A biblical treatment on Slavery

In previous posts, we have talked about “Reductio Ad Absurdum,” and taking evil to extremes in Satanism. To recap, you might use the ctrl-F feature in your browser to search “cannot do good,” in the Satanist article, and re-read that paragraph. This is Biblically observed in Jno 8:

[34] Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

By looking at the Greek, we see that this word “servant” is directly translated from the Greek word “slave.” The apostle Paul addresses the discussion in Ro 6:

[16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
[17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
.

.

.
[20] For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

By stepping back mentally for a moment to observe a trend, we may observe here that both righteousness and sin tend toward extremes. While the English allows for some leeway, the Greek is almost totalitarian about it. I used to think that this meant that the Bible did not speak against slavery. Since Christians were going to be slaves of righteousness, and sinners were going to be slaves of sin, slavery was not that bad, and the manifestation of it in society was merely an extension of spiritual law. This harmonized with a pacifist background and the decision that I would submit to slavery rather than commit the violence of fighting in a war. In point of fact, the Apostle Paul DOES speak against slavery, in 2 Cor 3:

17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

This leads to two questions.

• How can we both be a servant/slave of righteousness and enjoy any kind of liberty.
• Why didn’t Paul free slaves, since he had the authority as an Apostle to literally order Christian brethren to free at least their own slaves, whether they were brethren or not.

I will deal with the second question first. Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 2:25,26.) The Roman government used slavery as a form of dominion. As such, IF Paul had advocated against slavery by spiritual authority THEN he would have been opposing the Roman government outside the developed system for advocating change in law. Since God did not put him in a position to unilaterally rule against slavery as a practice, fair application could not lead Paul to order some people to free their slaves and not others. Self consistently with the surprising fact that Paul spoke against slavery in Corinth, Paul also asked Philemon to free his slave Onesimus in Philemon 1:

[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:
[12] Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
[13] Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
[14] But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
[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?
[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.
[20] Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.

The next verse might be used to imply that there was in fact an imperative. This is improbable, because the same advocate was here returning a runaway slave to his master. It might be interesting to learn exactly what Roman law had to say about the situation. If there was no command, then there was indeed choice on Philemon’s part. This finds no abstract discord from the statement “…where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” it simply allows that the Roman government was not universally imbued with the Spirit of the Lord.

This leads into a similar “synthesis,” in the discussion of being a servant/slave of righteousness. By choosing freedom from sin we choose righteousness and (as righteousness is taken to the extreme,) there is not license for sin anymore. This leads an extremist Christian to the unbridled pursuit of excellence in spiritual life.

What truly can be said to represent excellence in Christianity? We “KNOW” that nobody is perfect. Jesus was perfect, but he was an exception to the rule of sin itself. This is most commonly observed in Ro 7:

[14] For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
[15] For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
[16] If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
[17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
[19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
[20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

You will notice that I put the word “KNOW” in quotes. I hope to raise a doubt as to this point, by questioning the popular conception of the definition of the word “perfect,” in my next article. I would like to close with the parting observation that although Paul is very conflicted in the Romans 7 passage, he does not neglect to observe freedom of choice in vs 18, “to will is present with me;”