-
It’s
a typical catch-all auditorium class with many who have been
“studying” the word for forty years. The lesson is 1
Timothy:6. I question, “Would it be sinful for me to own a
slave?” As heads shake negatively, one answers, “No.
Paul does not condemn slavery.” “Then it would be proper
for me to buy a slave,” I propose. “Yes,” with
more agreeing nods. “If it is all right for me to purchase a
person enslaved by others, then it would be in order for me to
capture and enslave another human being,” I argue. The class
is quieter with fewer affirming nods. “Would it be acceptable
for me to enslave you, Charlie?” I press. Good old legalistic
Charlie boldly contends that I would be within my scriptural rights.
“It would be sinful for me to own a slave,” I propose.
“Slavery is not condemned in the Bible,” Charlie
protests with flushing face, “and you can’t pervert the
scriptures to make it wrong!”
-
-
Yes,
for me, it would be sinful to own a slave. I make this assertion
being fully aware of the teachings addressed to slaves and masters
in the scriptures. Let me explain my contention, and you will see
that this is not just a revival of the slavery issue, which is no
longer relevant. It involves something basic to the understanding of
some other scriptural matters.
-
-
We
often review and stress the stringent demands of discipleship which
bring a sword instead of peace, and set a man at such variance from
others that he must make a choice between Christ and others. Our
emphasis that demands a clear-cut and immediate break from all that
is inferior and wrong at the moment of repentance before baptism is
a contention demanding maturity at birth. It would allow for no
period of growth. It would condition salvation on our ability to
become perfect in conduct rather than being a sinner saved by grace.
And, more to the point of this discussion, it would make Jesus a
revolutionist.
-
-
Revolution
is a sudden, radical, or complete change and would be characterized
by overthrow, renunciation, and revolt. While Jesus’ teachings
and demands were radical enough to arouse opposition in many
instances, he avoided unnecessary opposition. His will was to be
accomplished in a more evolutionary manner - a process of gradual
and relatively peaceful social and religious change brought about by
seed, leaven, and flavoring salt.
-
-
On
Pentecost, if Peter had demanded that his Jewish audience renounce
the Law of Moses as a condition of salvation, his “visible
responses” would more likely have been 3,000 persons “coming
forward” with stones to silence Peter and his crowd forever.
But God gave time for change from the Law to be accomplished.
Although Jesus declared that he did not come to destroy the Law, our
traditional explanations about it meeting its end by being nailed to
the cross sound more destructive and disruptive than fulfilling and
evolutionary. Many years passed before the Law was growing old,
obsolete, and ready to vanish away. Even when Paul returned to
Jerusalem and was imprisoned, the Judean disciples were all zealous
to keep the Law. It was not demanded that they all revolt against
the Law, thus arousing undue opposition.
-
-
When
Roman soldiers asked John, “What shall we do?” (Lk.
3:14), he did not tell them that they must resign from or desert
their military machine trained in killing, conquering, and
subjugating. For that moment, he simply answered, “Rob no one
by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
He did not mark himself as a political activist against Rome. Can
even the most hawkish among us really believe that Jesus wants us to
train to aggressively conquer, kill, and enslave? I think not. But
he planted seeds of reformation in his answer. In time, the leaven
of his word should eliminate such warfare, or make it sinful, to say
the least. Unfortunately, the need for self-defense is still with
us, and he would not deny us that right. But aggression is denied to
any who would mature in the spirit of his teachings.
-
-
Paul
urged the Corinthians, “Only, let everyone lead the life which
the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him”
(1 Cor. 7:17). Whether it be marriage or lack of marriage,
circumcision or lack of circumcision, or freedom or slavery, Paul
did not demand a change in these social relationships. There were no
shocking demands to upset the social order. He concludes, “So,
brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain
with God.” Yet we know that in other circumstances these
conditions could be changed acceptably, for a person was permitted
to marry, be circumcised, or become free.
-
-
Paul
further warns the Corithian disciples against brazen disregard of
social customs, and it would have made them exclusivists
unnecessarily. But advocating the use of the kiss did not bind a
ritualistic procedure for all time to come.
-
-
Because
of centuries of cultural conditioning, ancient peoples could hardly
conceive of a person going through a period of emotional trauma or
religious experience without fasting. For Jesus to have scoffed at
fasting and to have disclaimed its value would have turned sincere
people away from him needlessly. But acceptance of fasting by Jesus
and his disciples did not elevate it to a legal demand in other
times and societies. Growth in spiritual discernment would diminish
the value of such a physical exercise. And we would view the
traditional expression of hospitality through washing of feet from
the same perspective as that of fasting and the kiss.
-
-
When
Peter instructed, “Honor the king,” he was not binding
the monarchical form of government upon people for all time. But,
lest Christianity be considered as an anti-governmental force,
disciples were urged to accept the political system in which they
were called. Through the evolving of circumstances, however, we may
rightly help to change or remove the officials over us. If Jesus had
called for upheaval of tyrannical government, it would have marked
him and his religion as revolutionary and bent on social reform
rather than individual salvation.
-
-
Now,
let’s get back to our thoughts about slavery. Paul insists,
“Do not become slaves of men” (1 Cor. 7:23). If it is
wrong for me to become a slave, it is wrong for me to enslave
someone else. No amount of legalism or rationalization can harmonize
the Golden Rule with slavery, for no person wants to be enslaved.
Through the working of the Golden Rule, this great social change was
to evolve. To have demanded that social change as a pre-requisite of
accepting Christ would have made for upheaval and revolution which
would have been detrimental to the cause.
-
-
God
wants change in all individuals and societies. He does not, however,
demand or expect that change to be an immediate leap from depravity
to perfection. He accepts the individual as he is where he is when
that person resolves to follow the Savior to a nobler life and
commits himself to that life of faith and obedience. From then and
there, he will evolve and grow, and outgrow many things of ignorance
and immaturity that were once overlooked by a merciful Savior.
Conduct of a mature disciple is not demanded of a new-born in
Christ; neither is infancy an acceptable standard for those who have
had time and opportunity to grow toward the fullness of Christ.
-
-
The
foregoing discussion allows for flexibility in the requirements and
restrictions of Jesus. The legalist can’t tolerate
flexibility. But the legalist could still feel free to buy him a
slave! —1350
Huisache, New Braunfels, TX 78130