|
Slavery, Humanism, & the Bible
Selections from Lehre und
Wehre
By C.F.W. Walther
Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores
The following selections were from several issues of
Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense), published in 1863. They have been pieced
together from the various issues of the magazine for ease in reading.
Citations for the source documents appear after the endnotes.
Some introductory comments about this article may be
found in an article about church polity by Rev. Jack Cascione.
Foreword
The Old Lutheran Scholars About Slavery
A Later Lutheran Theologian About Slavery
Foreword.
It is an irrefutable fact that humanism has not only supplanted
Christianity among a large part of the current population, it has also infected Christian
theology in its very inner core, has poisoned and weakened it. We define humanism
as the belief in a human ideal, a belief that man within himself has the ability to
develop into a state of completeness and achieve happiness. Therefore, in order to
reach this ideal state nothing else is needed than to grant each person as much room as
possible to develop freely and without restraint. Freedom and equality, equal rights,
equal possessions, equal enjoyment and pleasure, are thus the goal of man’s striving,
the attainment of which will eradicate poverty and suffering from this earth. Happiness
will have found its domicile on earth, there will be heaven on earth.
This humanism is as old as the fallen world itself. As soon as man had fallen away from
God, he became aware of the bitter consequences of his sin, of the curse under which God
had placed this earth because of him. Despite all that still had remained for man, he felt
dissatisfied, unhappy, and wretched. However, instead of recognizing his sin as the cause
of his wretchedness, seeking to return to God and His help, he saw the consequences
themselves as the cause, and deemed that he could achieve happiness by gaining what this
world has to offer.
Therefore, the church’s antithesis of this humanism in the world of unbelievers is
as old as the church itself. Already during the first world Cain’s unbelieving race
sought their salvation in exploitation of the earth (Gen.4, 16-22), while the believing
race of Seth (though already diminishing in numbers) renounced worldly happiness and
possessions. They sought their salvation in the proclamation of the name of the Lord, that
is, the promise of the one who would smash the head of the serpent and all evil, in the
promise of the coming redemption from sin, death and hell, upon which they based their
hope for eternal life, happiness and salvation (Gen. 4:25-26). We find the same conflict
in the race after the flood. Paganism evolved which made creature and things of
this world the object of its utmost desire, to the point where it elevated creature
itself as its god(s) and its final refuge. Meanwhile, the church—through
Abraham—considered itself to be an earthly pilgrim, was waiting for a city whose
builder was God and continued to seek its promised heavenly home. When finally the one
whom all the prophets referred to as "the comforter of all heathens" appeared,
the Jews, lost in their earthly anticipation’s, expected to hear from the mouth of
the promised one nothing other than the pronouncement of the start of a complete, happy
age. When he, the hope of all people, opened his mouth, they heard: "Blessed are they
who are spiritually poor, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs." They had expected to
hear: "Blessed are you, for now you shall become rich." Instead they heard the
opposite: blessed are they, regardless of their worldly riches, whose spirit and heart is
poor, those who are rich as if they were not, and those who are poor consider themselves
rich. (Matth. 5:3, compare also Luke 6:20, I Cor. 7:29, II Cor. 6:10.)
Though Christianity is directly opposed to humanism, we find this concept accepted and
practiced by name-only-Christians throughout the centuries. In the history of our
Christian church we are confronted with numerous pages where the most consequent humanism
is theoretically presented as the only right belief and openly and freely confessed. The
grossest depiction of it appears during the 14th century among certain groups of The
Brothers and Sisters of Free Spirit, especially the Turlupines, the Adamites and
the Luciferians, who express their common theory thus: "Everything which is done
in love is pure, because the spirit which is God dwelling in us cannot sin; neither can
worldly desire damage the spirit. On the contrary, it redeems by disintegrating marriage
and property and the feeling of uncleanliness resulting from unnatural fissure." 1
It was this spirit which was apparent during the time of the reformation among the farmers
of Swabia and Thuringia—under the leadership of Thomas Münzer; among the Anabaptists
under Jan von Leide, and the Libertines of Switzerland. It was no other spirit but the
spirit of humanism which promised Adam heaven on earth, promised to relieve him
from his earthly burdens, thereby making all men into abolitionists and communists, with
equal rights and possessions, making all superiority in these things a punishable
transgression. Though the first two of these groups base their humanism on doctrine and
promises of Christian revelation, and the latter on a pantheistic system, the underlying
spirit is the same. For instance, the farmers stated in their "twelve articles":
"3) It has been the custom that we were considered property, which is abominable,
in view of the fact that Christ has redeemed and saved us with his precious blood, the
lowly shepherd as well as the highest placed, none excluded. Therefore Scripture tells us
that we are to be free. 4) It has been the custom that no poor man has the right to game,
birds, or fish in the water, which seems to us to be entirely unseemly and unbrotherly,
selfish and not at all in accord with the word of God. . . . When God, the Lord, created
man He gave him dominion over all creatures, over the birds in the air and fish in the
waters, Gen. 1:28,30. God the Lord created animals for man’s free use."
(Luther’s Works by Walch, XVI, 26, 27.)
Münzer expressed what these articles demanded with the words: "Omnia smul
communia" which means all things should be communal and distributed according to need
and ability. It is understood, of course, that with this new "order" there was
no mention of rulers and lords. Ranke explained: "The concept was that since all are
the children of one god, and all have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, it followed
that there should be no more inequality in possessions or rank. Münzer preached
everywhere about the liberation of Israel and the establishment of a heavenly kingdom on
earth. 2
At that time, what was the position of the church? It certainly did
recognize the misuse of power by the privileged classes which had driven the oppressed
into desperation and delusion. The church declared the farmer’s rebellion to be a
well-deserved, divine punishment, and demanded that oppression of the poor and the tyranny
against subordinates cease. It called for improvement of the shamefully flagrant, social
and civil conditions of the underclass.. However, the church did not succumb to the
temptation to perceive the distinction between master and servant, sovereign and vassal,
rich and poor, as incompatible with the Gospel. The church, together with its attempt to
change these conditions, denounced with a loud voice the wrongful application and
explanation of the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom.
Pertaining to the first point, Luther wrote in his Ermahnung zum Frieden auf die
zwölf Artikel der Bauernschaft in Schwaben, (Admonishment to Peace on the 12
Articles of the Swabian Farmers), written in 1525:
"First, we can’t blame anyone here on earth for this rebellion other than you
lords and sovereigns, especially you blind bishops, mad monks and clergymen. To this day
you are determined and do not cease your efforts against the Holy Gospel, even though you
know that it is the truth and you cannot contradict it. In addition, in your worldly
administrations you do no more than abuse and lay on taxes so as to increase your own
glory and arrogance, until the common man can no longer endure. Know this, dear lords, God
is making it so that your fury cannot nor will it be tolerated any longer. You must change
your ways and accept God’s word. If you don’t do this willingly, others will do
it for you in a destructive manner. If the farmers don’t do it, someone else will.
Even though you may slay them all, they are undefeated, God will call forth others. For he
wants to slay you and He will slay you. It is not the farmers, dear lords, who are
opposing you, it is God Himself who seeks to destroy you and your madness."
However, after Luther spoke in this and similar manner to the lords and preached to
them the Word of God, he turned to the subordinates, the farmers, and chastised their
rebellion. Among other things he said:
"What, there is to be no serf because Christ has redeemed us all? What is this?
This means that Christian liberty is turned into liberty of the flesh. Did not Abraham and
other patriarchs and prophets own serfs? Read what St. Paul has to say about servants, who
at that time were all in bondage. Therefore this article is directly opposed to the
Gospel and it is rapacious, for everyone who is a bondman to remove himself from his
master. A bondman can very well be a Christian and have Christian freedom, just as a
prisoner or sick person can be a Christian, but yet is not free. This article proposes to
free all men, and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly one, which is
impossible. For a worldly kingdom cannot exist where there is no class distinction, where
some are free, some are prisoners, some are masters, and some are vassals, etc. As St.
Paul says in Gal. 3:28, that in Christ both master and vassal are one. (See also XVI,
60,61,85,86.)
Luther’s coworkers were in agreement with him. Amongst other things, Melanchthon
writes in his Schrift wider die Artikel der Bauernschaft (Statement Against the
Farmers’ Articles):
"It is wanton and violent that they do not want to be bondmen. They are citing
Scripture, that Christ has freed them. This pertains to spiritual freedom: that we are
assured that through Him our sins have been forgiven without our own doing, and that
henceforth we may look to God’s blessings, that we may beseech Him and be hopeful;
that Christ poured out the Holy Spirit on those who believe in Him so that they may oppose
Satan and not fall under his power like the godless whose hearts he has in his power. He
forces them to commit murder, adultery, etc. Therefore, Christian freedom is of the heart,
it cannot be seen with the eye. Outwardly a Christian submits joyfully and patiently to
all worldly and social order and makes personal use of it. He can be a bondman or a
subject, he can avail himself of the Saxon or Roman law regarding the division of goods.
These things do not, however, influence the faith, indeed, the Gospel demands that such
worldly order be maintained for the sake of peace. Paulus writes in his letter to the
Ephesians 6:5,6,7: ‘You slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling, with a
willing heart, as serving Christ, not merely with outward show of service to curry favor
with men, but as slaves of Christ, do wholeheartedly the will of God.’ And in
Colossians 3:22, he writes:’Slaves, give entire obedience to your earthly masters. .
. Whoever does wrong, will receive what he has done wrong.’ Joseph too was a slave in
Egypt for a long time, as well as many other saints. Therefore, the farmer’s demands
have no basis, indeed, it seems necessary that these wild, insolent people as the Germans
are, should have less freedom than they have now." (See also 48, 49.)
So writes Melanchthon, the one so finely educated by humaniora, the humanist in
the best meaning of the word. He was at the same time, however, an obedient and humble
Christian, and a theologian who saw through the false wisdom of the blind world which
concerns itself only with matters of the flesh.
This battle by the church was not in vain. The terrible flames which would consume the
entire social and governmental order of Germany, threatening to leave behind nothing but
the terror of destruction, soon died down and after some time, extinguished completely.
However, humanism, which wants to be independent of God and men, wants that man
renounce happiness and the life to come as something which is dubious. It wants that man
finds this happiness within himself which will surely change the earth into heaven and
promises equal happiness to all. This humanism is the chiliasm of the secular
world, it is its religion. It always appears with force wherever Christianity waivers.
When at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century deism raised its
head in England, moved on to France and finally was exported to Germany, there were many
heralds of humanism. Rousseau stands out as a proponent of humanism. It was
he who first expressed the idea that man by nature is pure and good, and that in order to
achieve happiness, he needs to leave all that is unnatural and return to nature, to
himself, to become human again. He spoke in a truly magical manner which, like a sweet
poison, saturated the hearts of millions. 3 This idea developed into the
evermore common theories of undeniable, inherent human rights, of inherent freedom and
equality, that only the democratic-republican constitution as well as the socialist and
communist theories of the "new times" were acceptable. These theories came to
fruition in the world-shaking catastrophe of the first French revolution whose well-known
slogan was "freedom, equality, and brotherhood." They incorporated these tenets
in their constitution of 1791 as the basis for their model state, and proclaimed that
"human rights" was the most important principle of all state laws. It is known
what pinnacle of human and national happiness this grand humanistic experiment did
achieve. It was a happiness in which all of hell’s murderous spirits triumphed over
the world with their demonic laughter against humanity itself, which caused terror even
among humanists abroad.
Nevertheless, these first seeds of humanistic theories germinated, grew and were
nourished, first through the German rationalismus vulgaris and then the German
pantheistic and materialistic, philosophical systems. Communism or some other form of
ochlocratic state, abrogation of all monarchies and the church, extermination of all
nobility and proclaimers of Christianity and all religions (whom they refer to as
"Paffen" 4), that is what these public speakers of the race are presenting as the
ultimate national happiness. They refer to it as the beginning of the golden age, as
predicted down through the centuries by all prophets of the human spirit. The masses who
have fallen away from God and who are renouncing their hope for eternal life, the masses
who have been charmed and deluded, upon them they are trying to inflict brutality and
bestiality as humanity.
In this respect, how is our America doing? The founding of our union occurs exactly at
the time when Humanism was in its youth and had the attraction of something new. In
addition, it seemed to have the only basis for a new republican state, which obviously
could not become a reality without absolute freedom of religion. Thus humanists like
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Payne, and others, gained immense influence,
not only in the formulation of our government, but also in the ideas, concepts, and views
of the people. These elements of destruction and dissolution were greatly strengthened
during the last decades by whole hordes of men with revolutionary tendencies. None of them
acknowledge God and eternal life, for them earthly life is the only goal of the human
existence. They see the beginning of common human happiness in the realization of their
tenets of common freedom and equality.
Especially during recent years, Christian communities have had to face trial by fire.
But, to put it bluntly, they have not passed this trial. Not that the American
theology—if we want to mention it—has just now succumbed! It has been quite
obvious for some time, that in addition to the various sects with their false teachings,
many humanistic ideas and efforts of the modern world have found their way into
Christianity. Wherever in the old world there was a revolutionary movement against a
monarchy, the religious press here has announced their support of the rebels. Wherever
atheistic journalists and their correspondents reported wrong-doing by a European
sovereign, they have busily claimed that this was further evidence that only under a
republican constitution the masses could achieve happiness; that the model republic for
the entire world was the American one, and that the world was yet to enjoy freedom and
happiness under such an ideal constitution. Participation in temperance agitation’s
has almost become a test of godliness among the believers. Reverends of all so-called
denominations are members of all lodges. They not only assert their free-mason, deistic
philanthropism in the hidey-holes of their meetings, but also from their pulpits, their
publications and their administrations. Not one important discovery or invention is made
which is not shown by the local theologians as new proof of the grandeur, the
fruitfulness, the creative and all-overcoming power of the human intellect, and as actual
evidence that finally the age of progress and enlightenment has come. Earlier centuries
are denounced, with great pride and self-complacency, as times of darkness, superstition,
barbarism, and subordination. The local theology is carried along by this stream of
fashionable, current opinions. They do not even shy away from serving movements who are
obviously nothing other than affirmation of the spirit of these days; movements which are
quite easily such that one can perceive them as the beginning of the world’s
terrible, final drama of the battle of the anti-Christian powers against the order of
state, church, and home.
The question about slavery has been foremost in the hearts and minds of many. In
following issues, we intend to deal with this question. Of course, not as it relates to
political issues, for we have nothing to do with that, but as it relates to
Christian-religious morals.
Before we discuss the agitating question of slavery, we wish to
reiterate that we are not concerned with emancipation, which for political reasons is
being considered by government, for this is not a theological issue. For us Christians
here too the word of God applies: "Be subject to those who are in authority over
you." What we are dealing with here is the question whether slavery itself, that is,
the relationship between slave and master, is a sin; or does sin adhere to this
relationship merely in concreto, as all relationships between sinful men, for
instance between poor and rich, seller and buyer. Is therefore slavery a sin which must be
unconditionally opposed, or should Christians concentrate on doing away with the connected
sinfulness, so that the relationship between slave and master is according to God’s
will and order, according to the laws of justice, fairness, and love.5 We therefore hold that
abolitionism, which deems slavery a sin and therefore considers every slave holder a
criminal and strives for its eradication, is the result of unbelief in its development of
nationalism, deistic philanthropy, pantheism, materialism, and atheism. It is a brother of
modern socialism, Jacobinism and communism. Together with the emancipation of women it is
the rehabilitation of the flesh. As proof of this blood-relationship it suffices to point
not only to its history, but also to the close union between abolition-minded
representatives of Christianity and the abolitionist tendencies of anti-Christians and
radical revolutionaries in church, state, and home. The more their non-religiosity
increases and reaches the pinnacles of theoretical atheism and indifferentism, the more
fanatically they fight for the principle of slave emancipation. Often they have no
economic interests and even oppose those who do. Therefore, a Christian abolitionist, who
finds himself in the company of such as these, should become aware of the wrong path he
has chosen. How could it be possible that these enemies of Christianity and religion per
se, all those who are intent on doing away with the existing religious, political, and
economical order of things to realize their humanistic utopia, that especially they would
be so enthusiastic for something good and holy, for "the final reason of
Christianity" and so greatly exert themselves? Can a Christian accept that now, in
the 19th century, Christ’s word has come to naught through progress, enlightenment,
and civilization? "Can grapes be harvested from thorns, or figs from the thistle
tree? A rotten tree does not bear fruit." We can only pity those Christians who have
forgotten all this and with best intentions, in the desire to work for a Christian-humane
purpose, have allied themselves with the enemies of Christendom, and have come under the
banner of anti-Christian humanism and philanthropy, thus having lent themselves as mediums
of the spirit of the times.
However, we do not demand that these our erring fellow-Christians be satisfied with
these á priori reasons. Regarding questions of morals or religion, Christians do
not acquiesce until they have the answer to the question: "What is written?"
They are ever mindful of the words of the prophet: "Yes, according to the law and
witness. If they do not say this, they will not see the sun rise" (Is. 8:20). The
Christian’s thoughts are as Solomon’s: "A man may think that he is always
right, but the Lord fixes a standard for the heart" (Prov. 21:2). Therefore, he
"gladly compels every human thought to surrender in obedience to Christ. . ."
(2.Cor. 10:6). When man has found the clear witness of Scripture, even though it may go
totally against the grain of his own intellect, heart, and his entire view of the world,
he will say together with Christ: ". . . Scripture cannot be set aside" (John
10:36). For such Christians then, who are Christians according to John 14:23, 8:31,32, 47,
we will consult Scripture which alone is "a true fount for Israel," which alone
is the true guide upon which all doctrine and teachers are to be fixed and judged. 6
In order not to commit any blunders, it is necessary that we agree
with our opponents on the definition "slavery." However, we do not know a better
definition than the one rendered by the magister germaniae, Melanchthon. It is
found in the appendix to his examination of those who are to be publicly ordained and
given the office of evangelism (1556). There he says: "Civil slavery, which is
approved by God (as Joseph and Onesimus were slaves), is the lawful removal of the ability
of ownership, the freedom to chose one’s vocation or employment, and to move from one
place to another." (Corpus reformatorum, Vol. XX!, p. 1096) 7
There is no doubt that Holy Scripture , Old and New Testament, deal with slavery in this
sense. Though the word "slave" is not contained in our German Bible, the words
"man-servant" (Hebrew= Aebed, Greek = Dulos) and "maid-servant"
(Hebrew = Amah or Schiphchah, Greek = Dule) have the same basic meaning8.
They are often used in reference to those without civil freedom, or to vassals, those whom
we now refer to as "slaves." That is why Melanchthon, in a citation from the New
Testament quoted in the previous issue, translates the word Duloi with
"Leibeigene"9 and Luther himself often translated the Hebrew words Aebed and Amah
with "man or maid-servant owned by another" = slave (Gen. 47:19,15; Lev.
25:39,42,44), and the Hebrew word Schiphchah with "maid-servant owned by
another." It is clear that this translation is correct, that the meaning of the words
Aebed, Amah, Schiphchah, Dulos, Dule mean nothing other than maid- or man-servants
owned by another person, as is apparent by usage and context. Thus the servants of Abraham
"men born in his household and those purchased from foreigners" (Gen. 14:14,
17:12) and the maid and man-servants are juxta positioned with the "free" (Eph
6:8; Gal. 4:30-31; 3:28; 1 Cor. 7:22). It is deceptious when the laity is told that
whenever Scripture (especially the New Testament) speaks of maid- or man-servants it
speaks of hired workers, which these days are called "maid or man servants." The
Hebrew and Greek languages have specific words for these, in Hebrew Sachir (from
the root word Sachar = to hire out for wages). Compare Job 7:2; Lev. 19:13 ("a
laborer"), Ex. 12:45 ("a hireling"), and the Greek Ergates in Matth.
10:10; 20:1 ("a worker"), or Misthotes in John 10:12 ("a
hireling").
What then do we read in Holy Scripture about slavery? Certainly it is not our intent to
deal completely with every mention of slavery in Scripture. One can find relative
instructions in every good, complete, biblical archeology. It should suffice to highlight
that which expresses God’s view of the morality and immorality of these political and
economical issues.
The first mention of slavery we read in Scripture is the prophetic oath Noah utters
over his godless son Ham, when he tells him that as a godly punishment his descendants
shall be the slaves of slaves to his brothers (Gen. 9:20-27).
In the following we learn that almost all wealthy saints of the old covenant owned such
slaves. According to Gen. 12:16, Abraham, the father of all believers, already acquired
such servants in Egypt, and later we learn that he had 318 of these, able to bear arms,
who were born in his house (Gen. 14:14). In the report about the institution of
circumcision (Gen 17:12) slaves are mentioned which "were purchased from foreigners,
not of your own seed." Following that we read that Isaac (Gen. 26:12-14), Jacob (Gen.
32:6), Job (Job 1:3, 31:53), Solomon (Eccl. 2:7), and others, all had slaves, some of them
in great number.
Further we read in the holy ten commandments that slaves are to be considered as family
members, over whom the master bids as he bids over his children. The third commandment:
"You shall do no work, neither your son, your daughter, your maid or man-servant. .
.," and in the tenth commandment God Himself solemnly declares again blessing for all
who will keep this commandment, and a curse for those who will not: "Thou shall not
covet your neighbor’s wife, man-servant, maid-servant, cattle, or anything which is
his." In the words of Ex. 20:17: "Do not lust after your neighbor’s wife,
his man-servant, his maid-servant, nor his oxen, his ass, or anything which is your
neighbors." 10
We also read that Moses, as commanded by God, established the law
that proven thieves, who were unable to make restitution for the goods they had stolen,
could be sold into slavery (Ex. 22:3). In addition, the Israelites were allowed to
purchase slaves, but with one distinction: An Israelite sold into slavery to another
Israelite for non-payment of debt, had to be freed in the seventh year of his slavery. The
Jewish people were to demonstrate also with their civil laws that they were free people of
God, and because of the promised Messiah they were to retain their division into tribes
until the coming of the promised one. Thus the "slave" was to return to his
father’s house, unless he chose not to be freed, in which case he had to remain as a
slave "for ever." In regard to Hebrew slaves, it was also the law that if the
freed slave had come into bondage without wife and children, he was discharged without
wife and children. In these cases, they remained the property of the master (Ex. 21:1-6;
Lev. 25:39-43).
For slaves purchased from heathens there were different rules. "Should you desire
to own slaves, you shall purchase them from the nations round about you, from your guests
and the foreigners among you, and from their descendants which they sired in your land.
Those you may have to own, and your children after you, as your property for ever and
ever, and shall have them as your slaves" (Lev. 25:44-46).
In this manner God defines the relationship between master and slave as a civil,
physical and timely order. He reiterates this order by defining all manner of duties of
the master to the slave, and the slave to the master. The master is to consider his slaves
as family members, and is therefore responsible for their spirituality (Gen. 17:12; 18:19;
Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Ex. 12:44), not regarding them as free persons, but as slaves
(Prov. 29:21), treating them with justice, fairness, and love (Job 31:13). Exodus 21:26-27
decreed that if a slave was brutally treated, where his master struck him and the slave
lost an eye, the master was bound to set the slave free as a recompense for the lost eye.
Servants and slaves were so tightly bound to the family that for instance, if the family
was that of a priest, the servants enjoyed priestly privileges, even though a married
daughter was no longer entitled to these privileges. We read in Lev. 22:10-12: "No
one shall eat of the holy gift, nor may a stranger lodging with him nor his hired man. A
slave bought by the priest with his own money may do so, and slaves born in his horse may
eat of it. When a priest’s daughter marries an unqualified person, she shall not eat
of the holy gift."
The slaves themselves are under the obligation of honor, which includes love, loyalty
and obedience towards their master. So says the Lord in Malachi 1:6: "A son shall
honor his father, and a slave his master." When the Egyptian slave girl Hagar ran
away from her mistress after she had been chastised, the angel of the Lord, that is the
Lord Himself, appeared to her and asked her: "Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you
come from and where are you going?" She answered: "I am running away from Sarai,
my mistress." And the angel of the Lord said to her: "Go back to your mistress,
and submit to her ill treatment." In this manner God Himself decided when a slave
girl tried to emancipate herself.
From all this we can conclude that according to Holy Scripture – The Old
Testament, God did not initially institute slavery or servitude as he did the state of
matrimony or civil authority. Neither did He institute absolute monarchy, the class of the
poor or any other social burden in life. Rather He deemed them punishment for sin itself
and considered them as a "duty-relationship" based on the fourth commandment.
Further, he declared slaves to be the indisputable property of their master in the tenth
commandment, in societies where such a relationship is lawful, just as He confirmed all
other worldly and civil freedoms, burdens, rights, duties, ownership, etc.
We willingly agree, however, that if the Old Testament alone spoke of such slavery,
there would still be room for the idea that the morality of such a relationship has not
been proven beyond all doubts. The people of Israel received from God, through Moses,
their civil laws. These civil laws, though, could not punish all that which is punished by
"moral law," the law of the eternal will of God Himself. Therefore, because of
the wickedness of man a lot could not be held to be moral, but things were allowed which
were directly in opposition to the "moral law" in order to maintain civil peace,
based on the old axiom: "Aliud jus poli, aliud jus so i, a different law for
heaven, a different law for the earth." One might think that this relationship
between master and slave could fall into this latter category.
For instance, divorce was allowed, according to Deut. 24:1, with a letter of divorce
"if the wife does not win her husband’s favor." And yet, when the pharisees
referred to this passage, our Lord directed them to God’s institution of matrimony as
the eternal valid order and added: "Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because
of the hardness of your hearts. It was not like this in the beginning. I say to you: If a
man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and he marries another, he
commits adultery. And whoever marries the divorced woman, is also committing
adultery" (Matth. 19:3-9).
Does the question of master-slave therefore also belong to the category which during
Old Testament times were permitted, according to worldly law, but according to moral law
and conscience were sinful and therefore punishable by God? Does it belong to those
liberties which were only granted on behalf of the stiffnecked people, but was not used by
those who wanted not only to keep worldly law but also wanted to remain faultless in the
face of God? Does this belong to the New Testament where only moral law is valid, and
Old-Testament dispensations have been canceled? The manner in which not only Moses, but
other prophets of the Old Testament deal with this issue makes it quite clear that it does
not belong into the latter category, but concurs with moral law. In order to
achieve certainty, let us therefore search the New Testament.
Even though during the times of the apostles, under the Roman Empire, slavery was
closely tied to the injustice of raiding by the envious and everlasting thirst for
conquest of the Romans (often with the worst types of tyranny, where the masters had the
right over life or death of the slaves, a right which was not withdrawn until Antonin), we
never read that the apostles themselves denounced slavery as a sin against the law of
"love thy neighbor." Neither did they denounce the authority of Nero, despite
this monster’s horrible abuse of his power. They do, however, emphasize the
masters’ responsibilities. Thus writes the holy apostle Paul in his letter to the
Christians in Ephesians: "You masters also must do the same by them (the slaves),
give up the use of threats, remember you have the same master in heaven, and He has no
favorites." In a similar manner he writes to the Christians in Colassae:
"Master, be just and fair to your slaves, knowing that you too have a master in
heaven" (Co. 4:1). At the time, however, the same apostle admonishes the slaves to
obey their masters. In his letter to the Ephesians, after having addressed children and
parents regarding their duties to one another: "Slaves, obey your masters with fear
and trembling, single mindedly as serving Christ. Do not offer merely the outward show of
service, to curry favor with men, but, as slaves of Christ, do wholeheartedly the will of
God. Give the cheerful service of those who serve the Lord, not men. For you know that
whatever good each man may do, slave or free, will be repaid him by the Lord" (Eph.
6:5-8).
He uses almost the same words as he counsels the slaves in his letter to the Colossians
in Col. 3:22-25. Paul also asks the bishop of Titus in Crete to remind the slaves:
"Tell the slaves to respect their masters’ authority in everything, and to
comply with their demands without answering back; not to pilfer, but to show themselves
strictly honest and trustworthy; for in all such ways they will add luster to the doctrine
of God our Savior" (Titus 2:9-10). He gives the same pastoral advice to Timothy when
he writes to him: "All who wear the yoke of slavery must count their own masters
worthy of all respect, so that the name of God and the Christian teaching are not brought
into disrepute" (1 Tim.:6:1). Unanimous with Paul, because he is inspired and driven
by the same spirit, Peter writes, after having explained his basic principle:
"Servants, accept the authority of your masters with all due submission, not only
when they are kind and considerate, but even when they are perverse. For it is a fine
thing if a man endure the pain of undeserved suffering because God is in his thought"
(1 Peter 2:18-19). Thus Peter equals obedience and disobedience of a slave to his master
to obedience and disobedience to authority per se, and declares the disobedient
slave and the one who has incited him to be a rebel.
Who then can read all of this, in his heart accepting Holy Scripture as the word of
God, and still consider the relationship of master and slave to be a sinful one, offensive
to God’s will and order and to the spirit of the Gospel which therefore must be
abolished? Is every slave owner a thief, a robber, and a denier of the truth and therefore
guilty; and if he wants to be just before the eyes of God must he release his slave(s)?
How could than the apostle give instructions to the masters, as he does, and how could the
apostle demand from the slaves that they obey their masters "as Christ" and to
"give them all honor," even those masters who mistreat them, to submit to them
for "the sake of their conscience"? Can one give rules and instructions to a
thief and robber to treat that which he has stolen in a decent and righteous manner? Does
one consider a thief and robber who has unlawfully set himself over us "with all
honors" and submit even to those who mistreat us "for the sake of
conscience"? Or does one want to believe that the holy apostles thought up such
teachings only for political reasons, and for political reasons explained the duties of
master and slave, based on the fourth commandment; that the Gospel actually condemns
slavery and demands emancipation? Did they avoid this issue because they feared the power
and rage of those in authority and did not want general unrest and change?
What Christian could speak in such a blasphemous manner of God’s chosen saints and
His word? No, those who say of themselves: "We cannot agree with falsehood, neither
do we pervert God’s word, rather we confess the truth and stand fast before God
against the conscience of others" (2 Cor. 4:2); they cannot turn light into dark and
evil into good for political reasons or fear of their fellow man. Had the Holy Spirit
enlightened them that slavery is an immoral practice which is irreconcilable with the
spirit of the Gospel, they would have boldly spoken out against it. They would have
demanded its abolishment from all those wanting to be saved, without compromise, just as
they have fought any other ungodly ways of the pagan and Jewish world. They would have
demanded that they desist, or else loose salvation. They were under the command:
"What I say to you in the dark, you must repeat in broad daylight; what you hear
whispered, you must shout from the housetops" (Matth. 10:27). They had the promise:
"However, when he comes who is the spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth.
. ." (John 16:13). And they knew that Christ "had not come to bring peace to the
earth, but a sword" (Matth. 10:34), and to "light a fire on earth"
(Luke:12:49) which would burn them too. And note, not fearing this sword and fire, they
fearlessly "disclosed to them the whole purpose of God" (Acts 20:27). Therefore,
far be it from every true Christian to suspect that these "chosen instruments"
(Acts 9:15) who did not shrink from the fight with the whole word, namely the rich, would
have agreed with the worldly view concerning slavery.
Had the apostles only admonished the slaves and bade them to be obedient and loyal to
their masters, one might think that slavery was a cross to be borne patiently. To be a
slave owner, however, would be incompatible with Christianity, such as a Christian is
required to patiently endure the tyranny of a despot, but may himself not be a tyrant.
However, as we have already learned, the apostles of the Lord did not only admonish the
slaves, they also admonished their masters and instructed the latter not how to set their
slaves free, but how to treat them properly. Even escaped slaves whom they converted, were
sent back to their masters from whom nothing else was demanded but to accept them as their
spiritual brothers (Philem. 10-19). It is quite clear that the apostles did not only
address pagans and Jews, but Christians as well, as can be ascertained from a letter Paul
wrote to Timothy, in which there is explicit mention of "believing" slave
owners. It states: "If the masters are believers, the slaves must not respect them
any less for being their Christian brothers. Quite contrary, they must be all the better
servants because those who receive the benefit of their service are one with them in faith
and love" (1 Tim. 6:2). It is not the intention of the Holy Spirit that the slaves of
believers should get the idea: ‘My master is my brother in Christ, therefore I am his
equal. Consequently he should free me and I need no longer serve him.’ To the
contrary, they should think: ‘My master is my brother in Christ, before God I am his
equal, he has no greater father in heaven, no greater savior nor spirt, no better mercy
and justice, no greater hope, than I. So I will not concern myself with the physical
inequality in which I find myself here on earth, but I will serve him all the better as a
dear brother in faith.’ In another letter the apostle writes: "For the man who
as a slave received the call to be a Christian is the Lord’s freedman, and equally,
the free man who received the call is a slave in the service of Christ" (1 Cor.
7:22).
It is noteworthy at 1 Tim. 6:1-2 that the apostle, after first having defined the
duties of slaves–both those belonging to believers and non-believers–addresses
Timothy himself with these words: "This is what you are to teach and preach. If
anyone is teaching otherwise, and will not give his mind to wholesome precepts–mean
those of our Lord Jesus Christ–and to good religious teaching, I call him a pompous
ignoramus. He is morbidly keen on mere verbal questions and quibbles, which give rise to
jealousy, quarreling slander, base suspicions, and endless wrangles: all typical of men
who have let their reasoning powers become atrophied and have lost grip of the truth. They
think religion should yield dividends" (1 Tim. 6:2-5).
Truly, we cannot understand how a believing Christian can read this and still agree
with the humanists of our times that slavery and serfdom are unjust. We assert that anyone
who still has regard for God’s word will be pierced by these words into his very
heart. Anyone dreaming this modern world’s dream of abolition should perceive these
words as God’s slaps, waking him from his dream. For here the apostle, in the Holy
Spirt, explains in plain words that all he had said before, concerning the slave’s
conduct towards his master, should be taught by every preacher of the Gospel; and that he
who teaches otherwise is in the dark and knows nothing, no matter how brilliant he
considers himself. Such a man, therefore, is to be avoided by the believing Christian!
This must, therefore, be a matter of consequence and great importance, on which hinges
God’s honor and man’s salvation. And so it is! For the Christian this is not
merely a neutral, political issue. The question is not: Is it advantageous for a state, a
country, a people, to lawfully abolish slavery? The question is: Does the law of
love and justice demand that all people enjoy equal civil liberties and rights; is it
right or wrong to use the existing civil law which enables one to exercise rights over
another person; is it right or wrong to acknowledge and accept such a law? The question is
whether the old canon—Evangelium non abolet politias - the Gospel does not
remove political law—is a lie, and whether the Gospel demands civil equality. The
question is whether Christian freedom, that is the freedom we received from Christ, is a
physical, civil one; whether Christ was the kind of messiah expected by the Jews, who
would free his people from earthly oppression; whether the Gospel contains elements of
rebellion which seek to do away with worldly law. The issue is whether the apostle’s
words are the truth applied to all conditions: "Where there is authority, it is
ordained by God." According to the old, logical principle Non variant speciem
plusve minusve suam = more or less does not change the essence of a thing, every other
involuntary relationship of subservience especially in a monarchy where voters do not
elect their leaders, would also be against the law of human rights. Furthermore, it is a
question whether it is a sin to be rich while the neighbor is poor, and whether love and
"inherent equal human rights" demands that the rich uses his possessions to
prevent the poor from falling into slavery and thus effect emancipation via sharing of
goods. 11 It is a question whether he is a thief, who, though he lawfully acquired his
possessions, cannot prove whether those from whom he acquired them legitimately owned
them; whether all owners, based on the origin of their property, are thieves and should be
treated as such. And finally it is a question whether the large number of saints mentioned
in Holy Scripture in the Old Testament who owned slaves, were in reality tyrannical
thieves of men, and whether Holy Scripture is the holy, eternal, unchanging word of God,
or man’s composition to effect a quasi-godly approval of oppression and a product of
papal lies and deceit (as claimed by atheists).
"What then," comes the cry, "does the Gospel not demand compassion for
the often terrible conditions of slavery? Does the Gospel demand that one remain
unsympathetic to the tears and sighs forced from these slaves by inhumane masters? Does
the Gospel not demand that at least one works on removing these horrible atrocities so
often connected with slavery? Or does the Gospel cover all these obscenities, this total
spiritual neglect, injustice, destruction of marriages, cruelty, etc., with a halo?"
We answer: "Far from it!" We have already pointed to Gen. 18:19, 17:12; Exod.
20:10; Deut. 5:14; Ex. 12:44, 21:26-27; Job 31:13; Eph. 6:8-9; Col. 4:1, where it is shown
how slaves are to be treated by their masters. We also remind of scripture which deals
with abduction or selling of men into slavery and the punishment thereof (1 Tim. 1:10; Ex.
21:16; Deut. 24:7). To see to it that these godly rules are observed, especially by
authority, this we consider to be the true task of each Christian who lives in a land
where slavery is lawful. Such efforts, where slavery itself remains (in principle: Abusus
non tollit usum, sed confirmat substantiam = misuse does not abolish proper use but
rather confirms the essence of a thing), which would result in a Christian, just, loving,
formulation of this political and economical condition would honor God and serve man. Such
efforts are worthy of the diligent efforts of the true Christian.
May this suffice as proof that slavery is not against Christian morals. In the
following issues we intend to let our true theologians of old speak to this matter. Their
comments will make clear that we have no hidden agenda underlying our protest against
acceptance of the humanistic, revolutionary, sourdough into our Lutheran theology. We are
merely concerned with the preservation of purity of our Lutheran, biblical theology. We
have long since given witness privately, and in publications, of our opposition of the
current political confusion and the dangerous abolitionist movements which are anti-Gospel
and anti-Christ.
We come to the close of this year’s foreword by declaring our serious fight
against the spread of humanism, which has already infiltrated our church with its deistic
and atheistic concepts of philanthropy, as the most important issue for this year.
The Old Lutheran Scholars About Slavery.
True to our promise, we are now citing some of our old scholars on
the question of slavery. Quite properly, we start with Luther. He mentions slavery often,
especially in his exegetical writings. In his explanation of Chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians,
Paul’s words give him the necessary impetus. We quote:
"1 Cor. 7:20-21: Everyone should remain in the condition in
which he was called. Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you,
but if a chance for liberty should come, take it."
At another time Paul reiterates this counsel. At that time there
were still many who were slaves, as still are to this day. Just as a spouse is to relate
to the other spouse, which is also a form of slavery, so shall a slave relate to his
master, if his master owns him. That is, his slavery is no hindrance to his Christian
belief. Therefore, he should not run away from his master, but remain with him, whether
his master is a believer or not, whether he is good or evil; except in cases where the
master keeps or forces the slave from his belief, then it is time to escape and run.
However, as mentioned above concerning a Christian spouse, that applies also to a
Christian slave of a non-Christian master . . . " but if a chance for liberty should
come, take it." Not that you rob your master of yourself, and run away without his
will and knowledge. This does not mean that you should remain in bondage though you want
to be free and your master is willing to set you free. Paul merely wants to inform your
conscience so that you know how both these states are free in the sight of
God—whether you are a slave or not. He does not want to deny you the right to become
free, with your master’s agreement, rather to assure your conscience that you are
equal in the sight of God, free to honor God. For Christian doctrine does not teach to
steal another’s property, but rather to honor all commitments one has towards
another.
Verse 22: "For the man who as a slave received the call to be a
Christian is the Lord’s freedman, and, equally, the free man who received the call is
a slave in the service of Christ."
This means: It is all the same to God whether you are free or a
slave; just as circumcision does not matter: none of these are a hindrance to faith and
salvation. In this respect I might say: in matters of faith it is of no consequence
whether you are rich or poor, young or old, handsome or unattractive, educated or
uneducated, a lay-person or a cleric. Whosoever was poor when called into the faith is
rich in the sight of God. Whosoever was rich when called into the faith is poor in the
sight of God; whoever was young when called is old in the sight of God; whoever was
unattractive when called is handsome in the sight of God. And vice-versa: The uneducated
one is educated before God; the layperson is a cleric before God. All this is to show that
our faith makes us equal in the sight of God, and that before God there is no difference
between persons or class. Therefore here too: Whoever was a slave when called to faith is
a freedman of God, that is, God values him the same as if he were free. And again: Whoever
was a freedman when called to faith is a slave of Christ, that is, he is no better than
the slave. It is as Paul said in Gal. 3:28: "There is no such thing as Jew and Greek,
slave and freedman, male and female; for you are all one person in Christ Jesus.. ."
For there is equal faith, equal property, equal inheritance and all is equal. So you might
also say: "If a male has been called, he is female before God, and where a female has
been called, she is male. Therefore, the words "slave of Christ" do not refer to
the service for Christ, but mean that he is a slave among men on earth, because he belongs
to Christ and is subject to Him. Thus, he is equal to the freedman, and the freedman is
equal to the slave, and yet he belongs to Christ because he is His slave.
Verse 23: "You were bought at a price, do not become slaves of
men."
What has been said here? Just now he taught that to remain a slave
for slavery is no hindrance to the faith, and then he admonishes not to become a slave?
Without doubt this is a statement against men’s teaching, which wants to negate such
freedom and equality in faith and burden the conscience. It becomes clear that this is
what he means when he says: "You have been bought at a price. . ." He is
referring to Christ here, who has redeemed us from all our sins and laws with his own
blood (Gal.5:1) This redemption does not occur in a worldly manner, and it disregards all
relationships men have with one another, such as between slave and master, husband and
wife. These relationships all come to naught, for here something spiritual is happening,
in the knowledge that before God we are no longer bound by the law, but we are all free of
it. Before we were prisoners of sin, but now we are without sin. Whatever worldly
obligations or freedom remain, however, are neither sin nor virtue, they are merely
external comfort or discomfort, sorrow or joy, just as other worldly possessions or
unpleasantries. With either of them we can live freely and without sin.
Verse 24: "Thus each one, my brothers, is to remain before God
in the condition in which he received his call."
Here he reiterates for the third time the concept of Christian
freedom, that all external things are free before God. A Christian may therefore use them
as he likes; he may take advantage of them or leave them. Then he adds: "before
God," which means it is between you and God. For you are not performing a service to
God when you marry or remain unmarried, are a slave or free, or become this and that, eat
certain things only. Neither are you offending God if you do the one or the other.
Finally, all you owe God is to believe and confess. Concerning all other matters He gives
you the freedom to do as you want, without risk to your conscience. Neither does He care
whether you release a woman, run away from your master or keep a promise. What does He
care if you do these things or omit them? But since you are obligated to your neighbor by
becoming his slave, God does not want to deprive anyone of his property by demanding
freedom for another. He wants you to honor your commitment to your neighbor. For even
though God does not care for His own sake, He does care for your neighbor’s sake.
This is what He means when He says: "Among men or your neighbor I will not free you,
for I do not want to take what is his, until he himself sets you free. But for me you are
free and cannot come to ruin, whether you hold on to or let go of things external."
Therefore, note and understand this freedom properly, that the relationship between you
and God is not like the one between you and your neighbor; in the former there is freedom,
in the latter there is not. The reason for this is that God gives you this freedom only in
what is yours, not what is your neighbor’s. Differentiate, therefore, between what is
yours and what is your neighbor’s. For this reason a man cannot leave his wife, his
body is not his, it belongs to his wife. And again. The physical body of the slave is not
his own, but it belongs to the master. Before God it is nothing whether a man leaves his
wife; for the physical body is nothing to God but has been freely given by God for
external use. Only the inner faith belongs to God, but men must honor their commitment to
each other. Sum total therefore: We owe no one anything except to love them and serve our
neighbor with our love. Where there is love there is no danger of conscience or sin before
God with eating, drinking, clothing, living this way or that—where it is not
offensive to one’s neighbor. We cannot sin against God in this manner, only against
our neighbor.
Now it must be noted that the word "call" here does not
refer to position (status) into which one is called, as one says: matrimony is a position,
the priesthood is a position, and so on, each has such a call from God. St. Paul is not
referring to such a "call" here, rather he is speaking about the evangelical
call which means: Remain in the call to which you have been called, that is, as the Gospel
calls and finds you, there remain. If you are married when receiving the call, remain in
that position; if it calls you while in slavery, remain in slavery into which you have
been called. What then? If it is calling me while in a sinful position, must I remain
therein? Answer: If you are in the faith and love, that is, you have received the Gospel's
call, do whatever you will, go on sinning; but how can you sin if you have faith and love,
since by faith things are done for God and by love for your neighbor. Therefore it is
impossible that you would be called while in a sinful position, remaining in it. However,
if you so remain, you either have not been called or you have not perceived the call. For
this call causes you to change from the sinful position to the devout one so that you
cannot sin as long as you remain within the call. You are free before God by faith; but
for man you are everyone's servant through love. From this you can determine that
monasticism and spirit-mongering are wrong for our times, for they join forces before God
with external things, though God readily releases them they strive against faith's freedom
and God's order. Again, they ought to be committed to man in that they lovingly serve
everyone, yet they obtain their freedom and are of no use or service to anyone but
themselves, striving against love. Thus it is a foolish people, reversing all of God's
rights, wanting to be free though they are committed, and committed where they are free,
and yet aiming to obtain higher seats in heaven than the ordinary Christian. Indeed, they
will be seated in the abyss of hell, they who perverted heavenly freedom into hellish
constraints and made loving servitude into hostile freedom. (Walch Tom, IIXX, 1123- 1130)
Melanchthon writes further:
"Aristotle rightfully denounces those who, based on their
unlawful and excessive desire for freedom, indict the type of slavery accepted by
international law. However, we would be greatly more justified to indict the 'Schwaermers'
of our times, who under the guise of the Gospel are calling people to freedom, insisting
that slavery is against the Gospel. Since we have already discussed this matter quite
often, let it suffice for now to remind the reader that just as the Gospel does not negate
the command: 'Honor your father and mother,' neither does it disapprove of masters or
slavery, but rather confirms them by its witness and teaches that for the taming of the
godless, human masters and slaves are necessary. And these things are being made use of by
the saints, as well as other good creatures of God . . . The concept that according to
natural law all is common is being explained in that it applies to man's nature as it was
before the occurrence of original sin. Speaking of the current condition, after the fall,
we rightfully ascertain that the apportionment of things is a matter of natural law. And I
do not agree with the assertion of the old lawyers that based on natural law all is
common; for they are speaking of the currant natural condition which indicates that
apportionment of things is necessary. Thus they say: 'According to natural reasoning that
which previously belonged to no one will be apportioned to the one who takes possession.'
This assertion teaches that based on natural reasoning one gains a thing by simply taking
possession. Natural reasoning here means natural law. I am saying this in order to warn
the reader not to be fooled by those declarations which praise those platonic communes
which because of their newness tempt the uninitiated, giving opportunity for vast,
destructive, errors. No other virtue adorns Christian cognizance more fully than when one
conscientiously honors the state's laws and its heads. Therefore statements which speak
against public peace must be far removed from the Gospel. If someone says that community
of goods is a godly law, let your reply be: 'Though shalt not steal.' For that command
demands that everyone keeps that which is his. If someone insists that community of
property is an evangelical prerogative, answer with St. Paul's statement which refers to
lawful orders of government as God's order, Rom. 13:1. If someone argues that community of
property is based on natural law, reply with the judgment of reason, proving that based on
the sinful nature of man it is impossible to have property in common. For the slothful
would want to be sustained by the labor of others, against natural law, which is validated
by the words of Gen.3:19: 'You shall gain your bread by the sweat of your brow . . .'
(Corpus Reformator. XVI, 426,427, 432,433)"12
Luther writes about Johannes Brenz, whom he respected highly:
"Among the Israelites, there were two systems of slavery. One
concerned Israelites who were sold to other Israelites or to foreigners living among them.
About these the law says: ‘When your brother is reduced to poverty and sells himself
to you, you shall not use him to work for you as a slave. His status shall be that of a
hired man or a stranger lodging with you; he shall work for you until the year of jubilee.
He shall then leave your service . . .’(Lev. 25:39-41). Concerning those who sell
themselves to foreigners, it says: ‘One of his brothers shall redeem him . . . ‘
(V. 49). Shortly thereafter it says: ‘. . . you shall not let him be driven with
ruthless severity by his owner. If the man is not redeemed in the intervening years, he
and his children shall be released in the year of jubilee. . .’ (V. 53-54). The other
dealt with conditions for slaves which the Israelites purchased from foreigners or had
taken as prisoners of war. There conditions were much more severe. Here the law says that
‘These may become your property and you may leave them to your sons after you; you
may use them as slaves permanently’ (V.46). These never gained freedom, not even
during the year of jubilee, except when their master released them or they were redeemed
with money, or in cases of disability, see Exodus 31. One can thus see that the conditions
for slaves were sometimes severe, sometimes more easily bearable. Though the experts of
the law contend that slavery is against natural law, for according to natural law all men
are at first born free. However, because of sin, slavery is one of the bonds with which
those who are mentally weak are held to their duties; and those who are reckless and
irresponsible are controlled.
Therefore, God does not condemn civil law where slavery is legal, as
long as it is bearable and not in conflict with Love with which we are to treat our
neighbors; where the master does not have the right to mistreat or kill the slave
according to his own desires, treating them like beasts of burden, but must provide
sustenance and discipline for the slave, as discussed by Syrach. The Holy Spirit Himself
expressed that God does not abhor slavery among men, and that the wicked and wild must be
held in check and punished with the yoke of slavery when He cursed Canaan: ‘Cursed be
Canaan, slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers’ (Ex.9:25), and to Esau He said:
‘. . . the older shall be servant to the younger’ (Gen.25:23). And St. Paul
says: ‘Every man should remain in the condition in which he was called for the man
who as a slave received the call to be a Christian . . .’(1.Cor. 7:20-21). Elsewhere
he admonishes the masters, not that they should set their slaves free if they want to be
Christians—though this is allowed and would be a great mercy—but that they
demonstrate justice to their slaves and to remember that they too have a master who is in
heaven."(About Leviticus, Chap. I, p. 902,903).
Brenz, the old, enlightened theologian, is very certain that the
duty of the slave against his master is part of the fourth commandment. Instead of proving
this, he uses it as proof. About Gen.16:9 he writes:
"Let us analyze what the angel is saying to Hagar, the slave
woman. First he orders her to return home and obey her mistress according to the law. We
can see from this that we are dealing with a good angel, for Satan’s angel does not
teach lawful obedience, but unlawful rebellion and riots." (ibid).
Luther says about Caspar Cruciger, his co-worker on Bible
translation:
"His books are ample proof of the spirit in which he teaches
and advances God’s word13. Cruciger writes the following, among others, about 1.Tim.6:
"To instruct people of various social positions, St. Paul also
instructs the slaves of their duties. Here we have to accept that the Gospel does not
abolish civil slavery or the difference between freedmen and slaves. Indeed, as the Gospel
confirms other political issues, so it also confirms freedom, dominion and slavery. Other
testimony by St. Paul regarding masters and slaves must be viewed in the same manner, in
opposition to that of the "Schwärmgeister" (those filled with the spirit of
religious visions)14 who strive to abolish dominion, property rights, slavery, and similar
political orders. Without doubt, at the time of our church’s beginning there were
some, wrongly informed, who had similar views, as if man ought not be burdened with
slavery. These views caused dissension among the slaves. For these reasons St. Paul often
repeats the relevant commandment, adding that they should not desecrate the Gospel. For
men, upon hearing that the Gospel negates political relationships, become fearful of the
Gospel and insult it. Even believers must diligently beware of such vexations." (In
epist. Pauli ad Tim.Argentor, 1540, pp. 257-258.)
Martin Chemnitz, the well-known, incomparable, second Martin of our
church, citing scripture in his Locis dealing with the slave owner’s
duties, continues:
"However, the slaves’ duties are more carefully defined
because their conditions are harsh, and seem unworthy of the Christian confession, in that
those who have been freed with the blood of Christ should be under men’s yoke of
slavery. St. Paul describes the obedience of slaves by first explaining that they are not
in slavery as the result of chance or human oppression, but that God Himself has
established these differences of occupation. Therefore they are to be obedient to their
masters for thus they are doing God’s will, for God has in this manner given their
(the slaves’) labors to their masters. Consequently they need not doubt that God
regards these labors as if having been done for Him." (Loc. Th.II,64.)
Friedrich Balduin, professor in Wittenberg, died 1627, writes
concerning 1 Tim.6:1-2:
"The apostle begins with the slaves, as his letters often do,
especially those letters to Asian congregations, such as the Ephesians, the Colossians,
and Timothy. He was compelled by five reasons.
1) There were many slaves in Asia who were well reputed, as
Agesilaus, king of the Lacedemons used to say that the freedman among the residents of
Asia were wicked while the slaves were good. If these slaves were to be converted to
Christianity, they needed to be instructed that though their worldly position was
disdainful, it was nevertheless pleasing to God as long as they would diligently perform
their duties according to their positions.
2) Hebrew slaves obtained their freedom after six years (Ex.21:2).
To prevent Christian slaves from demanding the same of their masters, they are commanded
by St. Paul’s apostolic authority to be subject to their masters, as explained by
Augustinus in his 77th question about Exodus.
3) Already at that time there were people who misunderstood the
apostolic doctrine of Christian freedom, which frees from sin, death, hell, and other
spiritual enemies. These people understood this to mean political freedom as if Christians
are not subject to authority and sovereignty. This instruction was therefore necessary
because the Gospel does not negate political law. This issue is treated by Chrysostomus in
his 16th Homily, a commentary on this text.
4) Disgust expressed by the heathen had to be dealt with lest they
become more repulsed by the Christian religion when they observed immorality even among
the slaves. For the heathen did not base their judgment on words, but on works and
conduct, says Chrysostomus in his fourth homily on the letter to Titus.
5) The lifestyles of the slaves themselves demanded repeated
instruction of this kind, Chrysostomus continues. It was accepted as fact among all
peoples that slaves were usually impudent, intolerant, spiteful, sly, and scarcely able to
accept the doctrine of virtue; Not because of their very nature, but because of their
consociates and negligent lifestyle. Concerning morality they seem to have been totally
neglected by their masters. For these reasons then the apostle often reminds the slaves of
their duties.
In our text he gives them two rules: One pertains to those slaves
whose masters are unbelievers; the other to those whose masters are believers. The first
one: "Slaves are to honor their masters, so as not to revile the name of God and His
doctrine." Slaves are different from laborers, though. Laborers serve many. They are
also called banausi and also thetes. The Athenisians called them thessae
because they were low-class women serving for hire. Among these same Athenisians the
"thetic" class was the fourth after the "census" which included
tradesmen and day laborers which were excluded from holding public office and were exempt
from tax.
Slaves, however, are those whose service has become the property of
another. Of these it is said that they have either been born into this class or have been
made slaves. Born into it because they were born by women slaves; made into slaves by
political power, e.g., by being a prisoner of war or, as a freedman over 20 years old, who
sold himself into slavery. The apostle is not talking about hired laborers here, because
they are not owned by any one master, and are under the rule of 1.Thess. 4:6. "No man
must do his brother wrong in this matter or invade his rights. . ." He is speaking of
slaves, of whom he says are "under the yoke," for they are not their own masters
but tied to a master.
Slavery is indeed a yoke under which one suffers. It is a lowly and
terrible state, for nothing is lower and more terrible than to be given to another as his
own, and if one obtains something, it is obtained for the other. "Yoke" (zygos
or zygon) is a pair of oxen, tied together. As a metaphor it relates to slavery.
Plato speaks of the yoke of slavery, describing the hardship and misery of slavery. Those
who are under the yoke of slavery are called by the apostle to "honor their
masters." He defines as "their masters" those who have authority over them,
regardless of their social position or their religion, as long as they are masters of
slaves. He wants these not only to be honored—something which is often against the
slave’s will—he also wants them deemed to be worthy of honor, because God
Himself has found them worthy of this honor, He defined the difference between slave and
master. This is made clear in the fourth commandment which says to honor father and
mother, names which also apply to our masters and all those who have been set over us. He
refers to "all honor" which slaves owe their masters, for there is also an honor
which is due only to God and which we exclude here, of course. This honor to which masters
are entitled, is not only reverence, but all acts of kindness15, and
everything else which is not against God. The basis for this rule is: "So as not to
revile the name of God," namely among the heathens. For, as we said above, the
heathens do not judge our belief by words, but by the actions and lives of men.
Homer writes about slaves in his Odyssey that they
have lost half of all virtues, that slaves usually are evil and sly and are perceived as
such. For these reasons, terrible punishments were devised by governments in order to curb
this evil and increasing audacity. Therefore, says Chrysostomus in his fourth homily of Ep.
to Tit., once the heathens notice that such an impudent, insolent type of people are
influenced by our religion and become controllable, honorable and humble, their masters
will respect the tenets of our religion, though they (the heathens) may be ignorant and
unreasonable. Obedient slaves can be of great service to our church. As Chrysostomus
himself adds, the more wicked they once were, the more the power of the Gospel becomes
apparent through them once they have become believers.
This is the other rule for slaves: "Those whose masters are
believers ought not despise them because they are brothers, but rather be all the more of
service to them because they are one with them in faith and love." Converted
slaves could have objected that all Christians are united by Christ, and therefore it is
iniquitous that one assume authority over the other, or that one should become subservient
to another. The apostle answers that Christians should not scorn their masters. The
relation through Christ refers to the soul, the faith, word and sacrament, and salvation
itself, where there is no difference between slave and freedman (Gal.3:28). However,
concerning their vocation and social position, they are different. Therefore, they ought
to be even more willing to serve those masters whom they know to be believers. These
faithful he calls "brothers" of the church.
It must be noted here what Hieronymus said to contradict Helvidius
towards the end. Holy Scripture uses the term "brothers" with four different
meanings: based on nature, based on race, based on kinship, and based on affection. Based
on nature, brothers are those with the same parents like Esau and Jacob; based on race
such as all Jews (Deut. 15:12); based on kinship as Lot is referred to as Abraham’s
brother. Brothers based on affection are divided into two categories—spiritual and
general. In the spiritual sense all Christians are brothers, according to Psalm 133:1
"How good it is and how pleasant for brothers to live together." In this sense
then slaves become the brothers of their masters who are believers, because all people are
of one father and therefore in brotherhood with one another. 1.Cor. 5:11 states: "I
now write that you must have nothing to do with any so-called Christian who leads a loose
life. . ." However, the apostle adds three reasons why slaves should obey their
masters who are believers.
1) "Because they are believers;" common faith works toward
greater love, and the apostle advises elsewhere to do good works but first of all to those
who are fellow believers (Gal. 6:10).
2) Because they are "loved." The Greek word agapetos
usually means a loved one or one who already is being loved by another. Hieronymus
comments on the epistle to Philemon that it means the same as being worthy of love,
because the run-away slave Onesimus is referred to as a beloved (agapetos)
brother (V. 16), which means that he is worthy of love. Christian masters are loved by
God, therefore worthy of the love of men. Others use the words "gentle, kind, not
testy but affable." All this is the result of the Christian religion, for the sake of
which slaves are to honor these masters even more.
3) Because "they are the recipients of good deeds."
Chrysostomus relates these words to the slaves as if they receive more good from their
masters than the masters receive from the slaves. However, because this is the same for
slaves of believers and non-believers, this explanation does not fit. We tend to agree
instead with Ambrosius who speaks of "God’s good deeds," which is otherwise
referred to as God’s mercy which He grants, through Jesus, to the slaves as well as
to their believing masters. That is why some have added the word "God":
"They are recipients of God’s good deeds," which is not found in the Greek
text. Because all believers receive God’s mercy in Christ, no one is to scorn the
other, nor should the believing slave deny his service to his master.
These are the rules for slaves. According to the apostle’s
admonishment they should not only be taught, but also be impressed upon the slaves. It is
in their nature to defy those masters whom they know to be their equal concerning
spiritual blessings, against whom they easily rebel unless they are regularly reminded of
their duties. He goes on to discuss false teachers, who either scorn certain doctrines
concerning domestic life and therefore claim to possess superior wisdom and concoct new,
but useless ideas, or are otherwise not sound in their faith." (Commentar in
Epp. Pauli Francof, 1664, pp. 1367-1369.)
Michael Reichard, during a Latin disputation held in 1617 in
Wittenberg, answered the question "Does slavery disagree with Christian
freedom?" thus:
"Erasmus of Rotterdam writes about Ephes.6:5: ‘Among the
Christians the words master and slave seem to be scorned; for as baptism makes us all
brothers, how then is it fitting for a brother to call the other ‘slave’?
However, it is quite wrong to mistake Christian freedom for civil freedom. We need to
realize that man must be regarded in two vocations and social positions. First as a
Christian and in fellowship with God, all of which relates to spiritual matters. Here of
course is the highest measure of equality between masters and slaves, for in Christ we are
neither man nor woman, neither slave nor freedman (Gal.5:13); in love we serve one
another. Such services were probably performed by men while in the state of innocence; as
it is fitting that the younger obey the older and the inexperienced obey the experienced.
Secondly, man is also viewed as a citizen, which pertains to matters of physical and
external nature. Here there is a difference between freedmen and slaves, but neither does
being a master increase Christian freedom nor does slavery decrease it. Christian freedom
is not of external relations, nor is it part of civil law; but it belongs to Christ’s
kingdom which is spiritual. Therefore, slavery can co-exist with Christianity and
Christian freedom as well as submission of children to their parents.
Politicians and theologians view the origin of slavery differently.
The former are of the opinion (according to Plinius in the 7th book of natural history,
chapter 56) that the Lacedonians were the first Greek people (among which slavery was
unknown for a long time, according to Herodot’s witness in the 7th book) to espouse
the concept of slavery; as it spread, the victor would not slay those whom he had actually
captured (manu cepissent), keep them for himself (servarent) whereby they
became servants (servi) and were consequently called slaves (mancipia).
Horaz refers to this in his Epistles, Book 1, Ep 16 when he says: ‘If you can
sell the prisoner, do not slay him (vendere cum possis captivum, occidere noli).
The apostle Peter writes in 2.Peter 2:19 ‘. . . for a man is
the slave of whatever has mastered him.’ However, the origin of slavery accepted by
theologians is much older. They refer to slavery as a consequence of sin, and rightly so.
Man was made in the image of God, but it is God’s nature to rule, not to obey.
Therefore it follows that it is not in man’s nature to be a slave. For this reason
then, while in the state of innocence, men was not master over men, for they willingly did
everything in order to do the will of the Creator. However, after the fall all this
changed, and soon dominion of men over men and the difference between master and slave
developed as punishment for sin on both parties. For the master is subject to much toil
and endless dangers. The slave must submit to another’s will, and neither of them
lives his life without severe hardships. They are both suffering the just punishment from
a just God. That is why Scripture mentions the first slave after the flood, Gen. 9:25
where Noah says: ‘Cursed be Canaan, slave of slaves shall he be to his
brothers.’ Ambrosius refers to this section of scripture in his Book of Elisha
and Fasting, Chapter 5: ‘If there had been no dipsomania, there would be no
slavery today.’ That is why God Himself later on gave the law, defining the duties of
slaves in the Hebrew republic (Ex.21 ff.). Based on these, the condition of our slaves is
much more bearable.
All of this leads us to believe that slavery is a God-pleasing
condition, ordered by Him; a condition under which everyone can live as best as possible
and do God-pleasing works, even though there are enough tribulations. Some of these are
because by nature we are not suitable for slavery, some of them are because we were born
to pride and arrogance. It is much easier, though, to serve than to rule, especially if
one deals with wicked, stupid, people. For these reasons we repeatedly read apostolic
admonishments concerning slavery, such as Eph. 6:5; Co.3:22; 1 Tim.6:6; 1 Peter 2:18, and
so on." (Quaestiones Illustres Ex Epp. Ad. Phil.et Col.Erutae Aut,F. Balduino,
Disp. 8, Mich.Reichard.pp.5-7.)
A Later
Lutheran Theologian About Slavery.
We could refer to many more testimonials by old Lutheran teachers.
The above, however, suffice to show to what conclusions they have come, concerning
Christian doctrine and slavery. After having cited a number of these testimonials, we now
turn to a newer theologian.
Dr. G.C.A.von Harless writes in his Ethics:
"It is the relationship of Christian brotherhood under whose
guise the slaves attempted to change the God-ordered difference between master and slave
into a false equality; or, in the name of Christian freedom tried to replace Christian
obedience with disobedience and rebellion. (Compare admonishments to the slaves by St.
Paul and Peter: ‘If the masters are believers, the slaves must not respect them any
less for being their Christian brothers. Quite the contrary, they must be all the better
servants because those who receive the benefit of their service are one with them in faith
and love’ (1 Tim.6:2). ‘Servants, accept the authority of your masters with all
due submission, not only when they are kind and considerate, but even when they are
perverse. For it is a fine thing if a man endure the pain of undeserved suffering because
God is in his thoughts (1 Peter 2:18, ff.). The perverse attitude of the slaves is often
met with the equally perverse attitude of the masters. They either think that they must
yield their right over the slaves in order to demonstrate to them the concept of Christian
brotherhood, or, under the pretense of their Christian rights, they harbor selfish and
cruel harshness.
The spirit of Christ reacts against this self-delusion or deceit of
all sorts. By His power we transfer to relationships within the family those principles
with which we are already familiar, we realize that within the family too there is godly
order and structure. These are not to be torn down but to be fulfilled, filled with the
power of the spirit of Christ, which is a spirit of righteousness as well as of
self-denying, merciful love. According to the apostle, in this manner then the slaves obey
their masters ‘as serving Christ’ (Eph. 6:5), and the masters forget the state
of slavery in their treatment of slaves ‘as their brothers.’ (See also
Philem.15)
Therefore, the form is not changed (1 Cor.7:21), but everything is
new through the spirit of Christ’s freedom, which gives the proper content to all
earthly form, excluding all selfish misuse which is perversion of earthly form. (See also
1 Cor.7:22)" (Christian Ethics, 5 ed., Stuttgart 1853, pp. 287,288.)
Concerning Eph. 6:1 and following, he writes:
"The apostle discusses the issue of slaves also in Col. 3:22
ff; compare Tit.2:9 ff.; 1 Tim.6:1 ff.; 1 Cor.7:21 (where I accept the explanation of the
Greek elders ‘if you can obtain freedom remain a slave,’ as the right one, based
on language and content), also on 1 Pet.2:18. The apostle shows that even under these
conditions the power of the Gospel can be manifest in the individual, not by repulsion of
slavery, but in that the curse of slavery turns into a blessing through ready obedience.
The Gospel does not abrogate external consequences and punishment
for sin. First it waits to see if the contrite, unfettered heart can be turned around.
Neither does it say to the Christian slave: ‘break your fetters.’ It breaks the
fetters for him in that it removes the master’s cruelty in his fear of a
higher master. The repulsion of the slave turns into willing obedience towards him who is
the lord of both slave and master. External slavery is neither a product nor a hindrance
of the power of the Gospel’s truth. Once the truth takes over, whatever external
issue does not agree with it will disappear on its own. It penetrates the roots of the
dead tree and with renewed life-power it casts off the dead leaves. Human wisdom cleans
the hard trunk of the dead leaves, making it more visible in its ugliness.
I cannot understand, however, how one can consider the concept
‘general(?) human dignity and human rights’16 as the doctrine by which
the Gospel abolishes slavery—defining it as a doctrine based on Gospel. Heathen
antiquity already had this realization. ‘They are slaves? No, human beings. They are
slaves? No, companions. They are slaves? No, fellow servants (conservi)’ said
Seneca. Antiquity does not lack good principles, suggestions for proper authority and
proper service (‘serve freely and you will not be a slave,’ says Menander).
However, none of these realizations led to abolishment of slavery.
Heathendom was not able to get beyond the following: ‘Every freedman is under a law,
but the slave is under two, the law and his master.’ That which caused slavery to
remain slavery was done away with by Christianity, in that it gave one redeemer to
both master and slave, where there is only brotherly love, no slave and no freedman
(Gal.3:28; Philem.16), but all are one in Christ.
Faced with such a freedom, could the apostle advise to remain in
earthly slavery? Or should he at least advise it (1 Cor.7:21) where the concept of
Christian freedom was in danger of being misused for the flesh? It is evident that the
ancient church did not use this section as perverted ascetics (compare Ignatius im
Briefe an Polykarp, chapter 4), as also taught by Thedoret’s comments to 1 Cor.7,
21: ‘He did not mean this hyperbole to be a generalization, but saw its use in
preventing escape from slavery under the guise of religion.’ And the master remained
master, and the slave remained slave, even though they had become brothers in
Christ."
Tr.’s note: All Bible quotations are
from The New English Bible, Oxford University Press, 1971.
A note about Endnotes
The endnotes used in this work are linked from the note number in
the text to the endnote at the bottom of the page, and vice versa. In addition,
where a note uses "ibid." or "op. cit.", it is linked to the
appropriate parent endnote information.
If you use this "ibid." or "op. cit." link, you will need to use the BACK
button on your browser to return to the endnote you started with. From there, you
can click on the endnote number to go back to where you were in the text.
1. It seems that these brothers and sisters of the free
spirit, with their ways of the flesh, free love, and communism, have already robbed our
"young Germany" of the glory to have introduced something new, and impress on
our era the stamp of emancipation.
2. Compare Ranke’s Deutsche Geschichte im
Zeitalter der Reformation, 3rd. Ed., Ch. II, pp. 144-183. (German History During
the Reformation.)
3. It is the same Rousseau who turned over his five
illegitimate children to an orphanage, and on his deathbed declared that he was returning
his soul to nature in as pure a condition as he had received it.
4. Paffe = a cleric, referred to in a contemptuous
sense.
5. We are quite aware of what kind of antagonism we are
inviting in that we are discussing the issue based on God’s word. We are quite aware
of what terrible weapon against us we are placing into the hands of those who oppose
slavery. However, the word and honor of God is higher than all else. What God has made
known to us in His word, we will confess, for as long as God allows us to live, no matter
how the world and its charmers rage against us or laugh at us. We are not conformists,
rather we stand on God’s word. We know that ultimately God’s word and the truth
will be victorious, and all who have fought against this word will see that they have
fought against God himself, in vain. We see quite well that the wild waters of the new
spirit won’t be dammed. Unobstructed they flow their way, washing away all that now
exists. We, however, do not want to throw ourselves into this stream and perish in it. We
will raise our voices, though weak, and give witness against it, hoping for the day when
it will be apparent that "God’s foolishness is wiser than man’s
wisdom." That day will grant, without doubt, that for which Christendom has prayed
for nearly two thousand years. Amen!
6. We are therefore inconsiderate of those who have
themselves confessed that they will no longer accept the Bible as the word of God if it
justifies slavery, but rather condemn it as a work of tyranny. It is clear that these have
never truly regarded Holy Scripture as God’s word. Should this article prompt
rebuttals, we will only deal with those who seriously consider our biblical explanations.
Others, merely expressions of power under the influence of Zeitgeist, empty
humanistic declamations or even malicious insinuations with political motives, will be
disregarded, no matter how long or seemingly thorough they might be. According to Hamann
"those with the emptiest heads have the loosest tongues and most prolific pens."
(See Hamanns Schriften III, 10.)
7. Immediately before that, Melanchthon defines civil
liberty thus: "It is the physical ability, as decreed by law, to move one’s body
in an honorable manner, from locality to locality, to freely elect an honorable vocation,
to own property and to dispose of it at will, as well as enjoying lawful protection of
person and property; while Joseph could not move his person from locality to locality
neither could he take it away from his master. However, the emphasis is on "as
decreed by law" because freedom is not uncontrolled licentiousness. . ." (See
also p. 1095)
8. It is a given that these words also have other,
related meanings, just like other words; and it is not important here.
9. Translator’s note: "Leibeigene" means
literally the proprietary right over the person of another = vassal, bondman, or slave.
10. Therefore Luther says about the ninth and tenth
commandments in his Large Catechism, as can be found in our Book of Concord:
"God has added these two, that it should be considered a sin; he forbade that one
covet his neighbor’s wife or property, especially because under Jewish rule servants
were not free to serve for hire, as they do now, but rather they were owned by their
masters together with all they might have.
11. These latter consequences are readily understood by
our radical men of rebellion. The same spirit which in Europe declared the rank of princes
to be an outrage in this century, who strove to depose them and replace them with
democracy as the only rightful order; this same spirit compels them here to denounce
slavery as a degradation of free-born man. It drives them to communism, demanding
women’s emancipation (though they quite clearly agree that the female, according to
God’s order, is in a certain kind of slavery). Every Christian who aids these
agitators concerning slavery, is in the service of this radical-revolutionary spirit.
Horrified, they will find out that these contemporary revolutionaries will not be
satisfied, that after having achieved once, they will determinedly go on. By then regret
over the coalition with these men of radical advancement will be too late.
12. Even Calvin could not avoid recognizing that this
teaching about servanthood was Biblical. He writes about Ephesians 6: 5-9.: "The
apostle is not speaking about servants who are working for a salary, as is the case today,
but about that of those whose servanthood was permanent, unless they were set free out of
the goodness of their masters. Their masters had bought them with money for the purpose of
misusing them for the dirtiest of services, and by law they had the power of life and
death over them. To those servants, he commanded that they should obey their masters, so
that they should not dream, but that they might obtain a freedom of the flesh through the
gospel…He testifies, however, that they are obedient to God when they serve their
earthly masters faithfully; as if he wished to say: do not be sorrowful that you have been
brought into servanthood through human arbitrariness. It is God who has placed this burden
upon you, who has lent your services to your masters. So the one who does the duties which
he owes his earthly master with a clear conscience, not only fulfills his obligations to a
person, but to God." (John Calvin in N.T. Commentary. Ed. A. Tholuck. II, 68.) About
Philemon, said Calvin in his commentary about the epistle to the same: "Philemon was
not one of the common people, but a coworker with Paul in Christ’s vineyard, and yet
his lordship over his servant, which was his through the law, was not taken from him, but
he was only instructed to grant forgiveness to the same, and to reinstate him, yes, Paul
pleaded on his behalf, that he should receive his former position. (U. a. D. G. 371.)
13. See Luther’s introduction to his explanation of
Genesis.
14. Tr.’s note: There is no satisfactory one-word
translation of the German word "Schwärmer"; he is a person whose views are not
based on fact, but rather on his own visions and imaging. The word "Schwärmer"
can be used with negative as well as positive connotations.
15. Tr.’s note: The German word used is
"Liebesdienste" = services as an expression of love.
16. The question mark is by Harless himself.
Each of the articles translated in this paper
are from Volume (Jahrgang) 9 of Lehre und Wehre, published in St. Louis, MO in
1863. The first two articles were published in several issues of Lehre und Wehre
and are joined together here for clarity. Where the articles spanned issues is
indicated by a short horizontal line (like you see above).
Forward. "Vorwort", No. 1, January 1863, pp. 1-8 and No. 2, February 1863,
pp. 33-46.
The Old Lutheran Scholars About Slavery. "Die alten lutherischen Lehrer über
Sclaverei", No. 3, March 1863, pp. 79-84, No. 4, April 1863, pp. 118-120, and No. 5,
May 1863, pp. 142-147.
A Later Lutheran Theologian About Slavery. "Ein neuerer lutherischer Theolog über
Sclaverei", No. 6, June 1863, pp. 186-187.
Our sincere thanks to Concordia
Historical Institute for providing the source documents from the 1863 issues of Lehre
und Wehre.
And a special "Thank you" to Mrs. Erika Bullmann Flores, for her excellent work
at translation.
|