Bible View of Slavery - Comments (8)

Category: Articles, Doctrine
Author: John Malone
Date: 7th March, 2004 @ 09:53:47 AM

It has been slanderously said that the Scripture condones slavery as was practiced, for example, in the United States prior to the Civil War (1861-1865).

Onesimus, found in the book of Philemon, is perhaps one of the more misunderstood characters in the Scriptures. Those hoping to keep runaway slaves may have used this book for their purposes. Abolitionists – who likely read the Bible no better than their opponents – probably felt like they needed to tear this book out of the Scriptures.

Much of the problem dissolves by READING the single-chapter book: something rarely done, actually.

Because a reasonably careful reading does not find Onesimus to be some kind of “house nigger” or “field nigger” as some would hope, but in fact, he is Philemon’s brother. His name, meaning “profitable,” makes it useful for the purposes of literary device:

10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:

Apparently, Onesimus came to Paul – having run off (see 15 below) – who was in prison, and who led Onesimus to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Now, says Paul, he has become truly profitable, if not in Philemon’s mind for himself, then certainly for Paul.

15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?

Once we realize these two fellows are blood brothers – and now, with Onesimus saved, “twice” brothers – all the notions of “runaway nigger” should depart forever from any consideration. In fact, the constant misuse of this Scripture to promote slavery, or to claim the Bible condones it, is exactly what keeps it from being properly read.

Now you may ask, “How can it be that one brother is the bondservant of another?” Such a question only arises in the mind of those who do not understand the varied fortunes of families. It’s ordinary, not unusual for one brother’s fortune to be reversed of another.

17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

The apostle here also points out the great debt that Philemon owes him, because Paul brought the good news of salvation also to Philemon. In essence, Paul is buying Philemon’s freedom with credit that should be to his account.

Now, until there is a proper distinction between indentured servanthood, and slavery, confusion will rule in this entire discussion. Insofar as the context of your statements has to do with Africa, and not Europe, I will further surmise that you are solely concerned about the African slave trade, conducted by the Portuguese and the Arabs in concert with the Africans at the port of Mombassa through Zanzibar, for instance, and connecting in the East Indies with the Spanish and Americans, the British merely providing occasional shipping.

European immigrants very often came to America as indentured servants – bond servants – and then would customarily perform six years of indenture to pay off that bond. This is similar to what went on in Israel, except in Israel there was the prospect of the jubilee year, when all bondservants except those who decided to remain as such, were set free.

In the African case, we are not talking about indenture but man stealing. Both the Old and New Testaments condemn, without equivocation, the practice of man stealing. Indeed, it’s a capital offense in the old testament, not only to steal a man, but to be in possession:

EX 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Likewise, the New Testament is equally clear, except because civil government is not in view when writing about church practice – that is in the hands of Gentiles, except under the premise of the big mustard tree (not treated here) – there is no penalty given. Nonetheless, it is condemned as strongly as any sin in the epistles:

1Tim 1:9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

In summary, the Bible condemns categorically, and without equivocation, the kind of “slavery” that was at issue in Civil War America. The sad part is that the leading opponents of slavery – the American Baptists, for instance, led by Henry E. Fosdick – were wrong about just about everything in the Bible including the denial of the 2nd Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 Comments » Leave a comment