When we read Apostle Paul’s instructions to slaves and slave owners, was he pro-slavery? Did he flip the tables on slave trading in the marketplace? Did he create civil rights movements for the social and political emancipation of men and women from slavery (or any other kind of perverse Roman culture at that time)?
These questions become all the more pertinent when we consider that his instructions, or the lack thereof, were God-breathed as scriptures for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16). In other words, these questions will have wider implications on God’s moral character, heart, and will concerning how He views and interacts with the cultures of the world, then and now.
Let us first consider Paul’s instructions to slaves and slave owners.
1 Timothy 6:1-2
All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
Titus 2:9-10
Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.
Colossians 3:22-4:1
Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.
Looking at the above scriptures, was Paul implicitly, or even explicitly, rubber-stamping human rights violation, slavery, and slave ownership?
Before we can answer this question, we must first understand the origins of nations after the Flood, the apportioned inheritance of the Most High and sons of the Most High post-Babel, and His sovereign dealings in their midst.
Genesis 10:32
These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (LEB)
When the Most High apportioned the nations, at his dividing up of the sons of humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the children of Israel. For Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob the share of his inheritance.
Psalms 82:1-8 NASB2020
God [“elohim”] takes His position in His assembly; He judges in the midst of the gods [“elohim”]. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Vindicate the weak and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; save them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know nor do they understand; they walk around in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” Arise, God, judge the earth! For You possess all the nations.
At Babel, even though the sons of man knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened (c.f. Romans 1:21), saying, “Let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, so that our heavenly might and human legacy will be permanently established as an altar here in our new Eden.” (c.f. Genesis 11:4)
So, ‘Elohim’ God confused their language, scattered and divided them as people groups, and set boundaries to their habitation across the face of the whole earth. Since these people groups did not see fit to acknowledge ‘Elohim’ God any longer (c.f. Romans 1:28), He apportioned and distributed them to other ‘elohim’ gods, who were created sons of the Most High ‘Elohim’ God from the midst of His divine council, as their portion (or possession), while keeping Israel as His own share.
This is how the “Prince of Israel” (Ezekiel 21:24), “prince of Persia” and “prince of Greece” (Daniel 10:20-21), etc., come into the picture.
As these gods judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked, their peoples do not understand righteousness and walk around in darkness, hence all the foundation of the earth are shaken. Because they insist on walking according to the course of the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is working in the sons of disobedience (c.f. Ephesians 2:2), and suppress the truth in unrighteousness, God gave these nations over to Satan and his princes (c.f. Romans 1:18-32). God will surely judge these gods and consign them to the lake of fire together with wicked men when their time is fulfilled (c.f. Matthew 8:28-29; Revelation 20:7-15).
So, in a way, the wicked sons of ‘Elohim’ Most High and wicked sons of men are given to each other as their portion until their iniquities are complete and filled up to their full measure, so that the wrath of God can come upon them to the utmost in the end (c.f. Genesis 15:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:16).
Leviticus 20:26
‘Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.’
Holiness is independent of, set apart from, and incorruptible by unholiness in the environment; so it is with its partaker.
In the meantime, God will rule over His own portion with a strong sceptre, and is intent on refining them according to His holy nature, moral character, and righteous justice without compromise, so as to show these gods that His own people are separate and distinct in behaviour from their peoples, and hence worthy of glory and honour and immortality and eternal life.
So, there is a domain of God known as a holy nation of called-out people, and there are domains of gods, collectively known as the nations of the world.
Therefore, there is a “set-apartness” and separation of treatment between God’s people and nations of the world. Even though God is immanent amongst both His people and nations of the world, He is actively ruling over His own people while delivering depraved peoples and cultures of the world over to the depravity of Satan and their gods. Even Paul himself had delivered such unrepentant saints – one from the church in Corinth (c.f. 1 Corinthians 5:5) as well as Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20) – over to Satan.
Yet, the latter does not mean that God is not actively pursuing them with the gospel of salvation through His distinctive people.
It is with this backdrop that we can now understand the thinking and instructions of Paul according to “God-breathed” inspiration.
Back to the question: Did Paul implicitly, or even explicitly, rubber-stamping human rights violation, slavery, and slave ownership?
No, Paul did not necessarily approve of the culture of slavery on a personal level, nor did he misrepresent God’s moral character in His creation by his instructions.
He was merely instructing righteous behaviour in the sight of God for both slaves and slave owners that was independent of the unrighteous culture of the day and laws of the land, especially if they were believers in Christ.
In other words, Paul (or God) did not demand the same standard of moral righteousness from the nations of the world as he (or He) would from His people, the holy nation in His image called ekklesia.
Philemon 8-19
Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is proper, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you —since I am such a person as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well).
As we can see in the book of Philemon, in sending a runaway slave back to his master, both of whom were believers by then, Paul (or God) did not necessarily need to approve or disapprove of slavery as the culture of the day, as he (or He) was a respecter of the law of the land. In other words, if Paul had a “high view” of the sovereign God, he would have to take a “high view” of governing authorities established by God without partiality to the laws of the land (c.f. Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-15; Titus 3:1-2).
However, as a holy people of God’s own possession ruled directly under God’s laws (c.f. ancient Israel as opposed to nations like Babylon or Rome), Paul was expecting the relationship between the slave and his master to be “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother”.
We can understand the separation of treatment by God between the ekklesia and the nations, but why did Paul not instruct Christian slave owners to emancipate Christian slaves from their slavery? After all, Paul must have known that Jesus quoted Isaiah 62, saying “to proclaim liberty to captives and opening to those who are bound”. He must also have looked at how Jesus and Daniel lived out this same scripture under the perverse cultures of Rome and Babylon/Medes/Persia respectively before he reached his decision.
Firstly, Paul did proclaim liberty to captives and those who are bound, albeit within the household of the faith and not in the form of a public civil rights movement in the marketplace. He did it through appeal(s) to the love and free will of slave owner(s) to do what is proper and honourable in the eyes of God.
Secondly, Paul had every confidence that, despite the prevailing culture of slavery and treatment of slaves, faithful slave owners in Christ would go beyond what was deemed right and lawful in the land; that is, to treat their slaves no longer in the way the world treated slaves, but to treat them kindly and justly with love according to the truths and commandments of God, even those truths on slave treatment as encoded in the Law of Moses. In fact, this was even more pertinent if the slave was also a brother in Christ.
So, the issue was not about emancipation of slavery in the world, since the world would always do what the world would do after being given over to their depravity, even in modern slavery. Rather, it was about a changed relationship of brotherly love, honourable service, and righteous justice within the household of faith that ought to be distinct from the world.
Such changed relationships and treatment were in effect, or de-facto, emancipation from prevailing (mainstream) slavery within the body of Christ regardless of what the world practiced. Once reformation was accomplished in the household of the faith, perhaps the new relationship between Philemon and Onesimus would be a new model that would testify to a proven and more excellent way in the nations?
Thirdly, pursuant to the fact that there is a domain of God known as a holy nation of called-out people whom God is actively sanctifying, and there are domains of gods known as the nations of the world that God will judge, Paul said, “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
In other words…
Associate with immoral people of this world as long as it does not corrupt your good morals, but do not associate with immoral so-called brothers in the church, for he treats God as unholy, tramples under foot the Son of God, regards as unclean the blood of the covenant, and insults the Spirit of grace (c.f. Hebrews 10:26-31).
If there is slavery in the cultures of the world, God judges, not you; but you no longer treat a slave as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, in the household of faith.
Do business with people who worship mammon in the marketplace, else you would have to go out of the marketplace, but do not even have anything to do with a brother who worships mammon in the church.
If there are fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals in the world, “what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?”
If LGBTQ+ ideologies pervades the cultures of the world, God has made it His part to give them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that the wrath of God can be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (c.f. Romans 1:18-32); but as for your part, do not allow such perverse ideologies that are prevailing in the public spaces to make inroads into the doctrines of the church and hearts of the children of God. Stop, judge, and correct these perverse ideologies at the gates of the church and homes of believers.
So, Paul’s concern was not so much the perverseness of the cultures of the world but the perverseness that was and might be assimilated or syncretised into the culture of the church. He understood the separation of treatment and responsibilities by God between the ekklesia and the nations.
Was it Paul’s responsibility (which by extension God’s commandment) to emancipate all men from slavery, immorality, idolatry, drunkenness, covetousness, etc., which God abhors? Was it his apostolic mission to change the laws of the Roman Empire to legislate against such things? After surveying the Scripture, the Spirit of Jesus, and the Spirit of God, he knew that the church’s responsibility was to judge and enforce God’s truth within the church, not in the nations where God Himself would judge according to His sovereign establishment.
As a theologian, one thing that Paul would certainly ask himself was this: How can the church be the light and salt of the earth? What should his strategy be to engage and transform societies peripheral and adjacent to the ekklesia?
John 17:17-19
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.”
Having considered all, Paul understood that the church was sent into the world in flesh and blood by Jesus Christ in the same way that Jesus was sent into the world in flesh and blood by the Father; and only the same standard of sanctification of the incarnate Christ could enable the incarnational body of Christ to be sent in like manner.
There is more power to impact and transform nations as the living and walking sanctified-holy and Christ-imaging body of Christ than any form of human social actions could wrought.
Paul knew that if he built the church in the same way Jesus was building, the perversities and tyranny of Rome would not be able to overpower it (c.f. Matthew 16:18-19). In fact, when the body of Christ attains to the standard of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ (c.f. Ephesians 4:13), whatever it binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever it looses on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Hence, Paul’s primary, even sole, strategy would be to engage and transform societies through sanctifying disciples and churches into the image and stature of the incarnate Christ, like what he did in Ephesus through the school of Tyrannus (c.f. Acts 19), not through direct social actions or cultural wars. He knew that God’s perfectly sanctified-holy and Christ-imaging people would be ready to represent God the Judge, and punish all disobedience in the nations when their obedience were complete (c.f. 2 Corinthians 10:6), just like the incarnate Christ (c.f. John 17:17-19).
Therefore, we must not ascribe slavery (and head coverings of women in the church, etc.) to the theology of Paul just because he gave seemingly affirming instructions according to the culture of the day and the laws of the land.
Furthermore, we must not think that Paul was indifferent towards the perverse culture and laws of the land, even those that oppressed God’s people, simply because he did not engage in social actions or exercised theocratic dominion over Roman politics to change the culture and laws of the land. Rather, we must recognise that God’s vindicating principle, principal strategy, and judicial responsibility in the nations is to exercise theocratic discipline in the church first, before He will exercise theocratic judgment in the nations, so that His name will not be brought to disrepute on account of the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of His people as a testimony of His moral character when He rebukes, correct, and judges the nations (c.f. Leviticus 22:32; Ezekiel 39:7; Ezekiel 36:17-21).
As Paul spoke by the inspiration of the Spirit, “what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.”
Post-Script
Does this mean that we should not care or push back if perverse and unjust laws are tabled at the executive and legislative branches of government? Does this mean that we should not create people movements to counter the perverse cultures of the day that affect our peace, wellbeing, and security in our living environment?
Firstly, it depends on nuanced socio-cultural, socioeconomic, and socio-political settings of the nation which God has established, or allowed to be established, depending on how “high” one’s view of God is.
Even though, as citizen of a nation and integral constituent of a society, every person has a right to the collective determination of the culture in which they share according to their conscience, ideologies, and convictions, it may not always be possible for collective determination to be expressed, be it in the Roman Empire, religiously nationalistic democracies, or Communist countries. So, if you have the opportunity, make a defence for the freedom of expression and practice of your conscience as part of the process of collective determination, be it in school board, city, or political town hall meetings. Model holy character and righteous living, and “conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.” (Colossians 4:5-6) If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men, respect what is right in the sight of all men, and leave room for the wrath of God to judge in the nations (c.f. Romans 12:17-19).
Secondly, it also depends on whose version of “human rights” we are looking at. Ancient Israel’s? Roman Empire’s? Present Israel’s? America’s? Singapore’s? China’s? A theocratic caliphate’s? What is “human rights” to begin with? Whose “rights” trump whose “rights” without oppressing an alien’s “rights” in a society (c.f. Jeremiah 7:6)? Is capital punishment for drug trafficking violating human rights? Does “a life for a life” or “an eye for an eye” constitute human rights abuses?
While the above discourse will be too wide and nuanced for this “concise” post, let us look at some scriptures pertaining to governing authorities, since they are at the centre of interpreting, legislating, and executing “civil rights” and “social justice” in societies.
Romans 13:1-5
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
1 Peter 2:13-15
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
Titus 3:1-2
Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.
The teachings and actions of Jesus, Paul, and Peter living under the corrupt, unjust, perverse, and dictatorial Roman Empire (no less under Caligula and Nero) are instructive for our own responses to our governments and rulers. In fact, Paul was even more submissive or conciliatory towards the high priest of his own people (c.f. Acts 23:1-5) than I would have.
Before we interpret or rationalise what Paul and Peter meant by their instructions, we must also look at what else that Jesus or Paul or Peter might have said or did not say that would provide qualifications or “balance” to the above instructions. For example, did Jesus or Paul or Peter qualify such instructions elsewhere? Did they instruct the church to take over the three branches of government if we deem that these “minister of God” established by God are woke, perverse, and corrupt (as God did not expect them to turn out to be woke, perverse, and corrupt)? Are there other examples in the Scripture that would have contradicted their instructions? As far as I know, there isn’t any, hence we can take Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-15, and Titus 3:1-2 as “what you read is what you interpret at face value”.
But isn’t that a hard pill to swallow for those who live under such woke and evil regime? Jesus, Paul, and Peter certainly did swallow these hard pills.
Is there no hope then? Not necessarily. Paul told Romans to “do what is good and you will have praise from the same (authorities)”. Peter said that “such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men”. Paul told Titus “to subject to rulers, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed.” So, where is the hope and solution against corrupt and evil governments then? Jesus said, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
Is civil disobedience, like those against Covid measures that shuttled churches, classified as “good works”? Is that what Jesus, Paul, and Peter meant by “good works”?
Is standing for election to reform the woke and corrupt political system “good works”? Sure. If God calls the “Daniels” to stand for election, why not? There is not a scripture against reforming social justice as long as we do not show partiality to any “alien” with different cultural beliefs and practices, for there is no partiality with God (c.f. Deteronomy 10:17-19); we do no wrong to our neighbours, thus fulfilling the Law (c.f. Romans 13:10); and we treat people in the same way we want them to treat us, for this is the Law and the Prophets (c.f. Matthew 7:12).
Is feeding the poor like the biggest school meals programme in Africa “good works”? Definitely. This would certainly “shine before men” the wisdom of God and how the Christians truly love their neighbours as themselves regardless of race and religion. This would also expose incapable or corrupt governments who talk without actions, and silence the ignorance of foolish men.
Is doing “good works” being too passive in social actions? No, because it can be more effective and sustainable in transforming communities without fighting one official who watches over another official, with other higher officials watching over them, within the political system (c.f. Ecclesiastes 5:8).
Is “good works” peaceable wisdom from above (c.f. James 3:17)? Certainly yes, because good works are not divisive, be it in the corridors of power, pews of the church, public relations office of corporations, or slumps of the socially disadvantaged.
All these good works are independent of evil and corrupt rulers because they solely depends on us.
All these good works are set apart from the perverse cultures of the day because they are as distinctive as a lighthouse set on a hill.
All these good works do not require us to disobey “minister of God” or create people movements to engage in culture wars.
All these good works are socioeconomically and socio-politically transforming without antagonism or schism.
All these good works are unequivocally universal in “human rights”, whatever “human rights” may be in any nation.
All these good works will present opportunities in the marketplace and public squares for us to make a defence to everyone who asks us to give an account for the hope that is in us, yet with gentleness and reverence; having a good conscience so that in the things in which we are slandered, those who revile our good behaviour and good works in Christ will be put to shame (c.f. 1 Peter 3:15-16).
Most important of all, through all these good works, all cultures will overcome the great divide and glorify our Father who is in heaven. Amen.
Post Post-Script
I have written book entitled “Renaissance Now: A Thought Leadership on Championing Socioeconomic Change” in 2011 that focused on social entrepreneurship (also known as “good works”) as the engine of change. I have also written another book entitled “Poiēma, God’s Workmanship: Exploring the Faith, Hope & Love of God’s Masterpiece” in 2018 that focused on truths that sanctify unto the standard of the stature which belongs to Christ (also known as “Paul’s strategy to engage and transform societies through sanctifying disciples and churches into the image and stature of the incarnate Christ”).
Hence, like Jesus and Paul, the primary apostolic strategy in the nations is to major on God’s workmanship in the midst of the household of God, and minor on championing social change in societies apart from good works, until the glory of the children of God is revealed to set free the whole creation from its slavery to corruption and perversity (c.f. Romans 8:18-22).
This is a sure-fire way to do the works that Jesus did, and even greater works than those that He did (c.f. John 14:12), to transform cities and nations, just like Paul did in Ephesus.
Related Posts
I strongly recommend that you read the following related posts for better understanding of this topic:
The Culture War of YHVH and Counter-Culture of the Ekklesia
What Holds the Promise for the Present Life and the Life to Come
The Great Reset of the World?
The Two People Groups of a Nation
The “Cyrus” and “Artaxerxes” of the Ekklesia
Back to Bible Study & Devotional Blog
Leave a Reply