Accepting what the Bible teaches on slavery does not mean condoning slavery as it was once practiced in America. Some, such as William Lloyd Garrison, assumed that it did and rejected the Bible altogether. Others didn’t go that far but did begin to regard their conscience as a more reliable guide to morality than the Bible. In other words, they adopted the cafeteria approach to the Bible. The misunderstandings of that era were a significant factor in America’s transition to a more secular society.

Decades ago, I got into a discussion with a lady who believed that women should be ordained as ministers. I told her that the Bible clearly prohibits women from being ordained as ministers. To my surprise, she conceded that this was indeed what the Bible says, but then she confidently asserted that the Bible was wrong about women ministers. She mentioned some other things that she claimed the Bible to be mistaken about, and one of these was slavery. She argued that if the Bible was wrong on these things, then the Bible could also be wrong on women in the ministry. She must have thought that the Bible’s message had been distorted by an outdated patriarchy, and that she as a modern woman was more enlightened than the Bible about the place of women in society.

This lady was advocating what some call a cafeteria approach to the Bible. When you eat in a cafeteria with a buffet, you take what you want and you leave the rest. That is the way that this lady was approaching the Bible. She accepted what she already agreed with, and she rejected what she disagreed with. A problem with that approach is that if one accepts only the statements in the Bible that he already agrees with, then he can’t go to the Bible to find out where he is mistaken. If one accepts only the statements in that Bible that he already agrees with, then the Bible is no longer profitable to him for reproof and correction. According to the cafeteria approach to the Bible, wherever the Bible contradicts a person’s sophisticated beliefs and modern practices, then the Bible must be in error and not the person. The Bible is no longer that person’s final authority. That person has become his own final authority.

Back when I had this conversation with this lady, the liberal’s cutting edge issue was ordaining women ministers. That was a long time ago. The liberal’s cutting edge issue today is ordaining practicing homosexuals. The liberal’s cutting edge issue has become significantly more radical, but the argument is the same. If the Bible is wrong on slavery, then it can be wrong on homosexuality as well. If our society continues its rebellion against God, we can only guess what the liberal’s next cutting edge issue will be. Yet the argument will be the same. If the Bible is wrong on slavery, then it can be wrong on the next issue down the road of rebellion as well, regardless of how extreme that next issue might appear to many today. Many Christians today have difficulty responding to this argument because they do not know what the Bible does and does not teach on slavery.

In the New Testament, the Apostles Peter and Paul gave some guidance to Christian slaves (1 Corinthians 7:21-23; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-3; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-21). The Apostle Peter’s guidance was for Christian slaves who were enduring hardships under pagan masters. The Apostle Paul also gave some guidance to Christian masters in three of his later prison epistles (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1; Philemon). These texts gave guidance to Christians without condoning everything associated with slavery in the pagan Greek and Roman cultures of that day.

The Apostles Peter and Paul also supported the concept of the family. That doesn’t mean that the Apostles Peter and Paul condoned everything associated with the family in the pagan Greek and Roman cultures of that day. In the pagan Roman culture of that day, the father had the power of life and death over his children. When a child was born, the father could recognize the child and allow it to live. Or the father could decree that the newborn child must die by exposure. In the pagan Roman culture of that day, the standard for marital fidelity was much looser for the husband than for the wife. The husband could take significantly sinful liberties that were forbidden to the wife. When the New Testament gave guidance on family life, the New Testament wasn’t condoning every pagan Roman family custom of that time. There was much about the pagan Roman concept of the family which the Apostles Peter and Paul and other early Christians rejected as morally wrong.

We should similarly interpret the New Testament’s statements about Christian slaves and masters. There was much about the pagan Greek and Roman concepts of slavery which the Apostles Peter and Paul and other early Christians rejected as morally wrong. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle taught the concept of the natural slave. Some later Greek and Roman writers developed this concept into a more complete theory. In this theory, “[t]he natural slave is a deficient ‘anthropos,’ a human subspecies assimilated to irrational beasts requiring taming and domestication.” A common Greek word for the slave was simply the Greek word for “body.” The ancient pagan Greeks regarded the slave as simply a physical body under his master’s control, as simply an animated tool much like a domesticated animal. Some ancient Romans did have a higher view of the slave’s mental ability than the ancient Greeks. The ideal Roman slave was expected to anticipate his master’s desires and to perform his master’s will without needing to be micro-managed (location 304ff, Slaves in the New Testament, J. Albert Harrill). In both ancient Greek and ancient Roman society, slaves were routinely exploited and abused sexually (location 514, From Shame to Sin, Kyle Harper). The ancient pagan Greeks and Romans had a low view of the slave’s humanity.

This low view of the slave’s humanity was at the heart of pagan Greek and Roman slavery.

Read More