Best explanation I've seen in a long time!!!!!You & I would agree that Paul had God's view on this matter, wouldn't we? Well what was Paul's perspective on Onesimus? Philemon 15-17: Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good—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 man and as a brother in the Lord. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.
Frankly, that was also Paul's perspective in Gal 3:28 & Col. 3:11--making no worldly distinction between slave & free as Christians.
So, to sum up Paul's treatment of Onesimus, he...(a) deemed him a worthy recipient of the gospel; and (b) sent him back with the understanding that Philemon would receive him "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."
Also, we don't know if Onesimus was one in the economic bond-servant category or not, do we? Why do I mention that? Well, look at many contemporary Americans who work accumulative years to pay off the debt they owe to credit card companies. Who's the master & who's the slave there? These folks are almost like part-time inmates...slaving away for someone other than their families. How would these contemporaries be much different from someone bonded over for 7 years to pay off an economic debt via labor?
According to your viewpoint, you somehow think that God condones (but doesn't advocate) a man having two masters--God & the credit companies. Why don't you ask a representative number of Christians if they think that's so.
As for a more over-arching viewpoint of God's perspective on slavery, the Bible condemned slave traders (1 Tim. 1:9-11) & kidnapping for slavery (Ex. 21:16); advised against returning escaped slaves (Dt 23:15-16); and advised slaves to gain freedom (Moses & Paul...Paul 1 Cor. 7:21-23).
Now I know there are a few verses where some have thought God "condoned" slavery or was more neutral toward it...see Deut 15; Ex 21; 1 Pet. 2:18; Eph. 6;5-9: Titus 2:9-10; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1)...but again, first of all, many of the "slaves" of the era were "bondservants"--meaning they were paying off an economic debt...would be released after a certain # of yrs. (no credit in those days)...secondly in many households, servants were treated as family members; For these slaves, anyway, that was no comparison to the slave-as-property mentality of American & Muslim slavery. (Certainly other slaves acquired by conquering warriors were nowhere near treated "like family").
My point is that in Biblical times, there were "degrees" of slavery, from temporary bond-servants to those treated like "plunder" captured after a victorious battle. From servants treated like family members to those abused. (Note, too that God didn't rush in to rescue the Israelites from bondage in Egypt...they were there over 400 years...how many generations is that? Did that mean God "condoned" it? No. But how would we know about spiritual debt & spiritual slavery unless He allowed real-life slavery. How would we know about spiritual warfare unless He allowed real warfare? "Allowance" and "condoning" are NOT the same attitudes.)
Thanks for the very informed commentary. I’m impressed. I don’t think we disagree by that much...perhaps only on the definition of “condone” that we’re using and on the role that a “representative group” of Christians should have in defining my faith.
I’m using “condone” in the “make allowances for” sense. I think it’s clear that God realized that slavery was a part of the culture (that some people even chose at one time to sell their daughters into slavery), and that it was necessary to make allowances for the practice by instituting some ordinances, as in Exodus 21.
In any event, you have a good one. And don’t listen too closely to that “representative group” of Christians...
Best explanation I've seen in a long time!!!!!