Slavery argument and immoral homosexuality
“Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house” (Phile. 1–2).
- Philemon 1-3
The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd refers to New Testament slavery as outdated, wrong and socially incorrect then likens our current rejection of homosexual marriage and homosexuality the same, namely wrong. Rudd's logic is because the Apostle Paul got it wrong on slavery and we have moved on, then he also got it wrong on homosexuality.
But is Rudd correct on the slavery argument? As this is a standard homosexual advocates argument why has he chosen t o use it? Is it true?
Kevin Rudd is referring to the Prison Epistles is the letter to Philemon, which is the shortest of all of Paul’s letters in the New Testament. It comprises only 335 words in the original Greek, and, along with the epistles to Timothy and Titus, it is one of the apostle’s few letters to individuals.
Actually, to call Philemon a personal letter rather than a letter to a church is not exactly accurate, for verses 1–2 show that Paul intended Apphia, Archippus, and the church meeting in Philemon’s house to read this epistle as well. It is possible that Apphia was Philemon’s wife and Archippus was his son, but we do not know enough about Philemon to be sure.
Philemon is an interesting letter because it is difficult to identify the circumstances that prompted Paul to write it, and because it also has as its background the subject of slavery. On the one hand, we can deduce that Paul wrote to Philemon because he had met Philemon’s runaway slave, Onesimus, led him to Christ, and wanted to help Philemon and Onesimus be reconciled (vv. 8–22).
On the other hand, we do not know why Onesimus ran away. He likely wronged Philemon somehow (v. 18), but did he steal something from his master? Since many first-century slaves were the stewards of household finances, could it be that Onesimus made a big mistake in managing Philemon’s money and feared the repercussions? Did some other dispute arise between the two men with the result that Onesimus, having heard of Philemon and Paul’s friendship (v. 7), ran off to seek Paul’s help as a mediator? There is little in the epistle itself to allow us to decide between these possibilities.
And then there is the issue of slavery itself. Why does Paul not directly command Philemon to set Onesimus free?
The short answer is although the word slave is used it is more like a work contract, where debts could be paid off, slavery was like workplaces and banks combined today, and can never be compared to slavery in the USA in the last century. The inference is incorrect. This was their method of dealing with debtors, prisoners of war where they were required to work for a period then released.
If we were to take Rudd's argument at face value, in that Australia has moved on regarding slavery in particular slavery like in the 1800 of the USA, then Asylum seekers on Manus Island would fulfill that criteria that Rudd has initiated.
Paul's focus is reconciliation to God and with each other in Christ. His focus was not on the social order as their focus was the gospel, the culture run by the Romans was dominated by slavery and their focus was primary the gospel. The gospel itself and its view on how to treat your brother would eventually challenge slavery as a do rm of debt reduction. It would be challenged and eliminated
Kevin's Rudd's argument is false and he is actually parroting the Metropolitan Gay Community Church.
