Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an Exercise in Hope

McCaulley argues that God has always intended for the freedom of Black people because the Old Testament and the New Testament provide the theological resources to dismantle slavery. McCaulley frames his argument with references to Black pastor and abolitionist James W. C. Pennington. Pennington’s concern is not about specific verses, nor the historical record, but rather about the overall character of God. McCaulley agrees with Pennington’s conclusion “that slavery is condemned by the general tenor and scope of the New Testament” (163), and McCaulley applies BEI to discern that the core theological principles of Christianity render slavery untenable in the long term and provide theological resources for abolition.

Matthew 16:21 contains Jesus’s method for interpreting the Torah; the method distinguishes between God’s creational intent, or the ideal, and what is allowed by manmade laws that are designed to limit the damages of an imperfect society. McCaulley applies Jesus’s interpretive method to Old Testament and New Testament passages. Furthermore, in Matthew 19:3-8, when Jesus is asked to interpret Old Testament passages on the matter of divorce, Jesus responds by turning to Genesis to posit that God did not condone divorce, but Moses instituted the laws in question “because of [humans’] hardness of heart” (140-41).

McCaulley locates God’s creational intent in Genesis and Revelation, arguing that slavery is always and forever couched in sin, and God’s vision is of a healed and transformed community. He argues that this is revealed in the creation account. Because there is no evidence that God intended the descendants of Adam and Eve to enslave one another, slavery could only be the result of the fall, which means that it is not God’s will. Moreover, the Exodus narrative reveals God’s liberating character, as God hears the suffering of the enslaved Israelites and frees them. The Old Testament laws address the existence of slavery in an imperfect world by explicitly defining how enslaved people are to be treated: in a way that recognizes their humanity and dignity and provides routes to freedom.

The New Testament interpretation also demonstrates God’s creational intent alongside the realities of an imperfect world. In Philemon, 1 Corinthians 7:21-24, and 1 Timothy 6:1-3, God uses Paul to put pressure on society and the church to redefine and abolish slavery. McCaulley’s interpretation of the Old Testament and New Testament passages provides a starting point to assert that Christian doctrine renders slavery untenable in the long term. Where enslaved enslaver exegesis uses Paul’s encounter with Onesimus and Philemon as evidence that it is correct to return enslaved people attempting to liberate themselves to their enslavers, McCaulley finds that Paul undermines slavery by transforming social relationships in light of Christ and requesting that Philemon free Onesimus (152). Furthermore, Paul’s encounter suggests the moral agency of Onesimus, and this moral agency is supported by 1 Corinthians 7. Where enslaved enslaver exegesis interprets 1 Corinthians 7 as Paul telling enslaved Christians that they should not be troubled by slavery, McCaulley finds that Paul releases enslaved people from culpability for their master’s immorality and the limits that enslaved status places on enslaved people’s worship. Paul also encourages enslaved people to obtain freedom if possible. Finally, McCaulley revisits 1 Timothy, which enslavers have used to mandate that enslaved people submit to their enslavers. Instead, McCaulley gleans from 1 Timothy 6:1-3 attempts to limit the damages of slavery by communicating to enslaved people that they themselves are moral agents and should behave in such a way that honors God and draws their enslavers to God.

Just as McCaulley finds in Paul’s texts attempts to make pastoral sense of difficult realities and limit the damages of human institutions, he locates similar functions in the enslavement laws of the Old Testament. Although McCaulley states that he is “not arguing that slavery in the Bible was different from the North American slave trade” (145), the differences underpin McCaulley’s discernment of a biblical justification for liberation. The laws mandated manumission after six years and the provision of resources after manumission for enslaved Hebrew people. Additionally, the laws called for the protection of self-liberated enslaved people, prohibited murdering enslaved people, and required that enslaved people be freed if they were subjected to certain forms of injury. Thus, inscribed in the Old Testament enslavement laws were a recognition of enslaved people’s humanity, whereas the denial of Black people’s humanity undergirded American slavery, as exemplified by the 1858 quote from South Carolina Senator James Hammond that McCaulley includes in his discussion.