven.  This is the Jesus of the Bible.  If you do not believe in and embrace this definition of who Jesus is, you do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible.  That is a fake Jesus that offers you nothing because that Jesus does not exist.    

 

Note also that God is our Father.  I tend to believe that when the Bible speaks of God being a father, as in, the Father of Jesus and our Father, God might be relating Himself to us in metamorphic terms.  That is to say, He is saying something about Himself in human terms that we can understand.  One of these human terms is father.  Father means that God cares for us as a human father would care for his children.  Of course, God is more than a father, but, in human terms He treats His people as if they are His beloved children and He is their caring Father.

 

 

Chapter 2

Paul And Philemon
verses 4 through 7

 

The Text

 

I always thank my God when I mention you in my prayers, because I hear of your love for all the saints and the faith that you have in the Lord Jesus. I pray that your participation in the faith may become effective through knowing every good thing that is in us for the glory of Christ. For I have great joy and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother.

 

My Commentary

 

Verse 4 and 5

 

"I always thank my God when I mention you in my prayers, because I hear of your love for all the saints and the faith that you have in the Lord Jesus."

 

Note the word "thank" in verse 4.  It is translated from the Greek word "eucharisteo."  This word simply expresses thankfulness.  We derive our English word "Eucharist" from this Greek word.  The word "Eucharist" is another word for a Communion Service, also called, the Lord's Supper.  So, the next time you partake in a communion service, you should express thankfulness to Jesus as you eat the bread and drink the wine because the bread and the wine represent Jesus sacrificial death.  He took the penalty for our sin so we would not have to experience the wrath of God.      

 

The Greek word "theos" is translated as God in the New Testament, as it is in this verse.  This is where we derive our English word "theology" that means the study of God.  The word "theology" has taken on a negative meaning in our post modern day, but that is a tragedy.  There is absolutely nothing negative about studying God from the Bible.  There is no growth as a Christian without the study of Biblical theology.       

 

Paul appears to be always praying.  You might wonder how that could be.  There are a number of kinds of prayers seen throughout the Bible, from simply talking to Jesus or God to on-your-knees intercession type prayers.  The word prayer mention here seems to suggest to me the type of prayer that Paul might speak to God in the routine of everyday life.  That is to say, when the thought of Philemon came to his mind, Paul thanked God for him.  On the other hand, I'm sure Paul spent time on his knees, interceding, even with tears for those he had been called to care for.  As Christians we should always be directing our thoughts to Jesus.  

 

After reading Brother Lawrence's book entitled "The Practice of the Presence of God" decades ago, I have attempted to direct my thoughts to God instead of to myself.  That is prayer.  Far too often as Christians we say a morning prayer when we wake.  We may not say it, but since we don't think much about praying to God during the day, we might as well say, "See you tonight God."  I will be back this evening."  Biblical prayer is not that kind of prayer.  It is a constant, being in the moment, type of prayer, and this is what Brother  Lawrence, a monk who lived in the 1600's understood prayer to be.  It is how I understand prayer to be as well.  It is from this simple type of prayer that we develop more interceding praying in our lives.                           

 

The word love in verse 5 is translated from the Greek word "agape," meaning, sacrificial love.  Paul was saying that Philemon was willing to sacrifice his own will for the sake of Jesus and also for the sake of his brothers and sisters in Jesus.  This sacrificial love is the only kind of love the Bible speaks of and it is the kind of love that Jesus desires for us to have for Him and for each other.  The highest form of love demands some kind of sacrifice, and without any sacrifice, Biblical love is not expressed. 

 

The Greek word "hagios" is translated here as saints.  We should know that all true Christians are saints.  The Catholic understanding of the word "saint," that is, a special holy person, is not Biblical.  The Greek word "hagios" simply means one who God has set aside for Himself.  If you are a Christian, God has set you aside, taken you out of the world, for Himself.  That means you, if you are a Christian, are a saint, and you certainly do not have to die to become a legitimate saint, as did the Catholic saints.  

 

The Greek word "pistis" is translated here as faith.  Pistis means trust.  Most every time you read the words faith or believe in the New Testament, it is translated from the Greek word pistis.  The concept of faith, in my opinion, has been greatly devalued in much of the western-world church.  For the most part in our modern culture, and that includes church culture, faith just means giving mere mental assent to something, and that is not what pistis means.  That is to say, if you just mentally assent, or agree to the fact of Jesus' existence and the gospel message, you will be saved.  That is a false faith.  You will not be saved because of mere mental assent to the Biblical facts. 

 

Salvation is based on trusting Jesus with your life, not just believing He exists.  It is what the Greek word pistis is all about.  Good hermeneutics, that is, Biblical interpretation, demands that we must understand words and concepts as the Bible understands them, not as we understand them in today's world.  Without trusting Jesus with your life, there is no salvation. 

 

John 3:16 states that whoever believes in Jesus will not perish but have everlasting life.  This means that whoever trusts his life with Jesus will not perish but have everlasting life.  This is one of those fundamental Biblical truths that we must get right.  With this in mind, and according to what Paul wrote here, Philemon trusted his entire life with Jesus, his Lord and Saviour.   

 

Verse 6

 

"I pray that your participation in the faith may become effective through knowing every good thing that is in us for the glory of Christ."   

 

The word "participation" in this verse is translated from the Greek word "koinonia."  This word is a very important word in the Greek New Testament.  It means to hold certain things in common with others.  Koinonia, as it applies to church, is important because it speaks to all of the things we as Christians hold in common, not the least of whom is the Holy Spirit who lives within the individual believer and among the corporate expression of the church.  There are many other things we hold in common as well.  They are such things as, our mission, heaven, the gospel message, our witness, church, and as Paul wrote here, our faith. 

 

What does it mean to participate in faith, or, hold our faith in common?  Since faith means trust, each Christian holds his trust in Jesus in common with other Christians.  In fact, as an individual Christian trusts Jesus with his life, so the church collectively trusts its life with Jesus.  It is this second aspect of faith that I understand Paul might well have had in mind as he penned these words.  Understanding faith in this corporate sense is not always thought about these days, and that is due to our secular culture's over-emphasis of individualism that has infiltrated the church in the West.  

 

This participation of faith, or, holding in common our corporate trust in Jesus, should be effective as we collectively serve Jesus as the church.  Genuine faith, whether individual faith or collective faith, will produce genuine works of love.  It is what the New Testament letter of James is all about.  Faith produces works of love is what I believe Paul meant with the use of the word "effective" in this verse. 

 

Both Christians and the church are to be effective representatives of Jesus.  That means both the individual Christian and the church are to put their faith, their trust in Jesus into action that results in an effective accomplishing of God's will.  Salvation is more than just receiving all we can from God.  Salvation is about doing all we can for Jesus.  It is being effective people of faith.  This is what the word "effective" implies here in verse 6.                 

 

The word "thing" in this verse is translated from the Greek word "agathos" that speaks to the benefits we receive from Jesus, and their are many of these benefits.  The point to be made here is that because of our relationship with Jesus, both individually as a Christian and collectively as the church, all of what we receive from Jesus can produce that which we need to effectively accomplish God's will on earth. 

 

We often pray for this and for that to help us in the work of the Lord.  The fact of the matter is that we already have what we are praying for.  Look at what 2 Peter 1:3 says about this.

 

"His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness."

 

When thinking of all of the good things in us as Christians, whether that means Paul and Philemon as seen in verse 6, or us as a local expression of church, each person in church has good things that contribute to the health of the church and the work of the Lord.  This is seen in 1 Corinthians 12:4 through 6.  That passage reads:  

 

"Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different ministries, but the same Lord. And there are different activities, but the same God produces each gift in each person."

 

Note the word "activities" in the above passage.  It is translated from the Greek word "emergema" where we derive our English word "energy."  In short, and in context, our English word "activities are in reference to our abilities and talents that God puts within us at conception.

 

Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 12:4 through 6 is that all three persons of the Trinity give us something good for the health of the church and the work of the Lord that we are to facilitate.  God, the Father, provides us with talents, Jesus appoints us with ministries, while the Holy Spirit gives us His gifts of the Spirit.  These, I believe, at least in part, are the good things Paul wrote about here in verse 6.  

 

Paul ends this thought in this verse by saying that this effectiveness that we have as Christians and as the church should be, and will be, to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Glorifying Jesus is the purpose for our very lives as Christians.  It is the reason why the church exists in the first place. 

 

In Biblical terms, the word "glory" means to speak well of someone or something.  As applied in this verse, both our lives and the life of the church must speak well of Jesus.  Our lives are not about getting a good job, a house, a new car, a partner, children, and whatever else you can think of.  Our lives are to make Jesus look good before all who come in contact with us.  It is the same with the church.  All that church does is to speak well of Jesus so the surrounding culture can see Jesus as He really is.  So, this is the question.  Does your life make Jesus, who is your Lord and Saviour, look real good?  Here is another question.  Does church make Jesus look good?  I will let you answer these two questions for yourself.

 

Verse 7

 

"For I have great joy and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother."

 

Our English word "joy" in this verse has nothing to do with happiness.  The state of being happy is a fleeting state of being.  It is an emotion that may leave us at a moment's notice.  Happiness is superficial.  Happiness is not what Paul had in mind when he penned the word "joy." 

 

The Greek word "chara" translated as joy throughout the New Testament speaks of an inner, deep-seated, heart-felt, contentment within the midst of any and all situations.  Whether a situation is good, bad, or ugly, we have an inner contentment.  That is Biblical joy. 

 

The Greek word "splagchn0n" is translated here as "hearts."  This Greek word is in reference to our bowels.  In metamorphic terms, much of the ancient world understood the seat of our emotions and convictions was found in a person's bowels, not his heart, as we understand it today.  The translation of this Greek word into our English word "heart" concerns our philosophy of Biblical translation.  If we were to translate the Greek text in this instance literally, we would have to use our English word "bowels," but that would make no sense to us in our twenty-first century western world.  We, therefore, translate this Greek word into an English word that does make sense to us, and that is the word "heart."  In our western-world day, the heart is the seat of emotion and conviction.

 

Today, a husband might say this to his wife.  "I love you with all of my heart."  A husband in the first-century, Greco-Roman world might tell his wife this.  "I love you with all of my bowels."  Today's husband might say that he gives his heart away to his wife, whereas, in Paul's day he might say that he gives his bowels away to his wife.  Try telling that one to your wife and see how she responds.  

 

As previously stated, our English word "saints" is translated from the Greek word "hagios" that simply means those who are holy, as in, separated from a larger group of people.  In the case of Christians in their relation to God, all Christians are seen in the eyes of God as being holy, as being separated from the world and given to Himself.  The Catholic stance that states only certain special Christians are holy saints is not Biblical. 

 

Before we understand holiness in moral terms, we need to first understand holiness in relational terms, that is, as Christians we have been separated from the world and placed into the presence of God.  Then, once we understand our placement before God, we live as those who are in God's presence, which is the secondary meaning of the word "holy."

 

Verse 7 tells us something about Philemon.  It tells us that he had a loving, even sacrificial loving, heart for his fellow Christians.  Some might think, then, that this suggests that he was an elder of the local church.  That is speculative.  We do not know this for sure. Whatever the case, such a heart-felt love for fellow believers should be demonstrated in the lives of all Christians, not just leaders of the church.          

 

Our English word "refreshed" in verse 7 is translated from the Greek word "anapauo."  This Greek word implies a rest, as strengthening after doing much work.  You might think of it in terms of relaxation after a hard and difficult day at work.  Somehow, and we do not have the details, Philemon was able to offer this rest to his brothers and sisters in the Lord.  Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he had a large enough home to entertain his brothers and sisters.  Of course, that is speculative.                 

 

 

Chapter 3

Paul's Appeal

verses 8 through 22

 

The Text

 

For this reason, although I have great boldness in Christ to command you to do what is right, I appeal to you, instead, on the basis of love. I, Paul, as an elderly man[c] and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus, 10 appeal to you for my son, Onesimus. I became his father while I was in chains. 11 Once he was useless to you, but now he is useful both to you and to me. 12 I am sending him back to you—I am sending my very own heart. 13 I wanted to keep him with me, so that in my imprisonment for the gospel he might serve me in your place. 14 But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own free will. 15 For perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a brief time, so that you might get him back permanently, 16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave—as a dearly loved brother. He is especially so to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.  17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would me. 18 And if he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—not to mention to you that you owe me even your very self. 20 Yes, brother, may I benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Since I am confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 Meanwhile, also prepare a guest room for me, since I hope that through your prayers I will be restored to you.

 

My Commentary

 

Verses 8, 9 and 10

 

"For this reason, although I have great boldness in Christ to command you to do what is right, I appeal to you, instead, on the basis of love.  I, Paul, as an elderly man and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus, appeal to you for my son, Onesimus.  I became his father while I was in chains."

 

Note the words "for this reason."  What reason was Paul writing about here?  The answer to this question goes back to verse 7 where Paul commended Philemon for his sacrificial love that he had for his brothers and sisters in Jesus.  Because of this love, and the relationship Paul had with Philemon, he was about to make an appeal for Philemon to seriously consider.  At this point in the letter, Paul began a systematic step by step prologue to his appeal.  This was meant to encourage Philemon to act on Paul's appeal.  You will notice that each verse, each step that Paul takes, puts a little more pressure on Philemon to respond to Paul's request in a positive way.   

 

Paul told Philemon that he had the right to command him to do as he says.  Where does Paul get this right?  What right does Paul have to make Philemon do anything?  I believe this right that Paul asserts here is based on his apostolic authority.  A serious reading of the New Testament will show us that there is such a thing as apostolic authority.  One who has been called by God to be an apostle has a measure of God-appointed authority over the church in which the apostle cares for, and the words "care for" are primary. 

 

Apostolic authority has been abused by a heavy-handed, dictatorial authority in the church over the centuries.  I believe the Catholic system of ecclesiastical authority is based on this unbiblical, dictatorial, view of authority, and it all stems from the Dark Age of the church after pagan influences inflicted the church during the forth century and beyond. 

 

An apostle, pastor, or church leader, rightly possesses a measure of authority, but he does not violate this authority by being a dictator.  His authority comes from Jesus and he exercises this authority out of a pure, genuine love for those in his care.  Authority is based on sacrificial love, not on a self-promoting dictating of one's will onto another.  This is exactly what Paul was doing in this portion of his letter.  He had apostolic authority, but he would not base his appeal on authority.   

 

Paul's appeal was based on the love of God that had been clearly demonstrated in his life, a love by which Philemon had greatly benefited.  Paul had a choice.  He could demand obedience from Philemon, or, he could make a loving appeal, based on their reciprocal loving relationship.  Paul chose the second way, the right way, the most effective way to make any kind of appeal.  It is something that we should all put into practice, but far too often, selfish ambition gets in the way.   

 

Paul called himself an elderly man and a prisoner of Jesus in these verses.  The term elderly man is somewhat of a relative term.  What is elderly to one person might not be elderly to another.  That being said, culturally speaking, most agree that a man or a woman aged forty years or older in the first-century Greco-Roman world was considered elderly.  This would, then, help us understand what Paul might have meant when as a prisoner of Christ, he was an elderly man.  It might just clue us in a bit concerning his age when he penned this letter and how old he was when he died. 

 

Let us say that Paul, being an elderly man, was forty five years old when he wrote this letter to Philemon.  Let us also say that he wrote this letter in AD 62, which is a good possibility.  When you subtract forty five years from AD 62, Paul would have been born in or around the year AD 17.  If Paul died in AD 66, he would have been forty nine years old when he died.  All of this being the case, and we cannot be certain, Paul would have been around eleven years old when Jesus began his ministry.  In first-century Jewish tradition, young boys at the age of thirteen would normally have begun to learn his life's career.  We know that Paul went to Jerusalem as a young man to be trained to be a religious leader.  If he had have began this training at age thirteen, which would have been the tradition, he would have come to Jerusalem in the middle of Jesus' earthly ministry, around AD 30.  It would also mean that Paul became a Christian in and around the age of eighteen, who would have been considered a young man, as Luke said he was, as seen in Acts 7:58.  It would mean that he became a Christian in and around AD 34 to 35, a date that many have thought to be possible.  Most people believe that Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians fourteen years after his conversion (Galatians 2:1), and that fits the date of that letter being AD 49.   Of course, all of what I have just written is based on Paul being forty five years old if he had penned this letter to Philemon in AD 62.        

 

Paul had been imprisoned a number of times for his association with Jesus.  You might ask how he could be a prisoner of Jesus when in fact most of his imprisonments were in a Roman jail cell.  Would not he have considered himself a prisoner of the Roman authorities?  I am sure he would have, but the reason why he was in prison in the first place was because of his association with Jesus.  For that reason, he viewed himself as a prisoner of Jesus.    

 

Due to the fact that Paul was now an elderly man, the imprisonment he was probably referencing was when he was put in prison in Rome around AD 61 to AD 63, just a couple of years before his execution.  This seems to be the majority opinion among Bible scholars.                                 

 

In verse 10 we are now introduced to the name Onesimus for the first time.  We will learn that Onesimus was a slave owned by Philemon.  Paul said that Onesimus had become his son while Paul was in prison.  Of course, Paul was not saying that Onesimus was his biological son.  Onesimus had become Paul's son in the Lord, which probably meant that Paul led Onesimus to the Lord. 

 

We note from 1 Timothy 1:2 that Paul also considered Timothy to be a son in the faith, although we know from Paul's first letter to Timothy that Timothy had already been a Christian when Paul met him.  1 Timothy 1:2 reads:

 

"To Timothy, my true son in the faith.  Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

Verse 11

 

"Once he was useless to you, but now he is useful both to you and to me."

 

Verse 11 tells us something about Onesimus in relation to Philemon.  For some reason that we know nothing about, Onesimus seemed to be of no practical use for Philemon.  What that exactly means, we do not know.  He was just an unproductive slave that apparently, or most believe, had run away from his owner.  Due to that, maybe Onesimus was somewhat rebellious and did not do as he was told, and thus, made him useless.  I cannot say that to be true for sure.  It is speculative, but Paul does say that Onesimus was of no use as a slave when it came to Philemon. 

 

Onesimus might have been useless in the eyes of Philemon, but he was very useful in the eyes of Paul.  In my thinking, Onesimus might well have become a Christian when he met up with Paul, and just how these two met, we don't know.  I picture Paul leading Onesimus to Jesus while in prison.  At that point Onesimus became Paul's beloved son in the Lord, and thus, Paul wanted the best for Onesimus.  We will see also that Onesimus became not only useful to Paul in a ministry sense, but he became useful for Jesus as well, and that was important.  Onesimus was called by Jesus to some kind of ministry that Paul wanted to be fulfilled in his life.

 

Although Paul said that in the past Onesimus was not very useful to Philemon, that was no longer the case.  Onesimus, now being a Christian, would have become very valuable to Philemon, not just as a slave, but in the work of the Lord to which Philemon himself had been called by Jesus.  Onesimus was no longer just a slave.  He was a fellow Christian.  He was a fellow minister of the Lord, one who would work alongside of Philemon in ministry, as apparently was the situation with Paul. 

 

Verse 12

 

"I am sending him back to you ​— ​I am sending my very own heart."

 

Here we see that Paul was sending his son in the Lord, Onesimus, back to his slave owner Philemon.   Remember, at this point, Onesimus is still Philemon's slave.  Nothing had changed in this respect.  I wonder what thoughts went through Onesimus' mind and what feelings penetrated his heart.  Would he have been a bit reluctant to return to his master?  Would he have been a bit afraid?  They are just a couple more questions for which we have no answers. 

 

You see Paul's loving and gracious heart in this verse.  He was not only sending Onesimus back to Philemon, but along with Onesimus, was Paul's very heart.  Paul came to love Onesimus.  This was typical Paul.  Anyone who takes the time to seriously study Paul, especially hi's second letter to the Corinthian church, knows that Paul's loving heart drove all that he did.  

 

Verse 13

 

"I wanted to keep him with me, so that in my imprisonment for the gospel he might serve me in your place."

 

I believe we learn a few things in the short verse.  Paul, not being a selfish man returned Onesimus to Philemon, despite the fact that he was extremely beneficial for Paul.  It's what agape, selfless love is all about, and again, that is the only kind of love the Bible knows.

 

The fact that Onesimus could continue to serve the needs of Paul and his ministry in the place of Philemon suggests to me that Philemon was a co-worker in ministry with Paul.  Whatever ministry Philemon was called to administer, it seemed to have been in conjunction with Paul and his ministry.  This is further to the reason why Paul would make this appeal to Philemon.

 

Verse 14

 

"But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own free will."

 

At this point we still have not read just what Paul's exact appeal to Philemon was.  He was still building his case prior to actually making his appeal.  Paul, as we have seen in his letter to the Romans, would have made a very good lawyer.  He was good at systematically setting forth all that is necessary to build a successful case.  In part, that might well be why he chose to appeal his illegal imprisonment by the Jews to the court in Rome , as we read in Acts 25:11.  As a matter of fact, in years past, the Book of Romans that Paul wrote was often used as a text in law schools because of its systematic approach for building a case to prove a point.

 

Remembering that Paul did have the use of apostolic authority, Paul did not use it in this instance.  He would make this appeal with the consent of Philemon.  There is no hint of dictatorial authority here.  It was all about brotherly love, about ministering together in a community of believers where co-workers talked things over and made joint decisions.         

   

Paul then told Philemon that he did not want him to do his good deed out of obligation.  This good deed had to be made from Philemon's free will, not from a sense of obligation.  Lots can be said about this verse in terms of free will.

 

Paul alluded to this good deed, but as yet, he has not told Philemon exactly what this good deed was to be, but I am sure that Philemon could have easily guessed.  He was still building his case so it would help Philemon to do the right thing.

 

Here we see the concepts of obligation and free will, something we see throughout the entire Bible.  I believe the concept of free will goes right back to the Genesis account as we read in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2.  There, most would say, that God gave Adam free will to either be obedient to Him or not to be obedient. 

 

God warned Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and if he did choose to eat from the tree, he would die.  Without getting into all of the theological technicalities of this event, I believe God gave Adam the choice to obey or disobey.  Adam had free will.  God did not make Adam obey.  God did not create Adam without any means to make a personal choice.  It was Adam's choice to obey or not to obey based on his free will to choose.  From that point on, humans have free will to obey God or disobey Him, understanding that there are consequences for disobeying. 

 

We see free will in the life of Jesus.  He freely gave Himself to the will of God, His Father.  This freedom of choice became a real struggle while Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane .  There, Jesus struggled with obedience to God His Father.  His free will was being tested, but unlike Adam, Jesus freely chose to obey. 

 

All we do as Christians are to be done out of free will, not out of obligation or constraint.  It was for this reason that Paul was making his appeal to Philemon based on their loving relationship, and not on dictatorial authority that Philemon would have been obligated to obey.  This is what agape style love is all about.  Agape love, meaning sacrificial love, is love that is demonstrated from a heart that chooses to demonstrate sacrificial love.  It is not based on someone demanding you to love.  2 Corinthians 5:14 makes this clear in the life of Paul.  That verse reads:

 

"For the love of Christ compels us, since we have reached this conclusion: If one died for all, then all died."

 

Paul experienced the love of God in a most dramatic and real way.  It was this love, this sacrificial love on God's part, that motivated Paul to do all that he did.  It is this love that should motivate us to serve Jesus and all those who cross our paths at any given time.  It is God's love, not some kind of dictatorial mandate that should motivate us to do the good deeds we are called to do.  I admit that at times we must force ourselves to love, but that initial forcing to love is meant to stimulate us to love out of a heart that wants to freely love.    

 

If a Christian leader, a pastor, an apostle, dictates his will, then what he dictates is done out of wrong motives.  He needs to see the error of his ways and the one being dictated should think seriously how he should respond to the dictatorial request.    

 

I have learned over the years that you cannot make someone love you.  You can't dictate love.  Love must freely be expressed from a heart of love.  You cannot demand your spouse, for example, to love you.  I think you would agree with me on that point.  On the other hand, when your spouse, out of the goodness of his or her heart, freely expresses love to you, how great that feels.     

 

Once again, Paul had apostolic authority over those to whom he was called to lead, but how he used his authority is an example to be followed by all church leaders.  2 Corinthians 10:8 clearly speaks of apostolic authority.  That verse reads:

 

"For if I boast a little too much about our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for tearing you down, I will not be put to shame."

 

Apostolic authority is all about doing whatever is best to build up those to whom God has given the apostle the responsibility to care for and lead.  It is not about the apostle building his own kingdom.  

 

Verse 15

 

"For perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a brief time, so that you might get him back permanently,"

 

Clearly, there was a separation between Philemon and Onesimus.  What caused this separation is not known.  The passive voice of the Greek verb "was separated" might suggest, and I do say might suggest, that this separation was not caused by Philemon but by Onesimus, and thus, some Bible teachers believe Onesimus ran away from Philemon for one reason or another.  

 

Whatever caused this separation between Philemon and Onesimus, Paul felt that it had a good purpose, and even a God-inspired good ending.  It is quite possible that God had something to do with this separation, and that was to bring Onesimus to Jesus so he could return to Philemon as a Christian brother and co-worker in the service of the Lord. 

 

This might tell us something about Paul's thinking processes concerning such things as bad situations.  That is to say, not all that appears to be bad always ends up being bad.  Bad can lead to good.  God can use bad situations and bring about a good ending.  So, I would be careful how you view unpleasant situations.  They might well be a tool in the hand of the Lord to bring about his will in your life.  Let us not always blame the devil for the bad things or situations that come into our lives.          

 

Verse 16

 

"no longer as a slave, but more than a slave ​— ​as a dearly loved brother. He is especially so to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord."

 

As far as I am concerned, this verse presents the fundamental Biblical view concerning the issue of slavery.  As I said earlier, even though there is no specific Biblical command that says, "you shall not own a slave," the Bible teaches that ownership of a person is not acceptable in the sight of God.   

 

Also, 1 Corinthians 6:20 tells us that Jesus has purchased the true Christian with His death on the cross.  If, then, Jesus now owns the Christian because of this purchase, a slave owner would be robbing Jesus of a Christian person if he claimed ownership of that person.  1 Corinthians 6:20 reads:

 

"for you were bought at a price. So glorify God with your body."

 

Paul told Philemon to receive Onesimus back to himself, not as a slave, but as a dearly loved brother in the Lord.  The phrase "no longer as a slave" says it all.  It is my opinion, then, that Paul was telling Philemon to free Onesimus from slavery so he could be the productive servant of Jesus that he had proven to be.  Onesimus now belonged to Jesus.  Jesus, not Philemon was Onesimus' master.  If Philemon kept Onesimus as a slave, he would be robbing Jesus of His slave, and the word "slave" here is an appropriate word.  I will comment on the word "slave" as it has come to be known in part two of this book.         

 

Paul said that Onesimus would be useful to Philemon, both in the flesh and in the Lord.  Useful in the flesh would probably mean that Onesimus might still carry out some of the activities of service for Philemon as if he were still a slave.  That might be the case, but he could still freely do these activities as a free brother in Christ who had a heart to serve Philemon, and just maybe with a paycheck.    

 

Paul also said that Onesimus would be useful to Philemon in the work of the Lord.  This would make Onesimus a co-worker and a co-worker who is one on the same cultural level as his fellow co-workers.  Again, in my thinking, that hints at freedom for Onesimus.  If Onesimus was an equal co-worker in the service of the Lord with Philemon, does not that suggest freedom on the part of Onesimus?    

 

The bottom line to this verse is that even if you think that Paul was not directly telling Philemon to free Onesimus, although I do not see it that way, you must admit that Onesimus must be treated as if he was a free brother in Jesus. 

 

Verse 17

 

"So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would me."

 

We are now getting to Paul's appeal to Philemon.  The words "welcome him as you would me" confirms to me that Paul wanted Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery.  I wonder what went through Philemon's mind when he read these words.  Could he have thought, "but Onesimus is my slave and you are my fellow worker in the Lord, Paul.  Do you really want me to free him?  Can I afford that?"  We don't know how Philemon responded to Paul's appeal, but it is my guess that he did respond to this appeal in a positive way.  I picture Onesimus returning to Philemon and upon his arrival, fell into the loving arms of Philemon, his brother in Jesus.  What a reunion that must have been.      

 

It is my opinion that when Paul wanted Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive himself, that meant, receive Onesimus as a free man, not a slave.  Paul was a free man, a Roman citizen.  Paul wanted the same for his son in the Lord.  This, I believe, is the bottom line to what the Bible says about slavery.  Since there is no specific Bible verse that says "you shall not own a slave," the Bible does oppose the ownership of slaves.  Paul's words tell me this. 

 

Once again, what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:20 adds to what I have just written.  I will repeat what Paul wrote in that verse. 

 

"for you were bought at a price. So glorify God with your body."

 

Anyone who is a truly born-of-the-Spirit Christian, and that is the only kind of Christian there is, is one whom Jesus has bought with His blood.  He or she no longer belongs to himself or herself.  In short, Jesus died on the cross in order to own as many people as possible.  Jesus now owns every Christian.  That being the case, how can a Christian own another person, especially another Christian?  That would be robbery.  If, then, Philemon did not release Onesimus and set him free, as Paul was free, then Philemon would be robbing Jesus of one of His prize possessions.  Again, in my thinking, this is the bottom line to how the Bible views the practice of slavery.  In Part Two of this book I will explain this in much more detail. 

 

Note the word "partner" in this verse.  This tells us that to one degree or another, Paul and Philemon were co-workers in the service of the Lord.  They shared in a common ministry.  The Greek word "koinonos" is translated as partners in this verse.  As previously stated, the various forms of the Greek word "koinonia" mean to share something in common with others.  Christians share many things in common, not the least of which is the Holy Spirit.  In the way Paul used this word here tells us that Paul and Philemon shared a common ministry, but what form that ministry took, we do not know.       

 

 Verse 18                 

 

"And if he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account."

 

Again, we learn something about Paul in this verse, and that is, he was more then willing not only to admonish Philemon in what he should do, but he was willing to repay Philemon for any wrong or anything Onesimus owed him.  Paul was backing up his words with concrete actions.  It would be, thus understood, that Onesimus did not have the ability to repay Philemon for any wrong done to him, or, any money or items that he might have taken from Philemon.  This does suggest that Onesimus was in some kind of debt to Philemon. 

 

We see the sacrificial love of God in Paul's life.  He was more than willing to repay another person's debt, and isn't that just like Jesus Himself.  That is exactly what Jesus' death on the cross did for you and I.  There is an old Christian song that put it this way.  

 

"He paid a debt He did not owe.
 I owed a debt I could not pay. 
Jesus washed all of my sins away. " 

 

Verse 19

 

"I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it ​— ​not to mention to you that you owe me even your very self."

 

Further to build his case, Paul told Philemon that this letter was written with his own hand writing.  Paul did not dictate this letter to someone to write as he often did.  This sentence was written to put a bit more pressure on Philemon to do the right thing, as Paul said back in verse 8.  Beyond that, Paul added a good bit of pressure by reminding Philemon that Philemon owed himself to Paul.  Paul was not using his apostolic authority here, but this verse does make it clear that Paul was applying the pressure on Philemon.  Such pressure might be considered culturally incorrect these days, but sometimes such pressure is needed to convince a person to do the right thing. 

 

What Paul meant when he said "you owe me even your very self" we do not know.  Obviously, Paul and Philemon had built up a working relationship in some way or another.  Paul was clearly alluding to some past event.  Maybe Paul led Philemon to Jesus, and in that sense of the word, Philemon owed his life to Paul.  That is a good possibility.  

 

Paul was more than willing to pay Philemon what Onesimus owed Philemon.  With this act of love, in combination with Philemon owing his very life to Paul, Philemon had a double reason to receive Onesimus back as a free brother in Christ and not as a slave.  Paul certainly was applying the pressure on Philemon at this point in the letter.  You might even say that Paul was twisting Philemon's arm, so to speak.   

 

Verse 20

 

"Yes, brother, may I benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ."

 

The Greek word "adelphos" is translated into English here as brother.  This Greek word comes from the Greek word "philos" that means brotherly love, or reciprocal love.  That is to say, philos is a free flowing exchange of love between two or more people.  We are not talking about agape love, that is, sacrificial love here.  Paul is making the point that he and Philemon have a brotherly exchange of reciprocal love built into their relationship.  This means, therefore, that as Paul gives himself to Philemon, so Philemon gives himself to Paul.  So, as Paul gave himself to Philemon in this particular situation, so Philemon could return the favour, or, refresh Paul's heart while he was in prison by freeing Onesimus, his son in the Lord from slavery.  In this way, Philemon would be doing something good for Paul.  This speaks to the brotherly love and compassion that we as Christians should have for one another. 

 

With the above paragraph in mind, every time you call a fellow Christian a brother or sister, understand that the words "brother" and "sister" imply that you have a loving, reciprocal relationship with that brother or sister in Jesus.  Words do matter, and when it comes to the words "brother" and "sister," how often do we think about those words being words that represent a free flow of reciprocal love?    

 

We should note that back in verse 1 Paul called Philemon his friend.  As I mentioned back in my commentary on verse 1, our English word "friend" is translated from a derivative of the Greek word "agape," which means, sacrificial love.  So, Paul wrote in terms of both sacrificial love and brotherly love, when it came to his relationship with Philemon.  I would suggest that both aspects of love are important in a successful relationship.  Sacrificing yourself for another in connection with a free flow of love is important in maintaining a healthy relationship. 

 

One thing that will certainly kill a relationship is when love only flows from one direction without being returned.  Sooner or later such a one way expression of love saddens the one expressing the love.  Free flowing love is essential to a good relationship.  Brotherly love, is thus, reciprocal love flowing between two or more people.               

 

Verse 21

 

"Since I am confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say."

            

Paul went a bit farther here in applying the pressure on Philemon.  As I have previously said, Paul could have used his apostolic authority to demand that Philemon receive Onesimus as a brother in the Lord and not a slave.  Paul felt that strongly to be the will of God.  Paul did not demand anything from Philemon. He appealed to Philemon on the basis of being a brother in Christ, a co-worker, and those who had a reciprocal love for one another.  By doing this, Paul was applying a good measure of pressure with his request. 

 

Even the word "obedience" in this verse puts added pressure to Paul's request.  Paul's appeal was more than a suggestion that Paul was requesting of Philemon.  It was something to be obeyed because it was the right thing to do. 

 

The fact that Paul had confidence in Philemon to obey him on this particular point is yet another bit of additional pressure.  Philemon would have read this letter and maybe he would have thought something like this.  "Paul has confidence in me.  I should then do as he says." 

 

Maybe you have never noticed this before, but every sentence that Paul wrote here applies a bit more pressure on Philemon than the previous sentence.  Nevertheless, this pressure was based on the relationship Paul had with Philemon, a relationship that Paul must have known could stand the pressure. 

 

This verse ends by Paul saying that he believed that Philemon would even go beyond Paul's request to receive Onesimus back as a brother in Christ.  What Paul said here can easily be understood in terms that Paul expected Philemon to free Onesimus from slavery.  Receiving Onesimus back as a brother in Jesus is one thing, but freeing Onesimus from slavery goes a step beyond that, and freedom for Onesimus, I believe, is what Paul was really asking Philemon to do.    

 

Verse 22

 

"Meanwhile, also prepare a guest room for me, since I hope that through your prayers I will be restored to you."

      

In the greeting of this letter we learned that the Christians routinely gathered for meetings in Philemon's house.  Here, we see mention of this house again, and apparently it was a good size house.  The CSB uses the words "a guest room" that might suggest that this house was big enough to have more than one guest room.  That being said, the Greek word translated as "guest room" in the CSB simply means a lodging place.  That does not necessarily  mean that Philemon had multiple guest rooms as we would understand guest rooms in our day.  It does mean that this house was big enough for a few guests.  Philemon had to have been financially well off to have a large house and at least one slave.  Wealthy people can be useful in the service of the Lord and this is one case where monetary wealth became beneficial in the service of the Lord.    

 

Paul's hope, as seen here, was to be released from prison so he could visit with Philemon once again.  Whether Paul ever got to see Philemon again, is unknown. 

 

Much speculation has been given to the idea if Paul was ever released from his imprisonment in and around AD 61 to AD 63.  Some suggest that he was never released but stayed in prison until his execution in and around AD 64 to AD 66.  Others suggest that he was released from prison and headed to Spain to preach the gospel.  That was Paul's hope and desire as seen in Romans 15:24.

 

"... whenever I travel to Spain . For I hope to see you when I pass through and to be assisted by you for my journey there, once I have first enjoyed your company for a while."

 

Romans 15:28 also tells us that it was Paul's desire to preach the gospel of Jesus in Spain .  That verse reads:

 

"So when I have finished this and safely delivered the funds to them, I will visit you on the way to Spain ."

 

Many people believe, as I tend to believe, that Paul did make it to Spain .  This is based on hints in some early second century Christian writings, that Paul was released from this particular captivity and he did travel to Spain to preach the gospel.  On his return trip to Rome , he was subsequently arrested again and then executed by Caesar Nero in and around AD 64 to AD 66.    

 

 

Chapter 4

Final Greetings

verses 23 through 25

 

The Text

 

23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends
you greetings, and so do
24 Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my coworkers. 25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

 

My Commentary

 

Verses 23 and 24

 

"Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my coworkers."

 

Church is the community of Christians belonging to Jesus and also belonging to each other.  The word "belonging" is important here.  There should be a supportive and functional relationship built between the individual Christian and Jesus.  There should also be a supportive and functional relationship built up between the individual Christian and those to whom he or she has been placed alongside in the Body of Christ.  Implied in both of these supportive and functional relationships is the sense of belonging.      

 

Christians are not to be isolated from other Christians.  Christians are not islands unto themselves.  We see this Biblical truth here in verses 23 and 24.  Paul never ministered alone.  He served Jesus with others, those to whom Jesus had place him alongside in the Body of Christ.  It is what Paul taught, as seen in 1 Corinthians 12.  You could call it teamwork, and these two verses show us the team that Paul had been working with in this period of is life.     

 

We see that Paul was not the only one in prison on account of Jesus.  A man named Epaphras was also in prison.  It was the time in the early church that imprisonment was commonplace. Between this time in history and about AD 300 there were ten periods of time when Christian persecution was common in the Roman Empire .    

 

Verse 25

 

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit."

 

Paul ends his short letter to Philemon with a graceful ending.  The Bible defines grace in two ways.  The first way is God's unmerited or undeserved favour directed towards us.  The second way is God's divine ability given to us to accomplish His will in our lives.  In both senses of the word grace, Paul's prayer for Philemon was that God's undeserved favour would continue to be directed towards Philemon as Philemon continued to receive the divine ability to do God's will.  God's will in this particular instance was to receive Onesimus back as a brother in Jesus and free him from the bondage of slavery, and thus, the reason for this letter.  

 

Paul ends this letter with the words "with your spirit."  Any growth as a Christian will only come through our spirit's interaction with the Holy Spirit.  Of course, this does not mean we disregard our intellect.  It is with the Holy's Spirit's help, along with our God-given intellect that produces spiritual growth.  When it comes to the Word of God being realized in our lives, I believe it enters our mind, and then sinks into our hearts where it becomes the conviction by which we live.      

 

 

Chapter 5

 

Closing Remarks

 

Paul had only one reason to write this letter to Philemon, his fellow co-worker in the gospel of Christ.  Philemon was to receive his slave Onesimus back as a dearly beloved brother in Jesus, which I believe, implies that Onesimus should be released from slavery, or at the least, treated as if he was not a slave. 

 

We learn from Paul that he did possess apostolic authority that he could have used to command Philemon to treat Onesimus as a free brother in the Lord.  Paul refused to exercise this authority, as was his normal routine.  Instead, he appealed to Philemon on the basis of their relationship, a relationship rooted in both sacrificial love and brotherly reciprocal love.  That being said, it is clear that Paul applied much pressure on Philemon to do, as he put it, the right thing.  The right thing was to treat Onesimus as a free brother in the Lord.

 

How Paul dealt with this particular issue with this particular brother in Christ is an example for us all today, and that includes church leaders.  Church leaders serve Jesus by serving, not dictating, those to whom Jesus has called them to love, care, and lead. 

 

A study of this little book of our Bible leaves us with much to consider and put into practice, both in our individual lives as Christians and our corporate life as the church.  Now, in part two of this book, I will set forth what I believe the Bible says about the topic of slavery.  Slavery as been an age old topic of discussion.            

 

 

PART TWO

 

 

Chapter 6

The Bible And  Slavery

From time to time I have been asked questions about the practice of slavery and what the Bible has to say about this disturbing issue.  The following two questions always seem to emerge in any discussion that I have been involved in concerning this subject.  They are as follows:

 

What does the Bible really say about slavery? 

 

Why doesn't the Bible overtly oppose the practice of slavery?

 

These are important questions.  Some might think that the practice of slavery is outdated, and thus, any Biblical study of the subject is irrelevant, but that is far from the present reality of things.  Slavery did not end with the Civil War in America , or the banning of the slave trade in the United Kingdome in the early 1800's.  It still exists today, especially in the form of sex slaves throughout the world, and that includes within the boundaries of our so-called civilized western democratic nations.   

 

I will attempt to answer the above two questions in the following brief few pages.  I admit that my answer to these questions, and others like them, may or may not be acceptable to Biblical skeptics, but they are my answers based on my present understanding of Biblical theology.  So, consider what I say as you think and study this issue through for yourself. 

 

If you have never thought about the Biblical view of slavery, this might just be an introduction for you to continue your search in finding the answers.  Sooner or later, someone may ask you what you think the Bible says about this issue.  It's always better to know in advance how to answer the questions that will be asked of you instead of floundering around in the darkness of ignorance.

 

I am reminded of what the apostle Peter wrote about the Christian being capable of providing reasonable, thought out, answers to questions posed by critics of Christian doctrine.  1 Peter 3:15 reads:

        

"... but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you."

 

It has always been my desire to be able to give a reason for why I believe as I do, and hopefully, as a Christian, you have the same desire.  Here is a brief introduction about what I believe the Bible states about the practice of slavery.  More could be said, but this is sufficient to begin one's study on the subject.     

 

 

Chapter 7

The Human Condition

 

Slavery has been one of several ongoing and persistent disturbing blemishes that have infected humanity as long as we understand humanity to have existed.  We wonder why people can be so cruel to fellow human beings.  Why do we kill each other?  Why did Cain kill Abel?  Why do some people purchase, sell, enslave, and mistreat his fellow man?  Many of us just can't figure that one out, but there is a Biblical answer for why man was, is, and ever will be, so brutal to his fellow man.   

 

In Biblical terms, the fundamental answer to these disturbing questions is found in Jeremiah 17:9.  In one simple statement, Jeremiah states the Biblical thinking, and thus, God's mindset concerning the basic underlying condition of man.  Jeremiah 17:9 reads as follows.  

 

"The heart is more deceitful than anything else, and incurable ​— ​who can understand it?"

 

Jeremiah's portrayal of the human condition is far from our western-world's cultural concept of man today.  Our present-day, western-world, cultural consensus in this matter is that man, at least for the most part, is inherently good at his core.  Obviously, Jeremiah would emphatically disagree with today's cultural assessment of the human condition, and for good reason.  When push comes to shove, so to speak, how does man behave?  He becomes much more nasty than nice.  

 

As I type these words in the spring of 2021, the population of the world is caught up in a dreadful fear because of the spread of the Coronavirus across the globe.  This virus has no national or ethnic boundaries.  Like an invading covert army of terrorists, it is attacking all kinds of people, in all kinds of places.  Whatever the nationality or the ethnicity, the general public is terrified with a disabling fear.  Everyone seems to be panicking because of this viral pandemic.  Will I get the virus?  Will I die?  Will I lose my job?  Will I lose my life's savings?  Will my mutual funds dry up?  Will I have the money to feed myself?  Will I infect my family with the virus?  Will this lead to a dictatorial government that will force me to do as it demands?  Will this mess ever end?  Do I need to buy more toilet paper?  On and on it goes.  The list of questions with little to no answers seems to be eternal.

 

The above questions, and others like them, haunt many people throughout the global community, and a global community it sure has become.  In these fear-filled days, when push comes to shove, people shove back pretty hard.  Things get pretty nasty, as was seen in the following situation. 

 

My friend works as a cashier in a local store.  She had a small container of hand sanitizer on the counter to keep her hands free from the virus.  You can't purchase hand sanitizers anywhere at this point in time.  People are stockpiling all they can get, and they certainly won't share.  The little bottle of hand sanitizer belonged to my friend.  It was not for sale, and that was probably quite obvious. 

 

One young arrogant young man approached my friend at the counter.  Thinking the hand sanitizer might be for sale, he asked her the price.  She responded by saying that it was not for sale.  It was her personal bottle of hand sanitizer. With a few harsh, ignorant, pathetic swear words, he grabbed the bottle.  As he rushed out of the store he said this.  "It's mine now."  He left the store in a hurry with a small stolen bottle of hand sanitizer that was worth, maybe two dollars at the most.  When push comes to shove, people can shove back real hard.  Isn't that, at least in part, what Jeremiah was writing about?  Isn't that what is rooted deep within the human heart?  When things get tough, we don't always rise to the top and respond with grace.  We often sink to the bottom and explode with all kinds of evil that lurks deep within our souls.      

 

As Christians, we embrace Jeremiah 17:9 to be foundational when it comes to our thinking about the human condition.  You may think you are better than Jeremiah's portrayal of man, but you aren't.  You may think you are pretty good compared to most others, and that might well be the case, but such thinking is problematic.  It's a problem because when God looks at you, He does not compare you with your nasty neighbour.  He compares you with Himself, and that is where you are a miserable failure.  In that sense of the word, you are as Jeremiah wrote.  Believe me, you really are.  Compared to God, you are no different than your nasty neighbour and when you get pushed, you push back.           

 

Another word that Jeremiah does not use in his portrayal of man in Jeremiah 17:9 but is just as relevant to this discussion is the word "sin."  The basic and simplest definition of the word "sin" as it applies to man is that man consistently misses the mark of God's righteous standards by which he should live, and, there is no exception.  Biblically thinking, and I am thinking Biblically, states that we all sin as the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 3:23.

 

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

 

The words "fall short" in the above verse do portray the Biblical definition of sin as being "missing the mark" of God's righteous standards expected for us to live out in our lives.  Further to us committing sin, Paul wrote that our very nature, that is, who we are at our core, is sinful.  Romans 7:18 reads:

 

"For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh.  For the desire to do what is good is with me, but there is no ability to do it."

 

Look also at what Paul wrote in Romans 7:24 and 25. 

 

"What a wretched man I am!  Who will rescue me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!  So then, with my mind I myself am serving the law of God, but with my flesh, the law of sin."

 

There is no way around it.  As Christians, our concept of the human condition must comply with what the Bible teaches about the human condition.  Jeremiah, Paul, and all other Biblical personalities agree; at the core of who we are, we are more sinful than what we realize, and, there is no human cure for this sinful sickness that has infected every human being that has ever lived or ever will live.  In Biblical terms, there is only one hope, one cure for humanity, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ's presence in one's life, as Paul wrote in Romans 7:25, as seen above. 

 

So why have I said all of the above?  When thinking of the human condition as defined in Biblical terms, it is no wonder the pathetic practice of slavery has been, and still is, an ongoing blemish on humanity.  The root cause of this evil practice is buried deep within the evil heart of man.

 

 

Chapter 8

Slavery In The American South

We have all read books, watched movies, and heard the brutally sad stories of slavery in the American south prior to the Civil War.  It is a dismal commentary, a darkened stain, on the history of the United States of America , a nation that many Evangelical Christians claim was founded upon Judeo Christian principles.  It makes me wonder how a Christian plantation owner could leave his little white wooden church house each Sunday at noon and then return home to beat one of his slaves, a slave that might well have been worshipping the same God with his fellow slaves in the cotton field.  I don't call that kind of behaviour Christian.  This also makes me wonder just how Christian America really was in its formative years.  To be honest, and I believe historically accurate, America was founded on the Deist philosophy of the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, and not Christianity, but that is a discussion for another day.          

 

While in Mississippi in 1983, one city official invited me to his home.  It was a pre-Civil War plantation home, located on a hill just outside of town.  We descended downstairs into his basement where he led me to one particular room.  As I entered the large rectangular shaped room, the focal-point of the room was its fireplace at the far end.  What I was told about that room, and in particular, about that fireplace, was heart-wrenching. 

 

"This room," he said, "was the room where the master of this plantation would insert a branding iron into the flames of that fireplace you see at the far end of the room.  As if he was branding his cattle, he'd insert the iron rod into the flames until it was red hot.  He'd pull it out of the fire and immediately burn his trademark of ownership onto the skin of a fellow human." 

 

The branding of slaves makes our modern term "pride of ownership" disgustingly relevant to this discussion.  Pride of ownership is a real-estate term that means one takes pride in owning a home instead of renting a home.  You might say that pride of ownership prior to the Civil War in the United Sates included the pride of owning a slave instead of hiring an employee.   

 

I cannot begin to imagine the horror of the moment when the burning hot branding iron burnt a trademark into the skin of a person considered to be someone's possession.  The screams of terror from the poor black person being torched with a red hot iron would have been excruciating, but did the master of the plantation care?  Obviously, he felt no mental or emotional anguish from his actions.  It was the nature of his business, the culture of the day.  It was part of the means by which he provided for his family.    

 

As I stood before that fireplace, torturing a fellow human being in such a way was hard for me to comprehend, but it was the reality in the American south until a Civil War brought the pathetic practice to an end.  It is sad to say, that even though the practice of slavery came to and end, prejudice never ends.  Even in our so-called era of cultural and religious tolerance, bias and prejudice lurks its ugly head in all corners of our culture.  If we are honest, you have to admit, we do not practice tolerance.  We practice what I call "selective tolerance."

 

 

Chapter 9

Slavery Banned In England

 

Unlike the American experience, the abolition of slavery in England did not come about by a civil war.  On August 1, 1834 the slave trade industry became illegal, and why?  A Christian revival known as "The Great Awakening" had swept across England in the 1700's.  This Christian revival movement penetrated the hearts and souls of many men and women in England , and in turn, began to influence those in the British parliament.  It took a few decades, but this Bible-based influence eventually motivated parliament to ban slavery in England . 

 

The fact that the Biblical gospel of Jesus, and the presence of Jesus in the lives of many individuals, was influential in banning the evil practice of slavery in England should tell us something about the Bible's view of slavery.  It should tell us that despite any overt opposition to slavery, the Bible's influence on people and a nation suggests that it does not approve of the practice.

 

I admit that there is no recorded statement from the lips of Jesus that overtly opposed slavery.  That was not his mission on earth.  That being said, when Jesus comes into someone's life, it is clear, that someone opposes the buying, selling, and ownership of a human being.  This fact is fundamental to how the Bible views slavery.  It cannot be ignored.  It cannot be disregarded in our attempt to understand the Biblical position on this matter.     

 

Let us now see, at least in part, what the Bible has to say about slavery.                    

 

 

Chapter 10

Slavery In Noah's Day

 

In the following pages I will attempt to point out some of the relevant Old Testament and New Testament passages concerning what the Bible has to say about the practice of owning slaves.  I will conclude by saying that even though the Old Testament, and really, the Bible, does not overtly and openly oppose the practice of slavery, there is no doubt, at least in my thinking, it does oppose the practice.  It is something that critics of Biblical theology seem to always, ether intentionally or unintentionally, overlook.   

 

We will begin our survey of the Bible in the Old Testament where slavery is first mentioned in the very first book of the Bible.  Genesis 9:25 reads:

 

"He [Noah] said: ' Canaan is cursed.

He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers.'"

 

The context of Genesis 9:25 is this.  After the great flood, Noah began to cultivate a vineyard that provided the grapes to produce wine.  In the above instance, he got drunk from the wine he had made.  Ham, one of Noah's three sons, who became the father of the Canaanites, found his drunken and naked father inside of his father's tent.  When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor, he was quite upset with Ham.  Why Noah was so angry with Ham is not known.  The text does not give us any reason for Noah's anger towards his son.  It has been speculated, and it is speculation, that while Noah was drunk, his son Ham had committed some kind of homosexual sin with his drunken, naked father.  Whatever really did happen in Noah's tent, the result was that Noah cursed his son Ham and his descendents by proclaiming, even predicting, that Ham and those in his lineage who would come after him would be the lowest of all slaves. 

 

The point to be made from this situation is that even as early as Noah's day and before, whatever era that was, slavery was a common practice.  Slavery goes back a very long way in human history.  We don't need the Bible to tell us that.  There is plenty of extra-Biblical and ancient material that confirms the practice of slavery among the peoples of the ancient world.        

 

 

Chapter 11

Slavery In The Old Testament Law Of Moses

 

God instituted guidelines concerning slavery into Judaism as seen in what has been called the Torah in Judaism, or the Law of Moses, in Christianity.  You might say that the Law of Moses, or the Torah, was the founding constitution for what would become the newly created nation of Israel .  It was actually a covenant between God and Israel that both God and Israel agreed to keep.  Exodus 19:8 reads:

 

"Then all the people [the Jews] responded together, 'We will do all that the LORD has spoken.'  So Moses brought the people’s words back to the LORD."

 

Exodus 24:3 confirms the willingness on the part of the Jews to keep their end of the covenant.  That verse reads:

 

"Moses came and told the people all the commands of the LORD and all the ordinances. Then all the people responded with a single voice, 'We will do everything that the LORD has commanded.'"

 

The Law of Moses contained six hundred and thirteen laws that would govern the Jews and the State of Israel when it would later come into existence.  In more recent times, due to a better knowledge and understanding of ancient, near-eastern culture and history, many Biblical historians now view these six hundred and thirteen laws as wisdom literature.  This means that these six hundred and thirteen so-called rules might well have been considered wise sayings that if lived out in daily life would cause the Jews and their nation of Israel to prosper as God intended.

 

When understanding the Law of Moses in its near-eastern, ancient setting, we should also realize that some, but not all, of what you read in the Law of Moses could be found in other ethnic and cultural environments.  In those cultural settings, slavery was commonplace, especially after one tribal nation conquered another tribal nation.  Those conquered would more often than not become slaves of their conqueror. 

 

When the Law of Moses was first enacted, the Jews themselves were recent victims of slavery in Egypt .  Most know the history of their exodus from Egyptian bondage.  Slavery was just a matter of life back then, no matter what tribal nation to whom you belonged. 

 

During Old Testament times there were basically two types of slaves.  They were; chattel (permanent) slaves and debt slaves.  This was the case throughout the ancient near-eastern world, which included Jewish culture.  When one ethnic people conquered another ethnic people, the conquered usually became chattel slaves of their conqueror.  When one could not find his way out of indebtedness, he could submit to slavery as a means to repay his debt.         

                     

A close study of the guidelines concerning slavery in the Law of Moses shows us that these laws were meant to protect slaves in a world-wide culture where slaves were often abused and mistreated.  This point is also often overlooked by critics of the Bible.

 

Like the guidelines concerning slavery, similar guidelines concerning divorce were instituted in the Law of Moses, the Torah.  These regulations were meant to protect a divorced wife who would have been kicked out of the home for no valid reason.  She would have been stigmatized as an adulteress in her civil community even though she probably wasn't an adulteress.  Like slavery, the practice of divorce was not banned in the Law of Moses.  It was, however, regulated to protect an innocent wife.  

 

In Matthew 19:8 we read that God conceded to the practice of divorce in Old Testament times because of man's evil hearts.  Jesus said this about divorce in that verse. 

 

"He told them, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts, but it was not like that from the beginning."

 

It is my position that as God conceded to divorce in Old Testament times, as stated by Jesus, He also conceded to the practice of slavery, and for the same or similar reason.  Man's hearts are continually evil.  Man being inherently evil is God's stance when it comes to humanity, as seen in Jeremiah 17:9.  I remind you of what Jeremiah wrote.

 

"The heart is more deceitful than anything else, and incurable ​— ​who can understand it?"

 

As an aside, you can read the divorce regulations, or words of wisdom in Deuteronomy 24:1 through 4.

What the apostle Paul said in Acts 17:30 is important to the idea that God overlooked certain sins in Old Testament times.  That verse reads:

 

"Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent,"

 

According to Paul, now, in these New Testament times, God does not overlook sins and our ignorance of sins as He once did in Old Testament times.

 

The Law of Moses had other things to say about the practice of slavery that portray how God feels about the practice and how slaves should be treated.  

 

Concerning the debt slaves that I mentioned above, Exodus 21:2 comes into play.  Although it might be debated, Exodus 21:2 appears to be in reference to debt slaves.  This verse states that a slave must be set free after six years of enslavement.  It reads:

 

"When you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for six years; then in the seventh he is to leave as a free man without paying anything."

 

The reason why I suggest the above verse is in reference to debt slaves is because, as the next verse I quote states, a Jew could not enslave a Jew for life.  Leviticus 25:44 says this:

 

"Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves."

 

The above passage obviously does not condemn or ban the practice of slavery.  I certainly cannot argue that point.  I can only conclude, as I have pointed out, that God at this particular time in history had His reasons for not overtly opposing slavery.  He had other plans.  I believe that Scripture states that these other plans included Jesus, and how He could change the heart of an evil man that would in turn dispose of this evil practice as well as other such evil practices. 

 

I maintain that you can legislate morality all you want, but mere legislation alone cannot change the heart of man.  It is obvious, that in our western-world today, where slavery is illegal, the market for sex-slaves is alive and thriving in the underground economy.  Young girls are being kidnapped and sold into slavery to satisfy the lust of men around the world.     

 

You can also educate people in matters of morality, but education alone does not always change the behaviour of the one being educated.  Everyone knows that drinking and driving is not good, but people still drink and drive.  Matters of morality, and that includes slavery, are matters of the heart, and that is where Jesus comes into the picture.  In Biblical terms, the Spirit of Jesus comes into the life of the believer, and from the heart of that individual, his behaviour begins to change.  It is for this reason, that the Law of Moses itself could never change the heart of man.  It could only regulate man's actions.   

 

The Law of Moses instituted what was called the "Year of Jubilee."  Every fifty years would see the cancelation of all debt and the freeing of debt slaves back to their own property and clan.  Leviticus 25:10 through 13 reads as follows:

 

"You are to consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim freedom in the land for all its inhabitants.  It will be your Jubilee, when each of you is to return to his property and each of you to his clan. The fiftieth year will be your Jubilee; you are not to sow, reap what grows by itself, or harvest its untended vines. It is to be holy to you because it is the Jubilee; you may only eat its produce directly from the field. In this Year of Jubilee, each of you will return to his property."

          

The Year of Jubilee should say something about how the Old Testament, and thus God, views life-long slavery. 

 

Deuteronomy 23:15 reads:

 

"Do not return a slave to his master when he has escaped from his master to you."

 

Why would a slave run away from his master?  That is not all that difficult to figure out.  The slave probably ran away from his master because he was being mistreated, and thus, the reason for the legislation not to return a run-away slave to his evil master.  This regulation protected the mistreated slave.

 

Exodus 21:26 reads:

 

"When a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave and destroys it, he must let the slave go free in compensation for his eye."

 

Once again, this regulation, or word of wisdom as some suggest, protects the slave by allowing him to be set free when physically abused.  Also, once again, this does not overtly oppose slavery or ban the practice, but it does protect the slave when he or she has been mistreated. 

 

Exodus 21:20 says:

 

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse, the owner must be punished."

 

Again, the above regulation says something about how God viewed slavery, even in Old Testament times.  The law punished the slave master who killed a slave.  This cannot be overlooked in our study of slavery in the Law of Moses.  Murder is still murder, even if it was a slave who was murdered.  

 

Exodus 3:7 reads:

 

"Then the LORD said, 'I have observed the misery of my people in Egypt , and have heard them crying out because of their oppressors. I know about their sufferings,"

 

Clearly, God is not overjoyed to see slaves being mistreated, as Jeremiah 34:16 states. 

 

"But you have changed your minds and profaned my name.  Each has taken back his male and female slaves who had been let go free to go wherever they wanted, and you have again forced them to be your slaves."

 

Re-enslaving a person after he was set free is disgusting in the sight of God.  It was not permitted in the Law of Moses.  

 

There are many more passages in the Law of Moses and throughout the Old Testament related to slavery, but what I have quoted should suffice as an introductory study of the subject.

 

I believe I can safely say that the Old Testament accommodated, or conceded, to the evil heart of man by not banning the practice of slavery.  For this reason, the Law of Moses regulated slavery in the Jewish culture, and by so doing, protected slaves from being mistreated by their miserable masters.  The Old Testament also punished the slave master who either killed or mistreated his slaves.  I, therefore, believe I can also say that the Old Testament, even though it did not ban or overtly oppose slavery; it did oppose the practice.

 

 

Chapter 12

Diakonos And Doulos

 

The New Testament was written in what is commonly called Koine Greek.  This differed from Classical Greek in that it was the common, street-level, Greek of the day.  It was the Greek spoken on the streets where business and commerce took place.   

 

Before we get too involved in what the New Testament says about slavery, there are two important first-century Koine Greek words that we must understand and consider that are translated into our English Bible as either "slave" or "servant."  Some kind of knowledge and understanding of these two words are beneficial to our discussion at this point.  Both of these Greek words can either be translated as "slave" or "servant" in our English New Testament, but for the most part, we read "servant" instead of "slave" in our modern versions of the New Testament.  

 

In our twenty-first century, western-world culture the word "slave" has a very negative connotation, and that is due in part to the slave trade in America prior to the American Civil War.  For that reason, the word "servant" is the word of choice that Biblical translators use these days.  The word "servant" is a less harsh word than "slave" in our culture today.  We should, however, realize that the word "slave" is also an appropriate word that could be translated into today's versions of our English Bible. 

 

The two Greek words I am referring to are "doulos" and "diakonos."   I will explain their meanings.

 

The Greek word "doulos" is made up of two Greek words meaning, "to bind," and "a slave."  In Paul's day this word had two express meanings.  First, a doulos was the lowest of all slaves.  Second, a doulos became to be known as a slave by choice in New Testament times.  This means that sometimes a person would freely submit his life to another.  This kind of slave is often known as a bond-slave.  The apostle Peter considered himself a doulos, a slave of Jesus by choice, as seen in 2 Peter 1:1.

 

"Simeon Peter, a servant [doulos] and an apostle of Jesus Christ:"

 

The apostle Paul also considered himself to be a doulos, a slave of Jesus by choice.  Romans 1:1 reads:

 

"Paul, a servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God ​—" ​

 

I think I can say that Paul would have  chosen to serve Jesus when he met Jesus in a dramatic way on the road to Damascus , as seen in Acts 9.  Of course, if you read Acts 9, you might think that God twisted Paul's arm, so to speak, in an attempt to encourage Paul to be a servant of Jesus.   

 

Peter and Paul were not the only Christians back then that considered themselves to be a servant, or a slave, of Jesus.   It is commonly understood that all first generation believers considered themselves a servant of Jesus by choice. 

 

The Greek word "diakonos" appears to be rooted in another Greek word meaning "to run an errand," as in "the servant ran an errand for the king."  One who was a diakonos was, thus, one who executed another's command, with no thought of whether this was an execution by choice or by constraint.  Depending on what English Bible you read, "diakonos" could be translated into English as "minister," "servant," "deacon," or, other such words. 

 

The word "diakonos" became associated with those who carried out the duties of a deacon in the local church.  You can certainly see our English word "deacon" is a direct transliteration from the Greek word "diakonos."  

 

The apostle Paul also considered himself to be a "diakonos," as well as a "doulos," as seen in Ephesians 3:7.

 

"I [Paul] was made a servant [diakonos] of this gospel by the gift of God's grace that was given to me by the working of his power."

 

So, Paul considered himself to be both a doulos, a servant of Jesus by choice, and a diakonos, a servant who executed his Lord's commands.

 

All of this tells us that the Christian, even by today's standards, should consider themselves as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Jesus' very title of "Lord" should make that point clear.  The very act of repenting from serving self and submitting your life over to Jesus as an act of trust, or faith, is an act of servitude.  It is what being a Christian is all about.      

 

 

Chapter 13

 

Slavery And Jesus

 

Jesus was born and raised as a Jew in Galilee, a Roman province north of the Roman provinces of Samaria and Judea .  Nazareth , where He was raised, is north of present-day Jerusalem .  After being water baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus began His mission that was primarily to the Jews of His generation.  I speak of His earthly mission this way.  Jesus' ministry, or mission, was directed towards the Jews, but, His death and resurrection was for all ethnicities in all time periods.

 

John 1:11 confirms that Jesus came to minister to His own people, the Jews.  That verse reads:

 

"He [Jesus] came to his own [the Jews], and his own people did not receive him."    

 

Matthew 15:24 makes this point even clearer when it says this:

 

"He [Jesus] replied, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel .'"

 

The above two passages make it clear that all that Jesus said and did was specifically for His generation of Jews.  He was not sent by God to be a critic of the Roman, Gentile world. That was not His mission in life.  That being said, when an opportunity arose to speak to a Gentile, or comment on the Greco-Roman culture of His day, He did not hesitate to make His point.  This is important in the present discussion because, even though some Jews may have had slaves, slavery was a practice that was commonplace in the Greco-Roman world in Jesus' day.  For this reason Jesus would not have openly addressed the issue of slavery because it applied more to the Roman culture than the Jewish culture.  That being the case, we do not have everything Jesus said recorded for us to read.  We cannot, therefore, say dogmatically that He avoided commenting on the issue of slavery altogether.    

 

Jesus may also not have openly opposed slavery because His mission was not to Christianize the Roman Empire , or even Jewish culture, through legal, political, or cultural means.  That is to say, Jesus was not a social activist.  He was the Jewish Saviour, the Messiah who wanted to change the evil hearts of Jewish men and women from within, not from without through political or social reform. 

 

All of the above being said, in passing, Jesus did comment on the dictatorial, authoritative, rule of the Roman system of government, that does, in a secondary way reflect on His position of one man dominating another, as seen in the practice of slavery.  Luke 22:25 reads:

 

"But he [Jesus] said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who have authority over them have themselves called Benefactors.'"

 

I don't believe I am stretching things when I say the following.  Jesus, by His very nature, opposed all kinds of unfair, abusive, dictatorial rule of one man over another man.  In the above statement Jesus said that the Gentile rulers were dictators, and they dictated their will over their subject so they would benefit.  That does not only represent the prevailing authoritarian rule of the Roman government leaders back then, it would have portrayed how some masters mistreated their slaves.  If Jesus opposed such dictatorial rule by government officials, it is not a stretch to think or believe he would have opposed the same dictatorial rule of a slave owner over his slaves. 

 

I understand the argument against what I have just said.  Yes, Jesus might well have openly opposed brutal slave owners, but he did not promote the banning of slavery.  Again, I suggest that Jesus' mission was not to be a social activist.

 

Here is another similar point that could be made.  Jesus made one short comment concerning those believers, and really anyone, who aspired to be a great person.  Matthew 23:11 reads:

 

"The greatest among you will be your servant."

  

This simple little sentence spoken from the mouth of Jesus would certainly be fundamental to His thinking on anyone of importance, and that would include slave masters.  The one who is important, or thinks he is important, must live as if he was a servant.  I would suggest, then, that the slave master, should consider himself a fellow slave or servant.  That would say a lot about how he would then treat his slaves.  It says a lot about what the Bible says about the practice of slavery.  

 

Jesus said something similar in Mark 9:35.

 

"Sitting down, he [Jesus] called the Twelve and said to them, 'If anyone wants to be first, he must be last and servant of all.'"

 

Jesus made it very clear to His followers.  If any of them felt a need to be first or the greatest, he or she must first live as a servant.

 

We see that Jesus followed His own advice, as seen in Mark 10:45.

 

"For even the Son of Man [Jesus] did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

 

The Bible states that Jesus is the ultimate, universal authority, but His mission on earth was to serve.  His ultimate act of service was taking humanities place by experiencing the wrath of God on the cross.  As a matter of fact, at this present time, Jesus sits in a place of authority at God's right hand, and He does so as a servant who is representing the Christian to God.  The apostle John said it this way in 1 John 2:1 and 2.

 

"My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin.  But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father ​— ​Jesus Christ the righteous one.  He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world."

 

The apostle John records a couple things that Jesus said concerning His servants.  They say a lot about how Jesus would have viewed servitude, something we will see later the apostle Paul wrote about as well.   

 

John 15:14 reads:

 

"You are my friends if you do what I command you."

 

Viewing servants or slaves as friends seems to be opposites but Jesus considered his followers to be both servants and friends.  He made that point again in John 15:15.

 

"I do not call you servants anymore, because a servant doesn't know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything I have heard from my Father."

 

Simply put, Jesus wanted a spirit of friendliness to prevail between Him and His servants.  Not everyone can pull this servant friendship relationship off in real life, but it was, and is, something Jesus wanted, and could do.      

 

If you look up the words "servant" or "slave" in any concordance, you will see many references to these words in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, many of which are from the lips of Jesus.  Jesus spoke of servants, or slaves, as if the practice was commonplace in His day, and there is no doubt that it was. 

 

One thing Jesus does not overtly do, and that is to oppose the practice of slavery.  He does, however, speak to the issue of how men dominate other men, and that should say something about how He would have felt about slave owners and there domination of slaves.  Jesus was not in favour of heavy-handed, dictatorial, domination. 

 

I repeat, Jesus was not a social activist.  His mission was not to reform the Roman Empire through social reform.  His mission was not to ban slavery or any other evil practice.  His mission was to become the Saviour of the world's population and by so doing, would transform an evil man into a godly man, which in turn would begin to change the direction of any given culture.  That would, as seen in England in the eighteen hundreds, eventually do away with slavery.       

 

There is no real distinction in the New Testament between a servant and a slave.  A servant was a slave and a slave was a servant.  There is, however, two types of slaves that you could fined in the first-century, Roman Empire .  We will look into that next. 

 

 

Chapter 14

Slavery In The Roman Empire

 

Slavery was more than commonplace in the first-century, Greco-Roman world.  It was an accepted practice that kept the Roman economy afloat.  It is estimated that at least forty to forty five percent of the Roman Empire consisted of slaves.  When thinking of this, we must not view all of these slaves in the same light as those slaves in the south of the United States prior to the American Civil War.  Many slaves back in Paul's day were doctors, lawyers, educators, government officials, and so on.  They held important positions that kept the empire and its economy going as it was to be expected.  Without the practice of slavery, the Roman Empire would have collapsed.

 

Jesus Himself spoke to the point that some slaves had a good measure of authority in the Roman Empire .  He made that point in Matthew 24:45.  That verse reads:

 

"Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give them food at the proper time?"

 

It should also be noted that some slaves became slaves by choice, or a "doulos" as I mentioned earlier.  It was a way in which one could escape financial indebtedness.  In other words, some people chose to be slaves because they could no longer live with their debt.  Some might think that was not really a choice, and that I would understand. 

 

It should also be understood that some slaves remained slaves by choice after given the opportunity to be set free.  They would make this choice because their standard of living would be better as a slave than as a free person without a means to support himself and his family.  

 

I am not suggesting that slaves in the first-century Roman Empire were never abused, because many were.  Man was still as evil then as he was in Old Testament times when Jeremiah prophetically portrayed man being more evil than he could ever realize.            

 

 

Chapter 15

Ephesians 6:5 through 9

 

When it comes to New Testament thinking, doctrine, and practice, the apostle Paul is the one New Testament personality, more than anyone else, and that includes Jesus, who has defined Christian doctrine and practice for us.  It is for this reason we absolutely must spend as much time as possible on what Paul wrote and taught about slavery, something he would have been familiar with while being raised in the Greco-Roman city of Tarsus . 

 

It has been speculated by some Christian theologians and historians that Paul's father, or possibly grandfather, might have been a Jewish slave and for some reason was able to purchase his freedom.  Whether either was a slave cannot be known.  One thing we do know is that somehow one of these men became a Roman citizen.  One of them had to have purchased his Roman citizenship.  This has to have been the case because the Bible states that Paul, a Jew, was born a Roman citizen.  See Acts 22:25 through 29 and Acts 23:27.  How and why Paul was born a Roman citizen is unknown.  One thing we know, and that is Paul was born a free person.         

 

Biologically speaking, Paul was a Jew who was born a Roman citizen.  He was raised in the city of Tarsus , in the Roman province of Cilicia , in what is now known as eastern Turkey .  Read Acts 21:39.  Tarsus was the third most important city in the Roman Empire when it comes to Greek higher education.  In modern vernacular, you would call Tarsus a university town. 

 

As it pertains to his Jewish education, Paul was trained in Jerusalem at an early age, somewhere between the age of thirteen or sixteen.  He was educated in the Hillel school of Jewish theology and tradition by one of the Jews most influential and educated scholars of the day.  His name was Gamaliel. 

 

Paul was not only well acquainted with the Jewish religious traditions, he was well educated and familiar with Greek philosophy and could argue and debate with the best of the philosophers of his day.  You can read one example of this in Acts 17.  He clearly understood Roman law and the economic environment of his day, which would have certainly included slavery as a means to maintain the empire's economic stability.  For a brief introduction to the life of the apostle Paul, I refer you to my paperback and e-book entitled "Who Was Paul?"  That book will fill you in on more details of the life of Paul than what I have written here.

 

Since Paul was the Lord's servant to define Christian doctrine and practice for all believers everywhere and in all ages and cultures, we now take a close look at what he wrote about slavery.  What Paul taught about this subject is fundamental to how Christians should view slavery because it is the Christian belief that Paul represented God in all that he taught, and that would include the topic of slavery.

 

Here is what Paul wrote about a slave in relation to his master in Ephesians 6:5 through 9.  I will make comment on each of these verses.

 

"Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as you would Christ.  Don’t work only while being watched, as people-pleasers, but as slaves to Christ, do God's will from your heart.  Serve with a good attitude, as to the Lord and not to people, knowing that whatever good each one does, slave or free, he will receive this back from the Lord. And masters, treat your slaves the same way, without threatening them, because you know that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

 

Verse 5 from above reads:

 

"Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as you would Christ." 

 

The plural form of the Greek word "doulos" is translated as "slaves" in this verse.  You might wonder why Paul used "doulos" in this context instead of "diakonos."  Remember, in Paul's day, a "doulos" came to be known as a slave "by choice," otherwise known as a "bond-slave."  Why would a slave back then view himself as a slave by choice, and why would Paul choose to use the Greek word "doulos" instead of "diakonos?"  I don't claim to be able to read Paul's mind on this matter, and neither should anyone else.  I do, however, have a couple of speculative thoughts on why Paul used the word "doulos" in this instance and not "diakonos."  

 

Even though "doulos" and "diakonos" have a difference in meaning, sometimes the two words are used interchangeably in the New Testament, as if they were synonyms.  That might be the case here. 

 

Another reason for why Paul might have chosen the word "doulos" in this verse is because in the first-century, Greco-Roman world many slaves did choose to be slaves.  They did so because it was to their financial benefit.  It was one way to get out of a life of financial debt that bogged them down into a life of poverty.  I am sure that some of the slaves that Paul was addressing, but not all, would have fit into this category of slaves.  Other men, those who were well educated, might have chosen slavery because they could work in a place of prominence where their skills and education could be utilized.      

 

The verb "obey" in this verse is a Greek present, active, imperative verb.  Present means that the slaves must obey, right now, in present time.  Active means that they are the ones who are actively obeying their masters.  Imperative means that this obedience is a command, and, since Paul is acting on behalf of the Lord, it is a command that he is passing on from Jesus Himself.  So, this is a serious matter for the Christian slaves to hear from Paul.  You see it is a serious matter with Paul's use of the words "fear and trembling" that should motivate obedience.  

 

The motivation for this obedience should extend from a pure and sincere heart, according to Paul.  A slave is not to obey with a grumbling attitude.  In fact, he obeys his master as if he was obeying Jesus Himself.  Such obedience presents us with the often-asked question.  What if a slave master demanded the slave to do something that specifically opposed the will of God, like, committing adultery for example?  The common answer to this question is what Peter told the Jewish leaders in Acts 5:29.  It reads:

 

"Peter and the apostles replied, 'We must obey God rather than people.'"

 

In this situation it becomes a matter of authority.  The New Testament teaches that Christians are to obey any authority they find themselves under.  See Romans 13:1 through 7.  That would include political authority or any other kind of authority, like a slave owner.  I will not get into a detailed discussion on submission to authority here, but the New Testament does teach what I've just written.   You can read Romans, chapter 13, to begin a study on submission to political authority.      

 

Verse 6 reads:

 

"Don’t work only while being watched, as people-pleasers, but as slaves to Christ, do God's will from your heart." 

 

Paul told slaves not to work hard only when they are being watched by their masters or by someone who their master has appointed over them, and why?  They are to fulfill their duties as if they were working for Jesus Himself, as if, Jesus was watching their every move, which in fact He would have been doing.  Nothing is hid from the eyes of Jesus. 

 

The words "being watched" are translated from the Greek word "ophthalmodoulia."  This word is made up of the Greek word "ophthalmos." which means "eye," and the Greek word "doulos" that means slave.  We derive our English word "ophthalmologist" from this Greek word.      

 

Verse 7 reads:

 

"Serve with a good attitude, as to the Lord and not to people,"

 

Paul repeated himself again in this instance.  Slaves must serve their masters with the best attitude they could muster up from within.  They were to serve their masters in the same way that they would serve Jesus Himself.  This is a significant statement, or command, that Paul passed on to the Christian slave.     

 

Verse 8 reads:

 

"... knowing that whatever good each one does, slave or free, he will receive this back from the Lord."

 

There is a New Testament principle here that applies to both a slave and a free person.  All we do as Christians, will be judged by Jesus at what has been called the Judgment Seat of Christ, as seen in 1 Corinthians 3:10 and following.  It is at the judgment seat of Christ where each of our works of service as Christians will be judged by Jesus.  It is there that each work of service, if done from the wrong motivation, will be burned in the fire of judgment.  Those works of service that were performed throughout our lives from pure motives will be rewarded.

 

In concluding this portion of Scripture, we note that Paul does not overtly oppose the practice of slavery.  Some might even say that he is upholding the practice of slavery.  Whatever position you hold in this instance, what Paul does say in this section of his letter to the Ephesian Christians is that a Christian slave, out of the goodness of his or her heart, must obey his or her master as if he or she was obeying Jesus Himself. 

 

Paul does not end the discussion of slavery at this point.  In the following verse he teaches how slave masters are to treat their slaves. 

 

After writing all of the above about how slaves should obey their masters, Paul only wrote one verse on how masters should treat their slaves and that is found in verse 9.  It reads:

 

"And masters, treat your slaves the same way, without threatening them, because you know that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

 

Paul told slave owners, and that would include Christian slave owners, to treat their slaves "in the same way."  What way is that?  "In the same way" would be in reference to what Paul just told the slaves and their relationship with their masters.  The masters, then, should not threaten their slaves.  They should treat them just as Jesus would treat them.  If you think about that, the slave master should exhibit agape, that is, sacrificial love towards their slaves because that is how Jesus loves us.  The slave owner should treat his slaves with respect, and all of which that means, because their Master, who is Jesus, is watching over them.  As Jesus watches over the slaves, He is watching over the slave owner.  

 

Note that Paul is playing on the word "master" in this verse.  He called the slave owner a "master" and then he called Jesus their "Master," with a capital "M."  Paul was actually warning the slave master here when he said that there is no favoritism with God.  In other words, "treat your slaves properly or else you are in trouble with your Master." 

 

In the sight of God, there is no difference between a slave and a slave master.  They are both human beings, and if they are Christian, as they would be here, both slave and slave master belong to Jesus, and what He says goes. 

 

This passage in Paul's letter to the Ephesian believers should make it clear.  Although Paul does not oppose the practice of slavery in this letter, he does oppose the mistreatment of slaves.  What he taught about the relationship between a slave and his or her master pretty much would have transformed the whole slave industry in his day if adopted into Roman culture.  In fact, if you think it through, slaves would not really be the possession of their master because if they are Christian, they are a possession of Jesus.

 

What Paul said about slavery in this passage forms the basis of how the New Testament, and God Himself, feels and thinks about the issue of slavery.       

 

 

Chapter 16


More From Paul

 

Colossians 4:1 reads as follows:

 

"Masters, deal with your slaves justly and fairly, since you know that you too have a Master in heaven."

 

Paul told the Colossian Christian slave owners something similar to what he told the Ephesian Christian slave owners.  This time he added a couple of different words to his admonition.  He told these particular masters to treat their slaves "justly and fairly."  The addition of these two words is noteworthy because one attribute of God is His sense of justice.  We correctly say that God is love (1 John 4:8).  We can also correctly say that God is just.  By this I do not simply mean that God acts justly.  No, by His very nature He is just, and, because He is just, He acts justly. 

 

In the above sense of the word, slave owners should treat their slaves as God Himself would fairly and justly treat them.  In short, Paul was telling the slave masters to exhibit the very character of a just God in their dealings with their slaves. 

 

Colossians 3:22 and 23 read:

 

"Slaves, obey your human masters in everything.  Don’t work only while being watched, as people-pleasers, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do it from the heart, as something done for the Lord and not for people, knowing that you will receive the reward of an inheritance from the Lord. You serve the Lord Christ."

 

Again, what Paul told the Ephesian Christian slaves he told the Colossian Christian slaves.  They were to do their work as if they were working for their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  

 

1 Timothy 6:1 and 2 read:

 

"All who are under the yoke as slaves should regard their own masters as worthy of all respect, so that God’s name and his teaching will not be blasphemed.  Let those who have believing masters not be disrespectful to them because they are brothers, but serve them even better, since those who benefit from their service are believers and dearly loved.  Teach and encourage these things."

 

In this passage Paul repeated what he has said in other places.  Slaves must respect their masters, and even more so if they were Christians.  Paul did, however, insert an additional thought that he left out elsewhere.  In this passage he distinguished between Christian slave owners and non-Christian slave owners.  A slave was to represent Jesus in all he or she did in service of his earthly master.  The slave was supposed to be a good witness to the non-Christian slave owner, and why?  The honorable works that a slave was encouraged to do by Paul might well lead the non-believing slave owner to Jesus.  This is what the love of God is all about.  That is to say, you sacrifice of yourself in the hope that the one who is the beneficiary of your sacrifice will come to Jesus.

 

To the slave who has a Christian master, he must respect his master because his master is a brother in the Lord.  So, basic to the relationship between the slave and his master is the fact that they are both Christians, and therefore, must live accordingly.  

 

This admonition is directed to both the slave and the slave master.  Both are to exhibit the love of God within the context of their relationship.  One might then ask why does the slave owner not set his slave free? 

 

There is an answer to the above question. Setting a slave free might not be the best thing for the slave and his family.  If a Christian slave owner treated his slave with love and respect, the slave and his family would most likely be the better if he stayed with his master.  Freed slaves often experienced much hardship and poverty in the first-century, Greco-Roman world because they would have to start out in life all over again, and in many cases, with little to nothing.  Once free, the slave and his family would have to find their way in the world, and that was not necessarily and easy task back then for newly freed slaves.            

 

1 Corinthians 7:20 and 21 say:

 

"Let each of you remain in the situation in which he was called.  Were you called while a slave?  Don’t let it concern you.  But if you can become free, by all means take the opportunity."

 

In the above verses Paul said that if you were a slave when you gave your life to Jesus, don't worry about attempting to obtain your freedom.  Why would Paul have said such a thing? 

 

Throughout Paul's writings he taught that one's relationship with Jesus, and the ministry that Jesus requires of him, is the important thing in life.  That should outweigh everything else in the life of a true believer.  Beyond this, Paul maintained that one's eternal destiny also outweighs any present reality, no matter how tough this present reality is. 

 

Paul himself put up with many unfavorable afflictions in life, which included imprisonment, beatings, stonings, hunger, and much more.  He could put up with such unpleasant things because he understood that his present existence in this world was temporary.  A better world is yet to come.  Look at what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 4:17.  His words confirm that this was the way he approached life.    

 

"For our momentary light affliction is producing for us an absolutely

incomparable eternal weight of glory."

 

What Paul called "momentary light afflictions" for us would be next to life ending afflictions.  Most of us could never survive all that Paul went through for the sake of Jesus.  Many of us would have given up the faith.  How Paul lived his life was how he expected others, including slaves, should live their lives.  Momentary afflictions, whether light or heavy, mean little when it comes to one's eternal destiny and the eternal glory that will come to the Christian slave.   

 

1 Peter 2:18 and 19 read:

 

"Household slaves, submit to your masters with all reverence not only to the good and gentle ones but also to the cruel.  For it brings favor if, because of a consciousness of God, someone endures grief from suffering unjustly."

 

The apostle Peter was in agreement with Paul.  Slaves, like anyone else in life, are to endure hardships and trials in this life.  Enduring these hardships with the strength and peace provided by Jesus, is a powerful witness to the reality of Jesus' existence.  This mentality is backwards to the thinking of today's western-world mindset.  It was backwards to the thinking in Paul and Peter's day.

 

The Bible clearly states that unjust suffering will be rewarded, maybe not in this life, but it will certainly be rewarded in the next life.  So, with all of this in mind, a slave should put the salvation of his unsaved slave owner in the forefront of the way in which he lives his life.  This mindset is how every Christian should live.  It's what the New Testament Greek text calls "agape."  That is to say, a believer gives of himself for the sake of another, especially for the sake of that other's salvation. 

 

The New Testament teaches that God is love.  See 1 John 4:8.  The word "love," as it refers to God throughout the New Testament is translated from the Greek word "agape."  This Greek word means "love that is demonstrated through some kind of practical demonstration of sacrifice."  God's very essence - who He is at His core - is in fact sacrificial by nature. This sacrificial love, as much as is humanly possible, should be exhibited in the life of the believer, and that would include how Christian slave owners should treat their slaves.          

 

 

Chapter 17

Paul's Letter To Philemon

 

I have written that the New Testament does not overtly oppose slavery.  It does not say "thou shall not have slaves."  I believe that is obvious. On the other hand, neither does the New Testament overtly condone the practice of slavery, especially as it was practiced in the first-century, Greco-Roman world.  What the New Testament does do is similar, but not exactly, to what the Old Testament does.  It regulates the practice of slavery, and, it regulates it in accordance with the very nature and essence of God.  That is to say, God is love, just, and sacrificial by nature.  Those character qualities that are inherent in God form the foundation on which the New Testament teaches about slavery.  It is this foundation that Christians should form their thinking on the matter.  We will now turn our attention back to Paul's understanding of slavery as one who was raised and lived in the first-century, Greco-Roman world.            

 

Unlike today's western-world economy, slavery was an important component of the economic landscape of the first-century, Greco-Roman, world in which the New Testament was written.  Some historians say that at least forty to forty five percent of the population of the first-century, Roman Empire was slaves, many of whom were professionals, like lawyers, doctors, and educators.  Slavery did not necessarily have the same negative oppressive connotation back then as it does today, which is a result of the slave trade industry in the United States prior to the American Civil War.  That being said, there were oppressive slave masters back then that did abuse their slaves. 

 

Slavery was fundamental to the Roman Empire 's economic existence and survival.  Some people, but not all, think it was not much different from our financial indebtedness that enslaves many individuals and businesses today.  In the process of maintaining our economic stability and current way of living in our western-world, borrowed money is a necessity.  Basic to our financial existence today is our indebtedness, the spending of borrowed money in order to maintain what we have come to expect.  That is to say, "it takes money to make money."  For this reason, some have suggested that in order to be among those of the economic fit, you become a servant to your financial institution.   

 

Maybe Bob Dylan was right after-all when he recorded his 1979 hit song entitled, "You've Gotta Serve Somebody."  In this sense of the word, everyone is a slave to something or someone.  We all serve something or somebody.  The one we serve most is ourselves. It's basic to our human nature.

 

Moving on, the New Testament teaches that God makes no distinction between slaves and free people in respect to salvation.  In 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul made that clear.

 

"For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body ​— ​whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free ​— ​and we were all given one Spirit to drink."

 

Galatians 3:28 also makes that clear. 

 

"There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

The New Testament also teaches that slave owners must treat their slaves with respect because God is the Master of both them and their slaves, and, God does not favour one person over another.  Ephesians 6:9 reads:

 

"And masters, treat your slaves the same way, without threatening them, because you know that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

 

With the above in mind, and all that I have written so far, I believe Paul's letter to Philemon, a Christian slave owner, is fundamental to the issue of how the Bible views slavery.  I suggest you read this short letter that Paul wrote to Philemon.  It will not take long to read.  If this letter is all that you know of what the Bible says about slavery, you will have the basic understanding of slavery as seen in the Bible.  

  

A man named Onesimus was one of Philemon's slaves who apparently had run away for one reason or another.  Why he ran away, we do not know.  In Philemon 8 through 16 Paul gave Philemon the following instructions that he hoped Philemon would comply concerning Philemon's run-away slave.  The instructions read as follows: 

 

"For this reason, although I have great boldness in Christ to command you to do what is right, I appeal to you, instead, on the basis of love.  I, Paul, as an elderly man and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus, appeal to you for my son, Onesimus.  I became his father while I was in chains.  Once he was useless to you, but now he is useful both to you and to me.  I am sending him back to you ​— ​I am sending my very own heart.  I wanted to keep him with me, so that in my imprisonment for the gospel he might serve me in your place. But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own free will.  For perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a brief time, so that you might get him back permanently, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave ​— ​as a dearly loved brother.  He is especially so to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord."

 

Paul said a lot in the above passage.  Being an apostle, on behalf of Jesus, Paul gave Philemon instructions on what to do with Onesimus, Philemon's run-away slave.  Note that Paul approached Philemon on this issue as a beloved brother in the Lord and not from the standpoint of an authoritative apostle.  This was Paul's normal way of instructing and admonishing those to whom he was given the responsibility to care for and lead.    

 

Note the phrase "command you to do the right thing."  This is an important phrase for us to think our way through.  First of all, this was not a suggestion that Paul was giving Philemon.  It was a command, and, a command from God, spoken through Paul, the servant of God.  So, what Paul said here is how the God of the Bible feels and thinks about slavery.  Once again, this is something that critics of the Bible often miss.  We cannot ignore these instructions of Paul because, in my opinion, they represent the bottom line to how the Bible views slavery.       

 

The second thing to note here is that the command from God was to do "the right thing."  The words "right thing" clearly tell us that if Philemon did not follow through on this command, he would have been doing the wrong thing.  Philemon, in fact, would have been in the wrong when it came to the issue of slavery, especially as it pertained to Onesimus.  

 

So what was the right thing that Philemon needed to do?  Philemon was to receive Onesimus back, "not as a slave but as a brother."  Does this mean that Onesimus would no longer be a slave?  Does this mean that he would now be a free person?   I believe I could safely say that Paul could well have been telling Philemon to free Onesimus from slavery, and that might actually be what Philemon did.  He would, thus, be doing the right thing. 

 

I do understand that some might believe that Paul's instructions did not necessarily mean that Onesimus would no longer be a slave, and that I can understand.  Those in this camp might suggest that Onesimus was still a slave, but a slave, who would be treated as a loved brother in the Lord.  That might well have been the case.  We just do not know all of the details surrounding this issue.  One thing would be sure though, and that is this.  Even if Onesimus was still a slave, he would have had great freedom, freedom as brothers in the Lord have in their relationships with each other. 

 

When you understand what the Bible teaches about Christian brotherhood, those of the family of God, Philemon could no longer treat Onesimus as one of his possessions.  That is clear.  Onesimus might well have become more of an employee than a slave.  As a matter of fact, Paul's letter to Philemon suggests that Onesimus had become an effective servant of the Lord with a God-appointed ministry that Paul expected Philemon to respect, and by so doing, would allow Onesimus to follow through on his God-appointed ministry.  Philemon was not to inhibit Onesimus from fulfilling God's will for his life.          

 

Whatever you think might have happened to Onesimus after he returned to Philemon, even if Philemon freed Onesimus, certain provisions would have to be made to help Onesimus survive his new status in the Greco-Roman culture in which he lived. 

 

Some slaves chose not to be set free in Paul's day because they would suddenly be poverty stricken and with no source of income to support their families.  This would, thus mean, that if Philemon freed Onesimus, Philemon could not just kick Onesimus out onto the street to fend for himself.  Philemon would have to treat Onesimus as a loved brother, and thus, do whatever was necessary for Onesimus' well being.  This would be God's will.  This would demonstrate to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture how the Christian God viewed the practice of slavery.  In fact, this is what I understand is foundational to what the Bible teaches when it comes to the practice of slavery.  

 

 

Chapter 18

My Biblical Based Conclusion

 

I have just set forth how I understand the apostle Paul approached the issue of slavery, in a culture where slavery was not only commonplace, but was viewed as an economic necessity.  Maybe you still wonder why Paul did not vigorously and overtly oppose the practice of slavery.  Why didn't he pronounce a sovereign sweeping statement that was meant to be followed by all Christians in all generations?  Why didn't he simply say, "You must not own slaves?"  That probably would have prevented us from asking all of our questions concerning what the Bible says about slavery.  It would have made life much easier in this respect.    

 

I remind you that Paul's mission on this planet was to be God's chosen spokesperson.  He was to represent His God to the Gentiles, their governing authorities, to the Jews, and to the Jewish leaders.  That is stated in Acts 9:15 and 16.  Like Jesus, Paul was not commissioned to be a social activist, protesting the evils of the empire.  He was not called to Christianize the Roman Empire .  He was called to lead individual people to Jesus.  He was called to Christianize pagans, not nations.  There is a huge difference between Christianizing a civilization and Christianizing individuals within a civilization.  This is one thing, I believe, today's western-world, Evangelical Christians are in the process of forgetting as they attempt to Christianize the nations in which they live through political and social activism.  To put it bluntly, I cannot find any Biblical support for attempting to make your nation Christian apart from converting individuals in your nation to Jesus.  Furthermore, the Bible views all nations, to one degree or another, in opposition to God.  No nation has ever been Christian and no nation will ever be Christian until Jesus sets up His nation on earth at some future date.   Yes, some nations have been influenced by Biblical Christianity, but being influenced by Biblical thinking makes no nation or person Christian.          

 

I have been a social activist.  I have protested in front of abortion clinics, but my protest never closed the clinics, and, it led no one to Jesus.  It certainly did not ban the practice of abortion.  Banning abortion does not end the abortion of human lives.  It sends the practice underground, where slavery exists today in our so-called, civilized, slavery-banned, western world. 

 

In times past I have been a political activist, both in the United Sates and in Canada .  My participation, and those Christians participating with me in the political arena, have done little to Christianize our nations, and why?  Without changing the hearts of individuals in a nation, there is no change in the nation in which the individuals reside.  That's not only the Biblical truth, it's simple common sense.   

 

Once a person becomes a Christian, then, all of what Paul taught should begin to be implemented into that person's life.  If, then, a slave owner became a Christian, he was expected to do what was best for his slave.  He was expected, as Paul wrote to Philemon, to do the right thing.  Whatever the right thing was for a specific circumstance would differ from another circumstance.  For one slave it might mean freedom from domination.  For another, it might mean becoming an employee instead of a slave.  In either case, if both slave and master are Christians, they were, and are, first and foremost brothers in Christ and therefore must build their relationship accordingly.  

 

I conclude that what Paul taught concerning the practice of slavery is how the Bible views slavery.  In fact, Paul, as Christians believe, was representing God in all that he taught, and that included what he taught about slavery.      

 

Turning to some things that Jesus said about freedom, we note His inaugural speech to Israel as seen in Luke 4:18.

 

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."

 

However you interpret the phrases "release to the captives" and "to set free the oppressed," in Biblical terms, Jesus is the source of all kinds of freedom.  Such freedom would include inner spiritual freedom that would produce an outward freedom that should have relevant social and cultural implications in the life of an individual. 

 

Returning to Paul, he also taught about individual freedom.  Galatians 5:13 reads:

 

"For you were called to be free, brothers and sisters; only don't use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love."

 

The inner freedom the believer finds in Jesus is meant to set the believer free to serve those to whom Jesus has placed before him at any given time.  Our western-world culture knows little to nothing about this kind of freedom.  Being set free to serve someone other than one's self makes no sense to us today.  Our culture defines freedom in terms of the individual being free to do what he wishes or desires.  Individual expression is primary to our cultural experience.  The end result of such thinking is the hedonistic society in which we live.  Freedom, in a Biblical sense, never implies freedom to live for one's self.  It always implies being free to serve, love, and care for others, and that would include a slave. 

 

Again, we turn to Jesus for something else He said about freedom.  John 8:36 reads:

 

"So if the Son sets you free, you really will be free."

 

You might question just what Jesus meant by the above statement.  Was He speaking solely about spiritual freedom?  Could we interpret His words to include social or cultural freedom, including setting the slaves free?  These questions are worthy of debate.  I do admit to that.  I lean to the thinking that Jesus, first and foremost, had spiritual freedom in mind.  That is to say, the believer has been set free in many ways and from many things.  He has been set free from the wrath of God.  He has been set free from finding acceptance in God's sight through human effort.  He has been set free from serving self in order to serve God and anyone who God brings across his path.  When one is set free spiritually, his outward existence will demonstrate this Biblical reality.  It might well mean freeing a slave, or at least, doing whatever is best for the fellow human being who you have enslaved.  It would certainly not mean you would view any person as your possession.      

 

When it comes to how Paul viewed himself, he considered himself to be a slave of no one, despite the fact that the love of God motivated him to serve everyone.  Nevertheless, he thought of himself as a slave to Jesus.  His servitude to Jesus motivated him to serve all those who crossed his path at any given moment of time.  Paul often called himself a servant, or a slave of the Lord.  Romans 1:1 says this.

 

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God ​—" ​

 

Jesus considered Himself to be a servant to His Father.  He did not come to earth to be served but to serve, as He said in Mark 10:45.

 

"For even the Son of Man [Jesus] did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

 

John 15:15 tells us something that probably sounds very strange to our modern-day ears.  Jesus added a bit of a twist to what a servant of His was all about. 

 

"I do not call you servants anymore, because a servant doesn't know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything I have heard from my Father."

 

What Jesus said here is interesting.  He told His disciples, His servants, that from that point on He would no longer call them servants, but friends.  This is interesting because those to whom He said these things considered themselves to be servants of Jesus, as we saw with Paul.  This very statement may well suggest that Jesus believes in setting servants free.  If, however, there is more to this verse than what seems to meet the eye, and Jesus still thinks of Christians as servants, as I believe He does, this servitude is based on some kind of friendliness.  Friendliness, would thus, define and undergird the relationship Jesus has with His servants.  

 

In addition to the last paragraph, the Greek word "philos" is translated in John 15:15 in English as "friends."  Philos was one of six first-century Koine Greek words that were understood to be some kind of expression of love.  Philos represented reciprocal love, meaning, a free exchange of love between people.  Philos was commonly understood as "brotherly love."  Once again, the servant Master relationship Jesus has with His servants is based on a free flow exchange of brotherly love.  This represents the mind of God, and the Biblical thinking concerning the foundation of the relationship between a slave and his master.             

 

I believe I can safely conclude that just because the Bible does not overtly and openly come out and say "thou shall not have a slave," does not mean the Bible indorses slavery.  On the contrary, I believe the Bible opposes the practice of slavery.  It is not God's will for one human to own another human.  It has never been His will and it will never be His will.  In fact, when it comes to someone owning another, it is God who owns the believer.  Jesus purchased the believer with His death on the cross, as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:20.

 

"... for you were bought at a price. So glorify God with your body."

 

If Jesus has bought your fellow brother or sister in Christ, would you not think that if you owned that brother or sister in the Lord, you would be steeling him or her away from Jesus?  There is some logic to that, don't you think? 

 

The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things, and that includes human beings.  By the same token as stated in the last paragraph, if you owned a slave, would you not be steeling that person from God?   Do you not think there is some logic to this as well?  Would you not think that steeling from God would be something you should not do?

 

Does the Bible oppose slavery?  There is no doubt in my mind.  The Bible does indeed oppose the practice of slavery.  

 

Chapter 19

The Bottom Line

 

People always ask; "So what's the bottom line to all you have written?"  In point form, here is the bottom line concerning what the Bible says about slavery. 

 

The Old Testament says the following about slavery.

Slaves must be protected at all cost.

Slave owners must be punished when they are abusive to their slaves.

 

Jews were not permitted to enslave another Jew.

God opposes slaves being mistreated.

 

The New Testament says the following about slavery.

 

Christian slaves must obey their masters out of respect for Jesus.

 

Christian slaves must obey their masters in the hope of leading their masters to Jesus.

 

Slave owners must treat their slaves with love and justice, as God Himself would treat them.

 

Christian slave owners must do the right thing when it comes to their slaves.

The relationship between Christian slaves and

 

Christian slave owners should be based on a free flow exchange of sacrificial love.

 

Putting it all together, the Bible as a whole says that those who own slaves must do "the right thing."  They can no longer think of their slaves as their personal possession.  In this sense, the Bible opposes slavery.        

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home Page