I've been told that in Biblical days people who were poor would sell themselves and their children into slavery. Is that kind of slavery wrong?
"Biblical days" covers something like 2000 years from Abraham to Christ. That would be from the middle Bronze Age. Abraham lived under the Law of Hammurabi.
Yes, the Mosaic Law permitted chattel slavery of non-Jews by Jews as well as debt slavery of Jews to other Jews.
What I said before was "God did not create Jews to be chattel to other Jews, but He did permit Jews to become indebted to other Jews."
One of the things that should become clear as one contemplates the Mosaic Covenant with the New Testament is that the Mosaic Covenant was the Lord's first formal code for a people who were basically Bronze Age riffraff that had a long way to go before becoming the kind of people the Lord ultimately wanted as His light to the world.
Moses: "
I can't bear these people! Lord, if you love me, kill me now!" -- Numbers 11.
God: “
I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” -- Exodus 32
These were not people that were going to be made into a morally perfect 21st Century Modern Civilization. The Mosaic Law does contain moral compromises. We get an explanation of the moral compromises within the Mosaic Law even from Jesus:
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." -- Matthew 19
Matthew 5 itself is a virtual repudiation of the moral compromises of the Mosaic Law, compromises made because those Bronze Age people were not ready for better behavior.
Compare the Mosaic Law with the earlier law of Hammurabi or the contemporary laws of Egypt, and we see a tremendously more advanced treatment of slaves (as well as women, for that matter).
So what we see in Leviticus 25 is the same "baby step" we see in Deuteronomy 24 that Jesus referenced with respect to divorce. Their hearts were too hard to become perfect, but they could take a baby step: Don't enslave your fellow Israelite as chattel.
This is called "progressive revelation."
Incidentally, with specific regard to Philemon and Onesimus, even Leviticus 25 was fully valid for Paul to use to direct Philemon to free Onesimus after Paul said "
If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me." Even Leviticus 25 was sufficient to declare, at the very least, "Don't enslave your fellow Christian as chattel."
The Church had determined that slavery was prohibited in the first two centuries, and the Church had abandoned it. When Constantine gave the Church a stake an empire that depended on slavery, Church prohibition was blunted in favor of the needs of the empire.
But even in that time, the Church never gave slavery any theological justification. There were Popes who permitted it on the basis of the rights of nations--not theology.
Protestants arrived at the conclusion that slavery was sinful throughout the Protestant world,
including the American south by the late 1700s. Even Southerners at the time acknowledged its sinfulness. That changed in the South--and only in the South--with the invention of the cotton gin, which made slavery wildly profitable.
It is
only in the American south in the early 1800s that any theological justification has ever been posed by Christians, and that justification was obviously absurd.
"But Jesus didn't preach
against slavery!"
Something important to note is that it was not (and
is not) the mission of the Church to "fix" the Roman empire. If you read 1 Peter, you see that the Body of Christ operates as a "diplomatic mission" to the nations of the world, representing the Kingdom of Heaven.
The "slavery" permitted within the culture of believers, both OT and NT, was debt bondage, not chattel slavery. God did not create Jews to be chattel to other Jews, but He did permit Jews to become indebted to other Jews. Debt bondage is the same thing any of us might enter as an "unsecured loan." Like debt bondage in ancient times, that unsecured loan debt can be bought and sold by its owners.
However, debt bondage in those days had distinct and severe limits to prevent a "slave class" from ever occurring among Jews. As well, even while in debt bondage, the debtor could not be treated as chattel, but still was recognized as a Jew and chosen of God.
This continued in the New Testament. It was not the mission of the Body of Christ to "fix" the Roman Empire. The Body of Christ is a diplomatic mission to the nations of this world, and as any diplomatic mission, it must obey the laws of the host nation outside its gates. However, within the gates of the diplomatic mission, the laws of the home nation prevail.
That is how it is with the Body of Christ. Outside the context of the Body of Christ and its members, the host nation laws prevail. Within the context of the Body of Christ and its members, the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven prevail (this is referenced in practical detail in 1 Corinthians 5).
Before we get to the letter to Philemon, there are some other points to note. Slavery in the Roman empire occurred in two ways:
1. As a person kidnapped or taken as a war prisoner into slavery, becoming a chattel slave.
2. A freeborn man entering debt bondage or becoming a slave as a penalty for theft.
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. -- 1 Corinthians 7
Paul speaks of slavery as though it had an optional component. That was possible for debt bondage. It was not possible for chattel slavery. Paul could say, "Don't go into debt." Paul could not say, "Don't be kidnapped."
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine -- 1 Timothy 1
Thus, the slave trade of kidnapping is made illegal within the Body of Christ, but going into debt is permitted.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. -- Ephesians 6
To a Christian who had slaves this verse is a jaw dropper. If the slave owner considered the slave his personal property, this verse creates a different relationship. Both persons are actually the slaves of the Lord. That makes the "slave" no longer the property of the "master," but his
responsibility under the one who is the Master of both of them--for the Master sees no difference between them--they are both His property, both bought for a price.
Now, to Paul's letter to Philemon. The first question to ask: What is the purpose of this letter? Latter apologists for slavery and those who wish to accuse Christianity of condoning slavery both claim the letter is nothing more than a plea from Paul for Philemon merely to
be nice to Onesimus.
One would have to explain, though, why a mere "be nice" letter would have been cherished, preserved, copied, and shared among the early Christians and eventually considered of such significant doctrinal importance to have been included as part of the Canon.
The tone and deep emotion of the letter also belies the claim that its purpose is so shallow. If the point were merely "be nice," it's more likely Paul would have included it as a closing point to a congregational letter, such as he did to Euodia and Syntyche at the end of the letter to the Philippians.
No, this letter clearly has a singular and very important message personally to Philemon and doctrinally to the Body of Christ. It's purpose was to secure the
freedom of Onesimus, and as preserved by the early Christians for doctrine, it was recognized as directive to the entire early church.
Indeed, history indicates that slavery among Christians had died out
until Christianity became the national religion of the Empire...which depended economically on slavery. At that point, the empire was able to use the Church to validate all of its actions.
On to Philemon:
Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.
Translation: I have a big stick, but I'm going to speak softly.
It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—
Translation: You know me--I am your elder and I suffer even now for the Body in which you are a member.
that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains....I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you.
Translation: I consider Onesimus my own son--which is about the most important familial relationship possible in this society. Men value their sons more than they value their wives. Just want you to know how serious this is to me.
I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.
Translation: But there is a legal matter I need you to attend to.
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
Translation: What part of "
no longer as a slave" is hard to understand? "No longer as a slave" does not mean "be nice to him as a slave." "No longer as a slave" actually means "
no longer as a slave."
If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.
Translation: He was a slave because of a debt he owed you (which is the only bondage we allow among Christians)--so put that debt on my tab. That makes him free.
I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self.
Translation: Oh, and by the way, I won't mention that you owe me a whole lot more. Well, maybe I did mention it...so that cancels whatever Onesimus owed...and you're still in debt to
me.
Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.
Translation
: Capish? Good. I expect you to do it.
And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.
Translation: I'm going to drop by soon to make sure you did what I--
ahem--"asked" you to do.
