Third, the New Testament
Christians were a tiny religious group living within an all-powerful, authoritarian
empire. They lacked the power to influence governmental policy. More important,
they lacked the categories (simply assumed by those of us who live in liberal
democracies) within which they could conceive of what we could call “social
action.”
Finally, fourth—and most
important, perhaps—the early Christians did not understand their calling in
these terms. They rejoiced in their identity as the people of the new realm
inaugurated by God through Christ. But they also knew quite well that the “old
realm” continued to exist and that it would exist until Christ returned in
glory. Granted, this realism about the continuing existence of the “world that
is,” with its many social injustices, the New Testament Christians focused on the
creation of an alternative society, a realm in which, whatever the realities
around them, kingdom values would be lived out. Slavery, for instance, was not
going to be abolished anytime soon; it was a reality that the early Christians
lived with. Their focus then, was on encouraging Christians lived with. Their focus,
then, was on encouraging Christians to realize, in their relationships with
each other, that their “new realm” existence was what ultimately mattered and
that this existence must dictate the way they would relate to one another. The
realities of one’s social or cultural identity could not usually be changed.
What mattered was that these earthly realities were seen to be trivial in
comparison with eternal spiritual realities (see esp. 1 Cor 7:17-24). The
letter to Philemon certainly shares this overall perspective. Paul seeks to
reconfigure the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus in terms of their
shared faith and the “fellowship” that faith creates (v. 6). Whether this new
relationship would transform Onesimus’s existing worldly relationship to Philemon
was not the most important thing. As M. Thompson puts it, “If a Christian owned
a slave, the highest duty in which that master could be called was not to set
the other free but to love the slave with the self-giving love of Christ.”
Certainly this is the perspective found in the New Testament “household codes,”
which do not call on Christian masters to liberate their slaves but to treat
them fairly and justly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1; 1 Tim 6:2). (Douglas J. Moo, The Letters
to the Colossians and Philemon [2d ed.; The Pillar New Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024], 363-64)