The Paradox of Freedom

This year, as the United States of America celebrates her 250th anniversary as an independent nation, citizens of this country are especially mindful of the freedoms and opportunities we enjoy that are unavailable to so many around the world. Since the 4th of July 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence has affirmed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

From a Christian perspective, regardless of where on planet earth we live, “our citizenship exists in heaven, from which also we are awaiting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20).¹ The readership to whom Paul originally wrote these words was comprised of Roman citizens living in a Roman colony where freedom was highly valued (Acts 16:12, 21). Paul himself was a Roman citizen with all the rights and privileges this afforded (Acts 22:25-28; 1 Cor. 9:1, 19a), although at the time of writing he was incarcerated, “in chains” (Phil. 1:7-17). Moreover, in the opening address he describes himself, along with his coworker Timothy, as “slaves” of Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:1), elsewhere self-identifying as the Lord’s “prisoner” (Eph. 3:1; Philem. 1, 9).

Citizens of God’s heavenly kingdom have certain unalienable rights and liberties unlike anything earthly governments might offer or attempt to take away. The concept of “freedom” has a whole new meaning when viewed through the lens of God’s inspired word.²

The New Testament World

Christianity entered a world where slavery was already a long-established societal norm and regarded as an economic necessity. It is estimated that one in five of the Roman Empire’s population and one in three of Italy’s population were slaves.³ Throughout the vast Mediterranean regions of the first century, Christian communities included slaves, ex-slaves, and slave owners (1 Cor. 7:17-24; 12:13; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22–4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Tit. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-21). Even so, these conventional status rankings were broken down and leveled out in Christ (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).⁴ Irrespective of ethnic and social distinctions, a new relationship is created within God’s family (Philem. 10-16), where all are equally subservient (Rom. 6:18; 1 Cor. 7:22; Gal. 5:13) and all are equally free (Gal. 5:1, 13).

Jesus the Great Emancipator

Addressing a mixed crowd of Jewish believers and nonbelievers, Jesus promised: “If you abide in my word, truly you are my disciples. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free .... if therefore the Son has set you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:31-32, 36). The Lord was speaking to subjugated Jewish people whose homeland was occupied by pagan Roman oppressors, but a much greater adversary was enslaving them in the bondage of sin (vv. 23-24, 34, 41, 44). The deliverance Jesus offers is by far the most pressing need.

The irony is that Jesus, our great emancipator whose example we are called to follow, did not come to this earth to be served but to serve and to liberate sinners through his life and sacrificial death (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). In emptying himself to join the ranks of humanity, he took on the role of a humble “slave” [δοῦλος] (Phil. 2:5).

Paul to the Galatians

“For the freedom Christ freed us; stand firm therefore and do not be entangled again with a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). When Paul speaks of “the freedom” (article [τῇ] appended), he is specifically referencing what is discussed throughout his letter to the Galatians, namely freedom from “the present evil age” (1:4) and the shackles of sin (2:17-20; 3:22), as well as the burdens of the old-covenant system of Judaism (2:4, 16; 3:13, 21-25; 4:1-7, 21-31). And how is this freedom to be utilized? “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use the freedom for an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve [as slaves] one another” (Gal. 5:13).

Paul to the Corinthians

The mid-first-century church at Corinth was comprised of slave members and members who were legally free (1 Cor. 7:21-24; 12:13). Even though Paul was counted among the freemen (9:1, 19), he willingly lowered himself to a virtual “slave” to win others to Christ (9:19b). He calls upon the Corinthians to follow his example as he follows Christ’s example (4:6; 11:1), involving self-denial (13:5b) and sacrificing perceived “rights” for the benefit of others (8:9–9:18; 10:24, 32-33). A literal slave who is in the Lord is spiritually free, while all who submit to Jesus as Lord are his willing slaves (7:22).

Paul to the Romans

Paul’s letter to the saints at Rome continues the familiar analogy of slavery in the Roman world to illustrate profound spiritual truths. In fact, the letter opens with Paul professing to be “a slave of Christ Jesus” (1:1). Chapter 6 begins with the rhetorical question, “Are we to continue in sin …?” (v. 1), followed by an emphasis on freedom. When the question is repeated, “Are we to sin …?” (v. 15), it is followed by an emphasis on servitude.

A penitent believer “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3) transitions from having been “enslaved to sin” to being “set free from sin” (vv. 6-7).⁵ Obedience to the gospel in this reenacting of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection renders one no longer “dead” in sin but “alive to God in Christ Jesus” (v. 11) to “walk in newness of life” (v. 4). Submitting to Jesus as “Lord” means that sin ceases to reign as lord and master. God’s grace defeats and replaces sin’s dominion. To be “under grace” (vv. 14-15) is not a license to sin (vv. 1-2) but provides motivation and discipline to live according to the right ways of God, free from the mastery of sin.

Baptized believers in Christ are now committed to righteousness (6:15-23). If the intention of the old Mosaic law was to direct people to live consistently with the divine will, and if “we are not under the law,” are we then left with no standard of morality so that sin is reinvigorated? “By no means!” (v. 15). Freedom from sin is not freedom to sin, which would otherwise be a total misconception of freedom “under grace” apart from the law. Although Christians are liberated from the old Jewish system as a means of justification (cf. 7:1-6), it is entirely untrue that there are no obligations to God’s will under grace. Humble obedience is inextricably linked to faith as a fundamental requisite within the new-covenant system of grace (cf. 1:5; 16:26).

To “present yourselves … as obedient slaves” (6:16a) is an intentional choosing of loyalty and service. The critical decision is between “sin unto death” or “obedience unto righteousness” (v. 16b). Paul is thankful to God that the Romans have chosen the latter, involving the “standard,” “pattern,” “model” [τύπος] of “teaching” [διδαχή] (v. 17), the body of doctrine mutually accepted and followed by first-century churches of Christ: “the doctrine [διδαχή] that you have been taught …” (16:16-17). It is this pattern of instruction “to which you were committed” (ESV), “delivered” (ASV, KJV, NKJV), “handed over” (CSB), “entrusted” (ISV, NASB2020, NRSV) that “has now claimed your allegiance” (NIV).

Obedient faith emanates from the “heart” [καρδία]—the physical, mental, and spiritual core and impetus of action—necessary for “having been set free from sin” and to “have become slaves of righteousness.” In the past the Romans had given themselves over to “impurity” and increasing “lawlessness” but have now changed masters to “righteousness” [δικαιοσύνη] unto “sanctification” [ἁγιασμός] (6:19). The noun “sanctification,” used in Romans only here and in v. 22 (with its verb form [ἁγιάζω] in 15:16), refers to the process of making or becoming holy, set apart for God’s purpose and separated (in thinking, priorities, behavior) from the sinful world.⁶

As former “slaves of sin,” so-called “freedom” was essentially the rejection of righteousness, when sin was the master rather than the righteous ways of God (6:20). Fortunately, the Roman saints are “now ashamed” of their past unrighteousness that produced only “death” (cf. 5:12–6:16), something earned and thus deserved as “wages” (6:23a). Now, having been “set free from sin,” they have committed themselves as “slaves to God” producing the fruit of “sanctification,” a new and holy way of life, “and its end, life everlasting,” something unearned and undeserved as “the gracious gift of God ... in Christ Jesus our Lord” (vv. 22-23).

Due to this God-given freedom in Christ, “we serve [as slaves] in newness of spirit ...” (7:6) and are amenable to the exhortation: “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love, in honor esteeming one another, not slacking in diligence, being fervent in spirit, serving [as slaves] the Lord” (12:10-11).

Further Exhortations

Hebrews affirms freedom from sin (1:3) and freedom from the devil’s power of fear and death (2:14-15). James speaks of the guidance and blessing of “the perfect law of liberty” by which we are mercifully judged (Jas. 1:25; 2:12-13). Peter declares as God’s will that we are to utilize our freedom, not to hide evil but to do good and live our lives as slaves of God (1 Pet. 2:15-16). He further warns Christians, who have been freed from those living in error and the pollutions of the world, of false teachers promising liberty, while they are themselves slaves of corruption alluring God’s liberated ones back into bondage (2 Pet. 2:18-20).

Conclusion

We are accountable for our own decisions and actions, as God allows us freedom to choose.⁷ He calls us to exercise our freedom responsibly by rendering ourselves completely to his will, which is far superior to our own. He offers freedom from ourselves and from the master of sin, so we may wholeheartedly and freely obey him. We are thus delivered from sin’s control and at liberty to obey God in humble service within the glorious realm of his righteousness.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The relevant Greek terms for this study include the following: (a) the adjective ἐλεύθερος (“free”) in Matt. 17:26; John 8:33, 36; Rom. 6:20; 7:3;1 Cor. 7:21, 22, 39; 9:1; 12:13; Gal. 3:28; 4:22-31; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:16; Rev. 6:15; 13:16; 19:18; (b) the noun ἐλευθερία (“freedom”) in Rom. 8:21; 1 Cor. 10:29; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 2:4; 5:1, 13[x2]; Jas. 1:25; 2:12; 1 Pet. 2:16; 2 Pet. 2:19; (c) the noun ἐξουσία (in the sense of “right,” “liberty,” “freedom”) in 1 Cor. 7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12[x2], 18; 11:10; 15:24; 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; 2 Thess. 3:9; and the verb ἐλευθερόω (“set free”) in John 8:32, 36; Rom. 6:18, 22; 8:2, 21; Gal. 5:1.

     ³ Mark Cartwright, “Slavery in the Roman World,” Ancient History Encyclopedia (1 Nov. 2013), <Link>. During the first century AD approximately 16-20 percent were reportedly slaves within a population of about 60 million (W. V. Harris, “Towards a Study of the Roman Slave Trade,” MAAR 36 [1980]:117-40); some estimates are as high as 33-40 percent (Keith R. Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome [Cambridge: University Press, 2014] 33).

     ⁴ The NT does not enjoin, endorse, or condone slavery but simply gives regulatory instructions within the existing social structure. The principles of Christianity would mitigate the harshness of slavery and eventually lead to its demise. See K. L. Moore, “Households and Slavery,” Moore Perspective (24 July 2019), <Link>.

     ⁵ The verbal expression “[he] has been set free” is translated from δεδικαίωται (the perfect passive indicative form of δικαιόω, to “justify”), a primary emphasis in Romans. Thus, to be “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) clearly involves an obedient faith-response inclusive of baptism.

     ⁶ Cognate with the adjectival ἅγιος (“holy,” “set apart”), as well as ἁγιωσύνη (“holiness”) and ἅγιοι (“saints”) (Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25, 26, 31; 16:2, 15).

     ⁷ Freedom without choice is a logical impossibility. A loving God gives us free will and instructions for making the right decisions (2 Tim. 3:16-17), desiring all to be saved and none to perish (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9).

Related Posts: Free from Sin

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?q=bird+flying+out+of+cage&sca_esv=e0b0fddfa598641b&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS780US780&udm=2&biw=1405&bih=716&sxsrf=APpeQnv-QFWhBPe-hPzej4aE5sLj3BVR_g%3A1783101674406&ei=6vhHapOwGLfQp84P-7HxsQE&oq=bird+flying+out+o&gs_lp=Egtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZyIRYmlyZCBmbHlpbmcgb3V0IG8qAggAMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEiLMlCgCljdHnABeACQAQCYAWGgAeYKqgECMTe4AQHIAQD4AQGYAhKgAucLwgIQEAAYgAQYigUYQxixAxiDAcICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgcQIxjJAhgnwgIKEAAYgAQYigUYQ8ICDRAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsQOYAwCIBgGSBwQxNy4xoAfsV7IHBDE2LjG4B9oLwgcGMi0xNy4xyAdagAgB&sclient=gws-wiz-img#sv=CAMSURoyKhBlLXpjMkZDSGxwNFBIUVhNMg56YzJGQ0hscDRQSFFYTToOaDlhVXdQTmRGc3YzZ00gBCoXCgFzEhBlLXpjMkZDSGxwNFBIUVhNGAEwARgHIO_6h_YDSggQARgBIAEoAQ

The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 5): Households and Slavery

Households

In the New Testament we read about the households of a nobleman of Cana (John 4:53), Cornelius (Acts 10:2; 11:14), Lydia (Acts 16:15), the jailer at Philippi (Acts 16:31-34), Crispus (Acts 18:8), Aristobulus (Rom. 16:10), Narcissus (Rom. 16:11), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15-17), Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19), and even Caesar (Phil. 4:22). Specific instructions are given for Christian households,¹ a number of which would have formed the nucleus of local congregations.

In the ancient Mediterranean world a “household” [oîkos] “was essentially a patriarchal institution, with other members of the household, not least wives, children, and slaves, subject to the authority of its male head” (J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul 591 n. 128). This generalized description, however, does not consider households (without a male head) managed by women (e.g. Acts 12:12; 16:14-15; cf. Rom. 16:1-2; 1 Cor. 1:11). Certain household communities would have also included “not only immediate relatives but also slaves, freedmen, hired workers, and sometimes tenants and partners in trade or craft” (W. A. Meeks, First Urban Christians 75-76). 

Slavery

Christianity entered a world where slavery was already an established element of society and regarded as an economic necessity, though not necessarily comparable to the harsher forms in other times and societies. It has been estimated that 1 in 5 of the Empire’s population and 1 in 3 of Italy’s population were slaves.² The condition of slavery was the result of prisoners of war, criminal conviction, debt, abandoned children, or birth to a slave mother. A more sinister means involved the so-called  andrapodistēs (1 Tim. 1:10), i.e., enslaver, slave-dealer, kidnapper, or one who steals and sells another’s slaves.

Different kinds of slavery co-existed, and one must be careful not to make sweeping generalizations. Ethnicity and race were not determinative factors.³ Domestic house slaves were much better off than those (usually condemned criminals) working in the fields or mines. Educated slaves were valued. A slave middle class consisted of skilled craftsmen, secretaries, educators, and medical practitioners. Slaves could earn and save money and own property. Influential positions held by a number of slaves afforded benefits and power over free persons of lower social standing.⁴

M. Barth and H. Blanke observe: “The dividing line between slaves and free persons was not always sharply drawn or easily recognized …. Often a reasonably rich man’s slave was better off than a poor citizen in possession of all civil rights …. Among ancient slaves there were highly intelligent and well-trained people who did qualified work and had — especially in Paul’s day — a fair chance of being eventually manumitted and/or of marrying into the owner’s or another free person’s family …. in many respects an ancient slave’s treatment was better and his life conditions more secure than those of a nineteenth-century factory worker” (Letter to Philemon 3-4).

Being a Roman slave was not necessarily a permanent plight, as indicated by the plethoric former slaves throughout the Empire. Antonius Felix, procurator of Judea (Acts 23:26–24:27), was a freed slave (cf. Tacitus, Histories 5.9). In Jerusalem there was a “synagogue of freedmen” (Acts 6:9), apparently founded by Jewish ex-slaves. However, manumission was no guarantee that one’s social and economic circumstances would improve, and in many cases would have resulted in destitution. Depending on the wealth, status, and temperament of the owner, emancipation might not be the desirable option.

The New Testament does not enjoin, endorse, or condone slavery but simply gives regulatory instructions within the existing social structure. In his letter to Philemon (a Christian slave-owner), Paul urges a new relationship between Philemon and Onesimus but stops short of demanding emancipation. Elsewhere Paul encourages Christian slaves who could legally obtain freedom to take advantage of this opportunity, but otherwise their situation in life was to be accepted and used to the glory of God (1 Cor. 7:17-24). A Christian slave was still free in Christ (cf. Gal. 5:1), just as a free Christian was Christ’s slave (1 Cor. 7:22). Even though Paul taught compliance for slaves and fairness for masters (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22–4:1), the principles of Christianity were to mitigate the harshness of slavery and eventually lead to its demise.⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Tim. 3:4; 5:4, 8; 6:1-2; Tit. 2:1-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-20; 3:1-7. 

     ² M. Cartwright, “Slavery in the Roman World,” Ancient History Encyclopedia (1 Nov. 2013), <Web>. During the 1st century approximately 16-20 percent were reportedly slaves within a population of about 60 million (W. V. Harris, “Towards a Study of the Roman Slave Trade” MAAR 36:117-40); some estimates are as high as 33-40 percent (K. R. Bradley, Slavery and Society 33). 

     ³ “Many of these slaves were natives of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Later, as the Roman Empire expanded westward, the peoples of Britain, Germany, and Gaul (modern-day France) became new sources for slave labor” (R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 93-94).

     ⁴ S. S. Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery,” in The World of the NT [eds. J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald] 172-73.

     ⁵ Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Tit. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-21. When a 1st-century slave owner obeyed the gospel, the master-slave relationship was turned on its head. He was taught to treat his slaves like he wished to be treated (Matt. 7:12), to love them as himself (Matt. 22:39), to put their interests before his own (Phil. 2:3-4), and instead of threatening, to serve them out of respect for Christ (Eph. 6:9). “Slavery is turned upside down, so that the master becomes the servant of his servant…. The gospel changed a master and a slave into family and that is one of the miracles of Christianity” (W. McAdams, “Does the Bible Condone Slavery?” Radically Christian [6 Sept. 2017], <Web>). See also B. M. Metzger, The New Testament: Background, Growth, Content (3rd ed.) 268-69.

Related Posts: Paul's Letter to Philemon, Sociocultural Context Part 1: Introduction, Part 4: Individualism vs Collectivism, Part 6: House Churches, Part 7: Hospitality

Related Articles: Kyle Butt, The Bible and Slavery

Image credit: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=36658

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 3 of 3

Relevant Scriptures continued:

9. 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. Paul responds to a letter the Corinthians had written, asking for his advice on various matters including marriage (v. 1). He states in v. 2 that marriage is to be monogamous, between a man and a woman; sexual relations are confined to the marriage relationship, and sexual activity in any other context constitutes immorality. He further affirms that the marriage bond is for life (v. 39). “Now to the married…” (vv. 10-11) is in contrast to the unmarried (v. 8), applicable to the general state of marriage.¹ Paul can give an apostolic directive (paraggéllō) because the Lord himself gave general marriage instruction during his earthly ministry (see Part 2). A wife is not to chōrízō = “depart from” (NKJ), “separate from” (RSV) or “leave” (NAS) her husband (v. 10b). This could be synonymous with divorce,² as the separated state is described as “unmarried” (v. 11). The parallel admonition to the husband is to not “send away” or “divorce” (aphíēmi) his wife (v. 11), while “abandon” is also a possible nuance (cf. Mark 14:50). “But even if she does depart” (i.e. ignore the injunction) or ‘if she is separated’ (i.e. already in this state), there are only two scriptural options: (a) remain unmarried, or (b) be reconciled to her husband (v. 11, cf. v. 39). The husband likewise is not to “send away” or “divorce” or “abandon” his wife (v. 11c).

     “But to the rest [loipós, cf. 11:34],” i.e. the rest of the situations the Corinthians were asking about, viz. specific cases of believers married to unbelievers (vv. 12-16). “I, not the Lord, say…” Jesus did not specifically address religiously-mixed marriages, about which the Corinthians had particular concern, so Paul does. They had misunderstood Paul’s teaching about not associating with immoral people (5:9-10), so some were probably wondering if a Christian married to a non-Christian should get out of this marriage; after all, the Law of Moses forbad religiously-mixed marriages (Ex. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1-4). Paul says that a Christian is not to “divorce” or “abandon” (aphíēmi) an unbelieving spouse, assuming the unbeliever is willing to remain in the marriage (vv. 12-14). The unbeliever is ‘sanctified’ by his/her spouse (in the context of the marriage), i.e. the unbeliever is set apart from other worldly persons (e.g. fornicators) by the simple fact that he/she is married and is thus not committing immorality in this relationship (v. 14a). Paul gives reassurance that this union is sanctioned by God by the simple fact that your children are ‘clean,’ ‘holy,’ i.e. not illegitimate or born out of wedlock (v. 14b).

     “But if the unbeliever departs” (NKJ) or “leaves” (NAS, NIV) or “separates” (ESV) [chōrízō, cf. vv. 10, 11] (vv. 15-16), let him go, assuming that he is taking the initiative and is determined to leave (cf. vv. 10-13); “the brother or the sister is not [ou] under bondage³ [dedoúlōtai, from doulóō = to ‘enslave’] in such [cases/matters]”; “In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved …” (ESV). The word doulóō occurs 133 times in the NT and is never used with reference to the marriage bond; it refers to the bondage of slavery (cf. v. 23). The word for marriage bond, used twice in this chapter (vv. 27, 39), is déō (cf. Rom. 7:2). The perfect tense of ou dedoúlōtai conveys the sense of a past action with continuing results = the brother or sister ‘stands in a position of not having been enslaved,’ i.e., he/she is not now nor has he/she ever been in the bondage of slavery (to this spouse).

     This verse does not say that a deserted Christian spouse is automatically loosed from the marriage bond and is therefore free to marry someone else. This common misinterpretation is known as “the Pauline privilege,” i.e., Paul supposedly gives an additional reason, to what Jesus had specified (Matt. 5:32; 19:9), for the acceptable dissolution of marriage. But this is incompatible with the following: (a) remarriage is never considered in this chapter except in the case of a widow (vv. 8-9, 39); (b) if Paul is giving another exception, he is at variance with Jesus; (c) Paul never says the marriage bond is dissolved (N.B. v. 39, “a wife is bound [déō] by law as long as her husband lives”); (d) the divine rule for marriage is no severance at all, but if it happens anyway the only scriptural options are to remain unmarried or be reconciled (vv. 10-11); (e) the perfect tense of ou dedoúlōtai shows that enslavement to the spouse is a state the abandoned Christian has never been in; but this person has been married, therefore ou dedoúlōtai cannot be a reference to the termination of the marriage bond.

     This verse does say that a Christian who is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse is not enslaved as in a master-slave relationship; i.e. you are not obligated to keep your spouse from leaving no matter what the cost. “But God has called us/you to peace” = the Christian is to gracefully accept his/her situation even if he/she has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse (cf. Rom. 12:18). ‘How do you know whether you will save your spouse?’ (v. 16). In view of v. 15, Paul may be suggesting here that instead of trying to force an unbelieving spouse to stay with you, it is better to keep the peace by letting him/her leave, since it is unlikely that you will save him/her. In view of vv. 12-14, Paul may be suggesting here that if possible one should stay with an unbelieving spouse in the hopes of saving him/her (cf. Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 3:1), but v. 15 shows that it is not always possible. This could be a double nuance, to be applied to whatever situation is relevant.

Concluding Statement:

     If for sexual infidelity, divorce is a divinely-granted dissolution of marital obligations for the one who has been cheated on, thus freeing him/her to marry another eligible person. On the other hand, divorce is a human innovation if for any reason other than sexual unfaithfulness; it is void of divine sanction and therefore terminates none of the marital responsibilities of either husband or wife.⁴ The sexual sin of adultery is therefore committed when one so divorced enters into a marital union with someone else.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Because of what follows, many commentators try to limit this instruction to a marriage in which both partners are Christians. However, to reach that conclusion one must read further down in the text, draw this conclusion, then go back to vv. 10-11 and make that application (no doubt very confusing to those who first heard this passage publicly read!). Since it would be more natural for a writer to specify a particular type of marriage if that were his point (as in vv. 12 ff.), the general phrase “to the married” is most obviously inclusive of all marriages.

     ² In Mark’s account of the Lord’s teaching, the woman as well as the man may initiate the divorce (10:11-12), which is consistent with Roman law. At Corinth some may have been considering divorcing their spouses in order to live a celibate life.

     ³ Or “bound” (NIV, N/RSV, REB), “under no compulsion” (NEB) or “obligation” (McCord).

     ⁴ Edwin S. Jones, “The Biblical Definition of Divorce,” in Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, ed. Jim Laws (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1992): 254-67.

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 2, Preventing Divorce, Premarital Decisions About Non-optional Matters 

Related articles: Patrick Swayne, Did Paul Provide Grounds for Divorce?

Image credit: http://www.mccartylawoffices.net/sites/default/files/pictures/FamilyLawDivorce.jpg

Paul’s Letter to Philemon

     The letter to Philemon is the shortest of Paul’s extant documents, consisting of merely 334 words (comparable in size to an average Greco-Roman letter). It is the most personal of the Pauline writings, addressed to “Philemon the beloved and our fellow worker” (v. 1).¹ While the address also includes, “to Apphia the sister, and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the assembly in your house” (v. 2), it is written almost entirely in the second person singular (“you”) form of address and thus directed to Philemon alone. It is commonly believed that Apphia was Philemon’s wife and that Archippus may have been their adult son. Philemon appears to have been a relatively affluent Christian, as he owned a house large enough to accommodate congregational meetings and was also a slave owner.

     Except among the most liberal scholars, Pauline authorship is not seriously questioned and the letter is counted among his undisputed writings. Even though Timothy is also named in the prescript (v. 1), the forty-two first person singulars with which the document is written distinguishes Paul as the sole author (note v. 19), leaving no room for Timothy in the letter’s composition, unless, of course, he served as amanuensis.²

     The Philemon epistle was composed while Paul was incarcerated (vv. 1, 9, 10, 13, 23), likely during the two years he was confined to house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:16-31). A comparable timeframe with Colossians is presupposed by the close relationship between the two documents. In both letters Timothy is named as co-sender, while reference is also made to Epaphras, Archippus and Onesimus (Col. 1:7; 4:9, 17; Philm. 2, 10, 23). In both letters Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke are included as the apostle’s immediate companions (Col. 4:10, 14; Philm. 24).

     Since Paul was expecting potential release in Philm. 22, with no indication of such in Colossians, the Philemon epistle was probably drafted in early 62 after Colossians. In Colossians, Paul's appeal for prayers involved a petition for evangelistic opportunities in view of his "chains" (Col. 3:3), whereas in Philemon the prayer request included his anticipated release. Paul’s letter to Philemon would have been sent to the city of Colosse, seeing that Epaphras was associated with the Colosse church (Col. 1:7; 4:12) and acquainted with Philemon (Philm. 23), and Onesimus was Philemon’s slave (Philm. 15-16) and a resident of Colosse (Col. 4:9).

     The traditional view is that Onesimus was a runaway slave who encountered Paul in Rome (cf. W. Barclay, Letters to Timothy, Titus, Philemon 269-76). But it has also been suggested that Onesimus may have already known Paul and sought him out for help after having gotten into trouble with his master (cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Colossians and Philemon 301-304). An alternative proposal is that Onesimus was the messenger of Philemon’s house church who delivered financial aid to the imprisoned apostle and overstayed his visit (cf. S. C. Winter, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon” NTSup 33 [1987]: 1-15).

     According to recent studies of ancient Roman slavery law, it “was a legally recognized practice for a slave who had incurred his or her master’s wrath to flee to one of the master’s trusted associates to plea for his intervention and protection. The associate then served as a kind of official mediator, who would try to smooth out differences that had arisen through misunderstanding or even malfeasance” (B. D. Ehrman, The NT: Historical Introduction 353-54). It is interesting that in the opening of this epistle Paul does not describe himself as a doulos (“slave”) of Christ (as in Philippians 1:1), perhaps because of the sensitive issue he is addressing.

     Slavery in the Greco-Roman world was practically viewed as an economic necessity, incomparable to the harsher forms in other times and societies. Different kinds of slavery co-existed, and one must be careful not to make presumptuous generalizations. The domestic house slaves were much better off than those working in the fields or mines. A slave middle class consisted of skilled craftsmen, secretaries, educators, and medical practitioners.³

     The apostle urges a new relationship between Philemon and Onesimus, but he stops short of demanding emancipation. Elsewhere Paul encourages Christian slaves who could legally obtain freedom to take advantage of this opportunity, but otherwise their situation in life was to be accepted and used to the glory of God (1 Cor. 7:17-24). A Christian slave was still free in Christ (cf. Gal. 5:1), just as a free Christian was Christ’s slave (1 Cor. 7:22). Paul taught obedience for slaves and fairness for masters (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22–4:1). Nevertheless, the principles of Christianity (cf. Gal. 3:28) were to mitigate the harshness of slavery and would eventually lead to its demise.

     Within this brief epistle to Philemon the providential working of God is clearly evident, even though the details cannot be identified specifically (v. 15). We are thus reminded that God’s will is going to be accomplished despite our human shortsightedness and our clumsy, ignorant, fallible ways. The gospel molded an unprofitable slave into a useful, trustworthy servant (vv. 11-13), and the divine message and its transforming power remain unchanged. If brotherhood can be fostered between an irresponsible slave and his frustrated master (vv. 15-16), imagine how Christ can impact any of our less-than-ideal relationships.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ All scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² Perhaps Timothy was brought into the picture to add support to what Paul was about to say, while Apphia and Archippus may have been included in the address as a subtle way of pressuring Philemon to comply with Paul’s request (J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer 53). Timothy was from that general vicinity and could have been acquainted with Philemon.

     ³ Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke observe: “The dividing line between slaves and free persons was not always sharply drawn or easily recognized …. Often a reasonably rich man’s slave was better off than a poor citizen in possession of all civil rights …. Among ancient slaves there were highly intelligent and well-trained people who did qualified work and had – especially in Paul’s day – a fair chance of being eventually manumitted and/or of marrying into the owner’s or another free person’s family …. in many respects an ancient slave’s treatment was better and his life conditions more secure than those of a nineteenth-century factory worker” (The Letter to Philemon 3-4).

Related Posts: Paul's Prison Epistles, Colossians Part 1, NT Context: Households & Slavery

Image credit: https://revonator.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/philemon1.jpg