Another sign of the King and His Kingdom redemption is glimpsed when fellow Hebrews—male or female—sold themselves into slavery to pay off a debt. When they were released, again after six years, they were not to be sent away with nothing to begin life anew:
If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. (Deuteronomy 15:12–15)
There is here a profound recognition of the status and condition of a slave and a strong sympathy on the basis of Israel’s own story of being enslaved. Yet this remains a blue parakeet passage, for slavery itself is not condemned. This passage glimpses the King and His Kingdom from afar.
Yet another sign, another small step forward, is discovered. In Leviticus 25:39–46, words are used in a potentially revolutionary manner. How so? First, once again Israel is reminded that they were slaves (25:42). Second, the purchasers of fellow Israelites are not to call them “slaves” but “hired workers or temporary residents.” Third, they are commanded not to treat such persons “ruthlessly,” but “fear your God” (25:43). Fourth, these fellow Israelites are to serve only to the Year of Jubilee, another indication of reducing the time of their service (25:54).
Drawing upon Israel’s own story of redemption is what Israelites were to do when a fugitive slave arrived in the land of Israel, a passage that should have more impact on Christians in the US than I hear in the conversation. What did Israel do? Here is what Moses tells them: “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them” (Deuteronomy 23:15–16). Here again is a sign of redemption, the kind of redemption that will become a powerful vision in the King and His Kingdom Story, and here again the grace shown toward the fugitive slave is a grace experienced by Israel in Egypt.
A final sign of redemption that anticipates the vision of the King and His Kingdom Story stands tall out of the pages in the book of Job. In his own defense, Job confesses before his friends that he lives solely before the judgment of God (31:4) and so sets out a series of conditions: “If I have . . . let God” judge me. One of these concerns is how he has treated his own slaves and recognizes that his slaves are, like him, made in God’s image:
If I have denied justice to any of my servants,
whether male or female,
when they had a grievance against me,
what will I do when God confronts me?
What will I answer when called to account?
Did not he who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:13–15)
This is the closest passage in the entire Bible, including the New Testament, between “image of God” in Genesis 1:26–27 (notice “male or female” in Job 31:13’s second line) and enslaved persons. Job here candidly recognizes that though he has slaves, those slaves are no different than he is: they are creations of God and made in God’s image.
I must say once again: a slave is a slave is a slave. A slave is a person owned by another person who has sufficient power to own another human being. A good slave owner is better than a mean one, but a slave remains an owned person. Slavery was practiced in ancient Israel. Slavery was regulated and modified in redemptive directions, but slavery was not repudiated in Judaism except—so far as I know—among the Essenes who lived at Qumran.
Moments of Redemption in the King and His Kingdom Story
There are two major moments of redemption in the New Testament. (There are actually three, but the third is so big I want to make it a separate point.) The first is with Jesus, who does not eradicate slavery nor does he denounce slavery, but he does something important: he turns the language of following Jesus, knowing Jesus, loving Jesus, and obeying Jesus into the metaphor of slavery. This can be looked at from two radically different angles: either Jesus accepted slavery as a given in his society, a sign of accommodation, or Jesus turned slavery into a positive image, turning it upside down by connecting it to one’s relationship with himself. Here are a few glimpses of Jesus transforming the language of slavery into a positive image:
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6:24)
The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household! (Matthew 10:24–25)
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant. (Matthew 20:26)
The greatest among you will be your servant. (Matthew 23:11)
All of this is connected to the image of Jesus as the Servant, both from Isaiah 53 and from Jesus’s own words:
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)
Jesus connects the metaphor of slavery to his parables, to his relationship with God and the relationship of his disciples to himself, to the relationship of his disciples to one another, and through them all he reveals the status theme of God being King and himself as his earthly King and those in his Kingdom as those who serve Jesus the King. But in the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus tells us that the father welcomed the prodigal son back home and turned him from a servant/slave in a foreign land into a son with inheritance blessings (Luke 15:22–24). It is not a stretch to see Jesus here revolutionizing the slave theme into a son-of-God theme.
The second moment of redemption in the King and His Kingdom Story in the New Testament concerns the passages we mentioned above: that in Christ there is no such status as slave or free. Why? Because in Christ all are redeemed into equality with one another as they become children of God (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 3:11).
The Moment of Kingdom Redemption in Colossae
The third moment is a dramatic display of when the kingdom’s great redemption became an invitation, plus some. Tucked away in your Bible is the last of Paul’s letters in the canon of the New Testament. It is found just before the letter to the Hebrews and is a one-page letter from Paul to Philemon.2 Two facts about the people: Philemon is a slave owner and his slave’s name is Onesimus, which one famous New Testament scholar translates “Mr. Useful.”3 (Onesimus in Greek means “useful.”) Another important fact: Paul is in prison.
Onesimus is a slave, which aligns him with millions in the Roman Empire. It is said that some 250,000 human bodies were sold as slaves in Rome’s forum every year, and each slave was shown to purchasers with a necklace hanging down with a sign that explained the slave’s defects. Most slaves were not bought, but were born into slavery. Because his mother and father were slaves, Onesimus was born into slavery. As such, neither his parents nor Onesimus when he became a “man” could be married. He could be semilegally connected to a “wife,” but the children would be owned by Philemon, and there was no inheritance to be passed on when Onesimus died. Roman male slaves were always called “boys” because calling a male a “man” entitled him to marriage and inheritance. The sordid side of slavery, as if being owned by another human and being physically beaten were not sordid enough, was that some slave owners used their slaves for sexual pleasure—male slave owners who spent time with male or boy slaves was common in the Roman Empire. Onesimus and Philemon lived in Colossae (see Colossians 4:9).
The complication is that Onesimus, for some reason, ran away, though it is possible that he did not so much run away to escape forever but ran away to Paul because he believed Paul could be his advocate with Philemo
n over something Onesimus thought was an injustice. The letter itself is not clear enough for us to know for sure. For whatever reason, Onesimus ran away. What is odd is that he comes into contact with Paul, Paul preaches the gospel to Onesimus, Onesimus becomes a convert to King Jesus, and he was so gifted that the apostle Paul began to find him “useful” in ministry (read Philemon 10, 13). Paul develops a special relationship with Onesimus and in the letter to Philemon calls him his “heart” (v. 12) and his “son” (v. 10) and someone who is very dear to him (v. 16).
Now we will learn if Philemon knew how to put into practice the vision of the King and His Kingdom when it came to the redemptive benefits of a slave. The letter Paul sends to Philemon is nothing less than a test case to see if Philemon understands what it means to embrace the gospel story about Jesus. We might envision the event as one in which Paul kicks the door open and says to Philemon, “Here’s Onesimus! He’s a Christian! What do you think you should do with him?”
When Paul sent this letter to Philemon, the one who would read the letter to Philemon probably was Tychicus; see Colossians 4:7, 16. Paul would have instructed Tychicus about how best to “perform” this letter in front of Philemon. Paul wants this letter to make an impact not only on Philemon but also on the whole church of Colossae as well as on its neighboring churches in Laodicea and Hierapolis. So his instructions to Tychicus would have included when to make which gestures, when to pause and look people in the face, when to speed up, and when to raise the voice and when to soften the voice. We don’t know specifics, but it is certain that Paul didn’t let a hack read this letter and blunt the force with poor diction and reading skills.
Here’s what Paul does in this letter because on the line is whether the church will have slaves or not. On the line is whether the vision of the King and His Kingdom is redeeming slaves in a way that sets them free into equality in Christ. On the line is whether Philemon will be able to sustain the slave owner’s power over a slave who has become a Christian.
Paul begins by having this letter read in front of the whole church and not in a small room in private (Philemon 1–2). Next Paul publicly affirms Philemon in front of everyone in the house church by saying these things about him: Paul thanks God for Philemon, affirms Philemon’s love for “all” his holy people (little did Philemon know that “all” was about to include a runaway slave), affirms Philemon’s faith and partnership in the gospel work as well as Philemon’s own growing knowledge of the gospel (which was about to grow in new ways!), and he affirms how Philemon has “refreshed” Christians with his various acts of grace (vv. 4–7).
Then Tychicus turns toward Philemon with Paul’s appeal (vv. 8–21). Paul denies himself the power to command Philemon, but he appeals to him because of their mutual love. He works at getting Philemon’s sympathy for himself because he’s in prison as an old man, and he then announces that Onesimus has become his “son” and a Christian and is useful to Paul and (potentially) useful to Philemon. At this point Paul, having stunned Philemon with this news, backs off softly and says he’s sending Onesimus back because the matter is legally in the hands of the slave owner. Paul wants Philemon’s own approval. He even explains the departure of Onesimus as a divinely orchestrated event because now Philemon gets his slave back both as a slave and . . . this is the most dramatic moment in this entire letter . . . as a “dear brother.” At this moment we can imagine Philemon’s eyes are on Tychicus and then on Onesimus and back on Tychicus, but he’s really seeing the face of Paul. He wonders, mutters, fumbles, stutters, and says to himself, “What in the world?!? A ‘brother’! How can the slave be my family member?”
Paul continues in the letter, calling Onesimus someone who is “no longer . . . a slave, but better than a slave” (v. 16). That is, he’s not a slave because his status has been transformed in Christ who makes all “one.” The slave man has become the brother man and the slave-owner man has become the brother man. Paul, in his letter, has just announced in this church that meets in Philemon’s home that this man, Onesimus, is a brother.
Which means what? Paul’s next words in verse 17 say it all: “So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.” If there is any damage done to property, any theft of goods, Paul would repay for him. Wait, we must back up. Did Paul really say, “Welcome him as you would welcome me”? Paul just made Onesimus an equal to an apostle brother, and that means Philemon has been backed into a corner. How he responds to Onesimus in front of his entire church will show what he thinks of Paul. Paul now pulls out a clever move. Remember when he said in verse 7 that Philemon was known for “refreshing” others? Well, now Paul says, “Refresh my heart,” and notice where he wants this refreshment: “refresh my heart in Christ.” Right where there’s to be oneness! Wow.
Paul signs off with, “I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask” (v. 21).
“More than I ask.” What might that mean?
Paul was not totally against slavery or he would have said that right here. He would have said, “Look, Philemon, I know how the Roman world works, and there are slaves everywhere. But we are Christians and we think it is morally wrong.” But Paul didn’t say that because he didn’t think that. He was against selling slaves (1 Timothy 1:10), but he was not yet convinced that slavery was an immoral institution. The King and His Kingdom Story is on the move; there is innovation here; and more innovation would come later in the history of the world.
But in this moment in Paul’s letter to Philemon, Paul curved history toward justice because Paul taught Philemon that Onesimus, his former slave, would no longer be a slave. He would be a “brother”—a sibling in a family where equality and love and forgiveness would be established. Where reconciliation would be a way of life.
Put differently, Philemon would learn to live in a way consistent with the King and His Kingdom Story.
CHAPTER 12
ATONEMENT IN THE KING AND HIS KINGDOM REDEMPTION STORY
For some people the heart of all Christian theology is a theology of the cross, how it works and what it accomplishes, which is usually called “atonement theory” by theologians. For some theologians, a specific theory of the atonement is not only right but the heart of Christian theology. What is more, many such theologians think most everyone else gets atonement theory wrong. I have learned in forty-plus years of reading and talking with theologians discussing the cross that every one of them has something valuable to say. I have also learned that those who are most shrill and defensive of their theory of the atonement have the most to learn from the others. Every theory of the atonement deserves a place in our minds, our hearts, and our praxes. The bigger the atonement, the better; the smaller, the worse. To keep the theme of The Blue Parakeet in front of us, this must be said: no theme in the Bible deserves to find its precise location in the King and His Kingdom Story and its redemptive benefits more than the atonement. Each theory only makes its most sense when it fits into the larger Story of the Bible.1
THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT: In Brief
We enter here into some complex terms and theological discussions, but we need to have each of the main theories in mind before we can locate them in the Story.
The oldest approach to the atonement is recapitulation, and it means that Jesus the Son of God entered into our human existence and condition (our mortal, sinful realities) in every way so that he could redeem us in every way. One of the great summaries then is this: he became what we are so we could become what he is. Which is to say, he became human so we could become wholly redeemed, wholly human, and wholly present in God’s presence. I have described this view in these terms: identification for the sake of incorporation. (He identified with us so we could be incorporated into God’s redeemed family.) The celebratory note here is redemption in the sense of being rehumanized and reunited with God. This means we are reconciled.
Alongside recapitulation is what is called the ransom theory, or Christus Victor. Death is the enemy, sin propels us toward
death, Satan and his cohort of fellow enemies seek and work for our death, death and Satan have captured us, and Jesus enters as a human into enemy territory. But his life of obedience and his death took our condition upon himself, and he died our death so death itself could die. Death, sin, and Satan and his enemy cohorts were defeated when Jesus entered death, was buried, and then was raised by the power of God. That defeat of death breaks the forces of sin, systemic evil, and Satan and unleashes victory for those who are in Christ. The celebratory note here is liberation and victory. This means we are liberated and redeemed.
With hints and glimpses in the Bible and in the history of church by various writers, a theory called satisfaction emerged with force among medieval theologians and the Reformers. The essential theory works like this: as sinners we are rebels, we are guilty, and we dishonor the glory of God. We have in effect ruined our chance for redemption because we can on our own never satisfy the glory and honor and law of God. As mortal flawed humans, we can never satisfy God’s honor, so God sends someone who can be both fully human and fully divine. He becomes the God-Man who takes upon himself our humanity and satisfied the deity in his life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. The celebratory note here is that God is satisfied himself and he is satisfied with Christ and therefore he is satisfied with us in Christ. This means we are justified.
The most commonly used word since the Reformation for atonement is substitution, hence substitutionary atonement. There are, however, a few variants on substitutionary atonement, including these two primary ideas: representation and propitiation. The big idea of substitution is that Jesus died instead of us. Representation means much the same in that he “represents” us when he dies. Representation then is not as strong as instead of. Penal substitution clarifies the nature of Jesus’s substitution and representation. The punishment, which is what “penal” means here, means Jesus died our death so we don’t have to die our own eternal death. That is, he took upon himself our punishment. A yet more particular form of substitution is called propitiation. Once again Jesus both represents us and substitutes for us and so he dies instead of us. But the particular punishment he takes upon himself is not simply our death (penal substitution) but the wrath of God against us and against our sin (propitiatory penal substitution). The celebratory note here is instead of us. That is, Jesus shoulders the consequences of our sin so we don’t have to, and his death ended the punishment. This means we are justified and reconciled.
The Blue Parakeet, 2nd Page 16