When Scripture Sends Mixed Messages: To Send Back or Protect?

In this article, you will learn how Deuteronomy 23:15 contradicts Exodus 21:2, Leviticus 25:44-46, 1 Corinthians 7:21 and Philemon 1:12-16. Find the translations at the bottom of the page..

The Bible provides a rich tapestry of teachings, but occasionally, some passages appear to hold conflicting messages, especially when it comes to the treatment of servants and slaves. Deuteronomy 23:15 stands out with a direct command: if a servant runs away from their master and seeks your protection, do not send them back. This underscores the importance of compassion and protection for those seeking sanctuary.

Yet, several passages seem to diverge from this protective stance. Take Exodus 21:2, for instance, which discusses the conditions under which Hebrew servitude is allowed. This appears to contrast with Deuteronomy's more compassionate perspective. The subtle nuances in these passages illustrate differing attitudes towards servitude.

Consider Leviticus 25:44-46, where owning foreign slaves permanently is permissible. This, again, seems to contradict the implication in Deuteronomy that an escaped slave should not be forced to return. It raises questions about the consistency of moral directives regarding servitude.

In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 7:21 advises individuals called to faith while enslaved not to be troubled by their status, potentially contrasting with Deuteronomy 23:15's advocacy for fleeing slaves. This reflects a more acquiescent approach, differing from the active protection suggested earlier.

Finally, Philemon 1:12-16 captures Apostle Paul sending Onesimus back to Philemon, which appears almost antithetical to the stance in Deuteronomy. It demonstrates a practical application of faith that seems to override the protective directive of not returning an escaped servant.

These passages highlight a mosaic of perspectives within the Bible concerning servitude, raising a compelling question: How do we reconcile these mixed messages? Is it possible these diverse teachings offer adaptability in moral reasoning, much like a map with several routes leading to the same destination? This invites us to deeply explore the context, purpose, and evolution of ethical guidance in the scriptures.