Slavery, Polygamy, Ceremony, and Sacralism: Old Bottles for New Wine

In ancient times, whether among the people of God or among the nations, there were customs and practices that societies considered acceptable and which God seemed to wink at (Acts 17:30), but which are now considered unthinkable by the vast majority of Christians the world over. We could include slaveholding and polygamy in that category.

In another category, we might place the maintaining of ancient ceremonies, whether they were those specified by the Law of Moses, or whether the many other rites or holy days that Christians have patterned after Judaism. I would also assign to this second category the practice of bearing of arms for conquest or defense by God’s people, which was indeed an activity of faith when commanded by Jehovah in the Old Testament. Related to this last practice is the mode of societal order called “sacralism”, which effectively joins the church with the state, so justifying Christian participation in the role of “avenger” carrying out God’s wrath on the evildoer (Romans 13). Such an arrangement was ordained by God under the law of Moses for Israel. There is an evident lack of consensus in Christendom on the matter of the carry-over of this category of ancient ways into Christianity.

I would suggest that there is a thread running through all of the practices mentioned above, whether or not consensus on them exists among those who are called Christians. The common thread is this, that although these ancient modes and manners have all at some point manifested themselves to some degree in the church of God, formed by the Spirit all at once on the day of Pentecost, the Lord was very patient with His body the church during the many years of transition from Judaism to the “new wine” of the Christian faith. Some of these old ways were simply “old bottles” that should give way in time to new ones compatible with the love, joy, and peace that characterize Christianity (Luke 5:36-39). But many Christians in the church’s history seem to have preferred the taste of the “old wine” of legalism in the “old bottles” – the framework of the law and the ancient customs.

We can be thankful that the institution of slavery has died out in Christendom. The law of Moses regulated the practice to keep it from descending into the inhumanity so often manifested in the Gentile world historically, and well into the 19^th century in the Americas, these putatively Christian lands. I do not believe that ownership and total control of another man’s person and the fruits of his labor is compatible with Christianity, even though the apostle Paul was very careful in the way he addressed the Gentile Philemon with respect to his runaway slave, Onesimus. Slave ownership was likely not common in Jesus’ day among the Jews, though there were wealthy men among them, and perhaps this is because of an increasing consciousness of the inconsistency of the practice of slaveholding in light of their experience as slaves in Egypt long before, and in light of their contemporaneous oppression by the Romans. (See Leviticus 25:39-46)

Polygamy has for many centuries been considered an unacceptable arrangement for a God-fearing household, and so was apparently not practiced even among Jews after their Babylonian captivity. However, there are cultures to which the Christian gospel has come in which polygamy, concubinage, or serial marriages are tolerated, so that the word of God through the apostle Paul requiring the qualifications of an overseer plainly include being “the husband of one wife” (I Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6). “From the beginning it was not so” was clearly the teaching of the Lord Jesus as to divorce and remarriage for any cause but fornication (Matthew 19:3-9), and His clear word on marriage certainly applies to the practice of polygamy. This corrective principle has largely been held to by the Christian church as it spread the gospel among the heathen, effectively ending the degrading practice of polygamy in Christendom, notwithstanding its appearance among non-Christian and polytheistic Mormonism. No doubt there must be forbearance with new converts to the faith that are found in an unbiblical marital state acceptable to the society in which they are, but it should not be accepted in subsequent generations.

But now we come to some old practices that Christians still disagree on. Over half of the Christian profession teaches and practices the keeping of holy days, regulation of certain foods, the maintaining of sacred buildings, shrines, furniture, and sacerdotal garments, not to mention the veneration of images and icons in apparent contradiction to the second of the Ten Commandments. The apostles did not teach these rituals to the assemblies of the Gentiles in the first century of the church’s history. In fact, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written perhaps 30 years after Pentecost to patiently but definitely direct Jewish Christians away from the types and shadows of Judaism to the simplicity and reality of Jesus Christ and Christianity. In the New Testament, the keeping of holy days and the avoidance of certain foods was shown to be evidence of weakness or at least lack of maturity in the faith, as Romans 14, Colossians 2:20-23, and Hebrews 13:9-10 give us to understand. The believer who is growing in grace toward Christian maturity comes in time to see such practices for what they are: weak and beggarly elements, and worldly by their very nature (Galatians 4:1-11).

Probably the most controversial item in my listing above has to do with the extent to which a Christian or a Christian movement ought to involve themselves in matters of state, and in the defense of a nation or empire. As to individual participation in politics or warfare, it is likely that but a minority of professing Christians in history have taken the peaceful (or pacifistic) position that is clearly suggested by Jesus for His followers in His memorable words to Peter: “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Paul wrote that “the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly” (II Corinthians 10:4), but this principle was not yet understood by the eleven in the upper room when they informed Jesus of their preparation with “two swords” in response to His allegorical revelation to them that things would change dramatically for them upon His departure. The Lord’s “it is enough” was a patient response to His disciples’ lack of understanding of the gist of His word to their hearts, and not at all a commendation of their foresight and preparedness for physical self-defense (Luke 22:35-38). So when Peter cut off Malchus’ ear that same night, the Lord’s gracious and poignant response to it (given above) does not at all flow from the popular understanding that two swords were “enough” to defend themselves or the Lord.  It is instructive that none of the apostles, from that point on, ever spoke or wrote an inspired word of encouragement in the use of physical weaponry.

An even more serious breach of the church’s unique and separate position in this world was the acceptance of “sacralism”, which is in essence the confluence of church and state. In this mode, the institution of the visible church seeks to influence or control government, or then government maintains institutional authority and order in a state church. Such has been the regrettable and corrupting paradigm in what has called itself the Christian Church through many centuries of the Christian era, beginning in A.D. 313 with Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan. At the church’s founding no such marriage of church and state was even hinted at, and we can be thankful that this bad principle too fell out of favor a few centuries ago, in relative terms at least. Sacralism, and not paganism or atheism, was responsible for most of the martyrdom experienced by non-conforming believers in Europe over several centuries in the last millennium.

It seems to me that a Christian who views taking up arms as a godly means of securing peace and safety is particularly susceptible to sliding back (in thought and aspiration, at least) into a sacral church-state partnership. His goal might be to keep barbarians outside the gate and to prevent maleficent religions from endangering Christians. There is evidence that sacralism is appearing more attractive to some Christians, particularly in the Reformed Evangelical and conservative Roman Catholic camps, under the guises of “Christian nationalism”, post-millennialism, or dominionism.  This way of thinking is to be avoided by followers of a rejected Christ, who will in due time return to set things right among men by establishing His kingdom, the kingdom of the Son of Man (Matthew 13:41). Only then will Christians rightly reign over this earth, for we will be reigning with Him (II Timothy 2:12; Revelation 5:10).

Until that time, let all His saints “grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (II Peter 3:18), “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). May Christian maturity and conformity to Christ’s image be our first priority, for the glory of God.