Are slaves allowed to revolt? In Ephesians 6:5-9, we read about how slaves should be submissive to their masters and serve them as if they were serving the Lord. How should we interpret that? Does that still apply today, or was that highly related to the social context? For example, take the slaves that were trying to escape from abusive masters, in America, before the abolition of slavery. Were they sinning? Should they have endured the whip and long days of work hoping to convert their masters by their good example? How should we approach that question? -- Richard Poulin (Montreal)
The consistent teaching of the N.T. is that we are not to oppose evil with evil. (For example, see Paul's exhortation in Romans 12.) Accordingly, slave revolts--if this means violence--would be difficult to justify. Even Moses' leading the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt in the Exodus was not a true revolt: the Lord personally and directly opposed the Egyptians; the slaves did not commit acts of violence themselves.
Now revolt is one thing, escape is another! Moreover, Paul told slaves in 1 Corinthians 7 to gain their freedom if they could. (Presumably not through revolt, possibly not even by escaping.) Further, the O.T. taught that a runaway was not to be returned to his master (Deuteronomy 23:15). That is because God has a heart for the oppressed. The Lord does not desire that anyone remain in slavery. The Bible has strong words of condemnation for slave traders (look up the verses!). Jesus taught that when persecuted, we should flee. In other words, it is not always right to remain in the abusive situation. But that is a far cry from violence, murder, and "payback." Hoping for freedom--whatever our situation or limitations--is a good thing. Revolt--taking the law into our own hands--is not.
This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only. © 2004. Reprints or public distribution is prohibited without the express consent of Douglas Jacoby.
