Paul & Slavery (Part IV)

Note. I am less convinced of my arguments regarding Colossians and Ephesians, so take them with a grain of salt and the knowledge that I'm not settled on my opinions. When Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy come up, this will be abundantly clear.

PAUL: Colossians 3:22-4:1

²² Slaves, obey your earthly masters^[a] in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.^{[b] 23} Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters,^{[c] 24} since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve^[d] the Lord Christ. ²⁵ For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality. 4 ¹ Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

While some manuscripts[1] omit ‘in everything’ (kata panta) in v22, the verse orders slaves to obey their ‘earthly’ masters. The reasons given are “in order to please them” and because they “fear the Lord.” Given that slaves are addressed first,[2] the first four verses are written directly to slaves, with the one verses dedicated to masters appears more as an exception clause. V23 confirms that slaves are to “put themselves into [their task]” but for the Lord and not their masters. In honoring Christ, slaves were honoring their secondary masters.[3] Here, Paul is less interested in manumission—though I doubt he would oppose the idea—and more with regulating an existing social norm. The adage of “turning the other cheek” comes to mind. The fact that there appears to be a mutual respect throughout Col. 3 would temper this apparently one-sided submission, and a call to look forward to the future for rewards.[4] God will simply and impartially repay whatever wrong has been done to the slave.[5] This is more likely a reminder to the slaves (“since you know…” v4) who are beneath their masters to endure suffering because of reverence for Christ. For (explanatory/giving reasons “gar”) there is no partiality with God; this segues nicely into the one verse on masters. Any master would hear these injunctions given to slaves, and then be granted a general directive: to “treat [their] slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven”(4:1). This is a subclause of 3:25, with the theme of no partiality in view.

There is a clear distinction in view here, with Christ over the master, and the master over the slave. The alternative reading of 1 Cor. 7:21 (instead of taking freedom, stay a slave) seems to be the main theological thrust of this passage. There is no call for manumission, or even a reference to liberation or freedom. Because you have reverence for Christ, be a slave of him. Because you are a master over man, you are to treat them justly and fairly. While this is certainly preferable to encouraging abuse or even the status quo, this does seem to be a recognition in Paul’s mind of the social norm of slavery. However, a description of circumstances doesn’t endear itself to equality with the institution of slavery; nor does it necessitate that slaves couldn’t be preachers or “in Christ.” Given the use of “no partiality” and “no…slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!”(3:11). At best, Paul’s words can be seen as an awareness of the culture of his time.

Paul hardly affirmed the institution of slavery.[6] Christians today should recognize the times of the ancient world; remember what was sacrificed, and where we’ve come. While not in the same vein as 1 Cor. 7:21-22 and Philemon, Colossians 3:22-4:1 does indicate a less one-sided view of master/slave relations that many assume.[7] Paul had to bring New Creation to an old world, and sometimes compromises (unfortunately) have to happen when an unstoppable force meets a very slow moving object.[8]

PAUL: Ephesians 6:5-9

⁵ Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; ⁶ not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. ⁷ Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, ⁸ knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.

⁹ And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

The author of Ephesians most probably used Colossians as its primary source.[9] The amount of attention given to marriage is dissimilar, but the amount directed towards slaves and masters is roughly the same. This is a pivotal text used by Southern church leaders who supported slavery.[10] To them, slavery was an “institution of God.”[11] The fact that slaves are mentioned (as well as in Col. 3:22-4:1) could indicate a mixed congregation between slave and free.[12] What is most important to recognize is that marriage is shown to ‘set in place’ in creation, whereas slavery is institutionalized only after the collapse of Eden. Authority of humans over other humans, it seems, is a product of the Fall, and should be interpreted accordingly.

Again, we have the majority of data addressed to slaves, echoing Colossians 3:22-4:1. Slaves are called to “obey their earthly masters…as they would obey Christ” (5), with the heart of a servant, doing the will of God (v6), as they work for the Lord, and not humans (7), and that their reward is given by God, no matter their socio-economic status (8). Paul’s comment doesn’t stress the authority of the master, but instead focuses on Christ, and the servant’s love for him. Again, Paul has little ‘legal’ authority over his congregations.[13]

However, in specific instances (Philemon), Paul did put stress on the slave owner to free Onesimus. In contrast to Greco-Roman standards where slave owners were kind generally out of self-interest or out of a concern for status, Paul usurps this understanding. “In this same way” indicates a sense of reciprocity, as does the Colossians parallel in 4:1, though it is more pronounced here. Paul is concerned with correct action, and his sense of personal liberation is at work. Uniquely, he urges them to stop ‘threatening their slaves’ and suggests that both “have the same Master in heaven.” While v21’s call to mutual submission is grammatically connected to v22[14] and it doesn’t necessarily apply to the following sections (fathers/children, slaves/masters), there is a sense of reciprocity within the larger confines of the texts.[15] Several writers did exhibit a sense of compassion towards slaves, but by and large Paul was within this minority.[16]

If Christ is the Master, and both slave owner and slave are beneath him, then in some sense there is now a shared sense of identity. While social status is not completely abolished, the character of both figures is renewed towards the image of Christ. As F.F. Bruce states so well, “there is no word of abolishing the institution of slavery, but where masters and slaves are fellow-members of a Christian household their relationship should be mutually helpful.”[17] I would only add that if Paul were given the final say over such matters, maybe slavery as an institution would cease to exist.[18] 

--Nick

---

[1] P46 81.

[2] Mentioned already that the subordinate parties weren’t addressed first.

[3] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 168-9.

[4] For slaves, future eschatology hasn’t been fully realized. Yet Christ has already reconciled us all to God (1:20), and one wonders to what extent the stanza to Christ in 1:15-20 exerts any influence on these admonitions.

[5] “It is uncertain why the emphasis here should be on requital for the wrongdoer.” Pace Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 169.

[6] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 443-449, 448.

[7] To assume a social norm doesn’t necessarily imply an acceptance of said norm. Instead, it simply recognizes that society has a grand investment in certain systemic injustices, and by transforming the relationship; perhaps Paul hopes to render the slave system as irreconcilable.

[8] If you notice any conflicting emotions in the writing of this section, then you are observant.

[9] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 231. Bruce notes that 1 Corinthians and Romans have marked similarities to this ‘Paulinist’ epistle. Also of note is that much of what will be discussed has been mentioned in the Colossians section.

[10] Image in Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith, 35. The Southern leaders advocated that since, “…women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11-15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.” Therefore, the analogy between slaves and women drawn by egalitarians is valid, as it is consistent with the complaints of patriarchalists in the 50s.

[11] Ibid, 35. I find this completely in contradiction to Paul’s clear unease with slavery in 1 Cor. 7:21-22 and Philemon, and to a less extent in the later epistles. Their misuse of Philemon indicates an astonishingly simplistic reading of Paul’s most rhetorically persuasive epistle. As mentioned above, such a reading merits no serious attention.

[12] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 205.

[13] Especially if Ephesians is a general circulated epistle. If this is true, then it would make the most sense that Paul wouldn’t have the same type of authority in a general letter. However, in a specific instance (Philemon), it makes sense that he would wield his authority with a heavier hand.

[14] V21 supplying the verb “submit” to v22’s “wives submit to your husbands.”

[15] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 206 states, “Although much of the rest of what [Paul] says is within the conceptual bounds of the other progressive writers in antiquity, the principle of mutuality on which he bases this exhortation calls for more than a measured application of authority.”

[16] Pliny the Younger’s Ep. 9.21 and 9.24 are considered monumental.

[17] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 402.

[18] Craig S. Keener agrees, arguing that Paul would’ve been an abolitionist had he been alive in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Paul, Women & Wives, 205-6.

[19] Some complementarians (George Knight III as a good example; see the brief discussion in Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 208. I arrived at a similar – independent – conclusion) chafe at this, arguing that God didn’t ordain slavery, but he ordained marriage. This begs a special question: was marriage inherently subordinationist before the destruction of Eden? Genesis 1-2 gives no evidence for this.

Paul & Slavery (Part III)

For the epistle to Philemon, enjoy it here. I don't post everything here simply because its a post that is already too long.

PAUL: The Epistle to Philemon[1]

Written to a house church (v2), this epistle is thought provoking and unique.[2] Beginning with Philemon, Paul recalls his prayers for this man (v4), his “sharing of faith”(v6) and his joy and encouragement from him (v7). This enforces that Paul has a close relationship with Philemon,[3] and is uniquely aware of his spiritual life; he also gives a hint of his own spiritual life, indicating his relationship with “my God.”[4] This reinforces Paul’s equalizing factor. Just as he has shown that Philemon[5] is ‘spiritual,’ he has indicated that he is as well.[6]

From v8-14,[7] we have a shift in focus, though not out of the blue.[8] Paul explains how “bold” he is ‘in Christ,’ enough to command Philemon to do his ‘duty,’ but would prefer to “appeal to [Philemon] on the basis of love”(v8).[9] Paul is free to command Philemon, and he presents himself as an “old man.”[10] What makes this remarkable is that Paul appears so confident that he can dispense with his ‘command.’ Orders are most likely to breed resentment,[11] so this reinforces the nature of “love” as Paul makes clear from the beginning. Paul is confident, yet aware of the nature of his request. The use of “child” with Onesimus as the subject (v10) now reveals why Paul has bothered writing such a letter; on behalf of his child,[12] Onesimus. Now Philemon is fully aware of this purpose.[13] Playing off Onesimus’ name[14] (useful, helpful), Paul appears to show that he finds Onesimus as ‘beneficial/useful’ to him, as well as Philemon. He affirms his own desire to have Onesimus with him, but doesn’t do so by denigrating his character. V12 shows that Paul has sent him Onesimus back, with his own heart.[15] While the Stoics argued that slaves have souls, Paul seems to indicate that Onesimus is his soul.[16] Paul has now identified with the slave much more than he has with the slave owner; in essence, he has shown that he loves Onesimus, and for Philemon to not return his slave to Paul would break Paul’s heart. V13 continues this, putting the emphasis back on Philemon, who would have to give consent to an imprisoned Paul, who views Onesimus’ return as ‘service.’[17] The Apostle is making it difficult for the slave owner.[18] Paul confirms the nature of this legal request by preferring that Philemon’s good deed would indeed be voluntary.[19] V15-16 appear to imply that Onesimus became a Christian while with Paul, indicating the inherent tension of slaves and slave owners in the New Creation. The parallel use of “in the flesh” and “in the Lord” exemplify life in this world, and in the church. F.F Bruce states, “if Philemon set Onesimus free as the spontaneous expression of the grace of God working in his heart, he would derive real joy from the act, and the joy would be shared by Onesimus [and Paul].”[20] Paul promises to repay any debt Onesimus may have gained. Paul puts himself in Onesimus’ shoes so Philemon sees Paul as well as his slave.

Short of forcing Philemon at gunpoint to manumit Onesimus, Paul goes as far to imply a potential breach in the friendship if Philemon doesn’t act appropriately.

Paul strips away the dichotomy [of slavery being of social value] in the same sentence by stating that Onesimus is a beloved brother of Philemon both in the material and the spiritual realm.[21] The entire letter is quite awkward to think about: since Paul intends to come and stay with Philemon in v22, Philemon can hardly be expected to have his slave greet Paul at the door. Talk about social faux pas. Instead, Paul recognizes the practical implications of his words in Galatians and works through the conventional means of his day to free a slave. Not only is he risking capital[22] but also his reputation. He is not insensitive to the needs of others, and it is likely that Onesimus gained his freedom and served in the church (Col 4:9).[23] Several factors make this very likely that Paul was able to secure Onesimus’ freedom:

1) Owing Paul a favor, likely due to his conversion at the hands of the Apostle, it makes considerable sense that Philemon acquiesced to Paul’s request and freed his slave.

2) The reference to “The Bishop Onesimus of Ephesus to whom Ignatius wrote four or five decades later was the same man.”[24]

3) The letter was preserved and canonized seemingly without dispute, maybe even by Onesimus as his ‘charter of freedom.’[25] This lends power to the second point.

The parallel passage in Galatians 4:7 indicates that "no longer a slave" should carry more than just "spiritual" equality. If a slave is equalized with his master, then any subordination is not only awkward but also seemingly contradictory. This is coming off the heels of Galatians 3:28. Paul also commands slaves to free themselves if possible (1 Cor 7:21), acting consistently with the presentation of Gamaliel in regards to slavery. YHWH’s ideal social order includes women’s equality as well as slaves, and by claiming that slaves and masters are equal before God, God seems to state that slavery is not part of YHWH’s purpose.[26] Allen Bevere states, “The manumission of slaves threatened the unity and very fabric of the empire. Thus, Paul’s implicit way of asking Philemon for Onesimus’s freedom was a way of avoiding trouble for Paul and Philemon with the imperial authorities precisely because his request was politically subversive.”[27]

NARRATIVE RECONSTRUCTION[28]

Onesimus returns, carrying the letter from Paul. Philemon sees him, and orders his men to watch him. Philemon unfurls the scroll, written in large letters and begins to read. Onesimus, trembling, sees his wife and children behind his master. Philemon chuckles a bit, getting through v4-7. Onesimus has spoken highly of him to Paul? Doubtful, but he enjoys the kind words. Then he gets to v8. Paul’s boldness strikes him between the eyes and his brow furrows. Nostrils flare. Hands grip the papyrus tightly. Onesimus stares at his wife, wishing to hold her once before his master gives an order.

When Philemon reads v12, he pauses. Paul, as a token of good will, has sent Onesimus back with the letter, with Onesimus like Paul’s own heart. Philemon takes a few steps to the left, sandals resting on cobbled stone. The guards shift, watching as intently as Onesimus, who doesn’t bother wiping the cold sweat forming on his neck. He shivers when he hears Philemon chuckle, almost lightly. Philemon looks up at Onesimus, meeting him eye to eye. “My voluntary consent…” Philemon murmurs, turning to a slave boy who offers him a goblet of wine. He takes a sip and nods at the boy, who leaves quickly. Turning back, Philemon stares at Onesimus, his jaw loosening.

“No longer as a slave…”

Onesimus avoids eye contact with his master, staring at the tops of his bare feet. The torn toe nails, the scabs, the pain that is rushing back as his body wishes to collapse. A guard steps up, eyes going cold, grabbing Onesimus by the collar. Philemon holds up a hand, and the guard steps back. Slowly, deliberately, Philemon approaches his trembling slave, swishing the wine around in his goblet. Takes a second sip, running his tongue over his teeth.

“Are you thirsty?”

SUMMATION: 1 Cor. 7:21-22 & the Epistle to Philemon

Robert Gagnon provides three reasons to understand both texts as preferring freedom over slavery:[29] first, for Paul, the status of slave was incompatible with the status of brother. Second, the status of slave was in tension with the liberating redemptive event of Christ’s death. Third, freedom gave believers greater latitude of unhinged devotion to Christ. Thus, there appears to be a distinct tension between 1 Cor. 7:21-22, Philemon and the ‘slave’ texts in Colossians, Ephesians, Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy.[30] To them we now turn.

--Nick

---

[1] We are never told why Onesimus came to Paul. Most seem to understand Onesimus as a runaway slave. This is possible, and Onesimus could be seeking a mediator in Paul (as some priests functioned this way), but we are simply never told. My own theory is that Onesimus separated himself from Philemon (v15), indicating that the initiative was taken by Onesimus. The reason being possibly that, since Onesimus was ‘useless’ to Philemon, maybe Onesimus was going to be sold. While nothing proves this, perhaps Onesimus had a family. That could inspire a husband/father to act rashly. Perhaps he stole from Philemon and was planning on running away with his family, but was caught and ran off on his own. Only God knows.

[2] For instance, he mentions Apphia and it is implied that she is involved high up in the church.

[3] Possibly due to him converting Philemon, or additionally the stories that Onesimus has told Paul.

[4] Barth and Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 268.

[5] From this verse (4) on, Paul appears to be speaking only to Philemon. The use of the singular indicates this.

[6] Most profoundly, Paul has already begun to set up Philemon; not in a malicious way, but in that those “in Christ” relate to each other on the basis of being “in Christ.” Right now, its one to one, a most intimate conversation.

[7] One long sentence in the Greek.

[8] Paul has already presented Philemon’s character and reputation, establishing him as a “co-worker” and one who encourages Paul. Rhetorically, this is absolutely powerful. 

[9] Barth and Blanke note that Paul has “renounced a specific use of freedom of speech, [but] not his authority.” The Letter to Philemon, 309.

[10] Age is noted as having maturity and authority, and Paul’s use of this is indeed a socio-cultural move to present himself as having the acceptable power to demand something of Philemon. Since Philemon has already been told that he has “faith toward the Lord Jesus”(5), how much more is Paul’s faithfulness to Jesus? Murphy-O’Connor points out, “any male in his late fifties or early sixties would have been considered ‘elderly.’” Paul: A Critical Life, 4.

[11] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, 211.

[12] This isn’t the first time Paul calls his readers ‘children’: Titus 1:4; 1 Cor. 4:17.

[13] One wonders if Onesimus was the one to hand Philemon Paul’s letter. Imagine the tension in the room. See “Narrative Reconstruction.”

[14] See the discussion in Barth and Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 338-342.

[15] Paul doesn’t cite any OT or social law. Legally, Philemon was under no obligation to manumit Onesimus. However, since Paul identifies Onesimus as “his own heart,” this strongly implies that Paul cannot function without his child. Thus Paul seemingly transfers the (heavy!) burden of action to Philemon.

[16] Barth and Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 360.

[17] This ‘service’ is less likely domestic and more likely as ‘service in the gospel.’

[18] Paul has no legal right to retain Onesimus and he knows it. Priest and mediators could sell the slave elsewhere, but they most likely returned the slave, albeit with the understanding that the owner’s anger/honor was assuaged. Paul’s comment that he could “command Philemon” to free Onesimus must mean that he knows the process by which Onesimus would be freed.

[19] Paul’s view of Philemon’s free will is certainly compatible with Paul’s libertarianism.

[20] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 217.

[21] Philip B. Payne, Paul Applies the Maximal Social Pressure to Free Onesimus, 1-2.

[22] Ibid. 3.

[23] It isn’t entirely certain that this is the same Onesimus, but Onesimus is a common slave name. If anything, this suggests that slaves served in leadership.

[24] Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, The Writings of St. Paul, 96.

[25] F.F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 406.

[26] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 205.

[27] Allen R. Bevere, “Colossians and the Rhetoric of Empire,” Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not, ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, 194. In an otherwise marvelous essay, Bevere does unfortunately qualify his argument in that he casts doubt on whether or not Paul was indeed asking Philemon to free Onesimus. However, based on Paul’s inherent request to free Onesimus and the amount of social/theological pressure placed upon Philemon, Bevere’s doubts seem unnecessary.

[28] There are liberties taken here, but I see this as a consistent rendering of the epistle as a whole.

[29] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 448.

[30] Many scholars chalk this up to the “real” Paul versus “deutero” Paul. While I don’t accept non-Pauline authorship for the disputed epistles, I can certainly understand why scholars argue thusly. See Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 448; Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians 2^nd Edition, 106. Meeks assumes a hierarchy in these texts.

Paul & Slavery (Part II)

PAUL: 1 Corinthians 7:21-22.

²⁰ Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. ²¹ Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.^{[c] 22} For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ.  
 

S. Scott Bartchy outlines[1] the varying interpretations of this text, using two ‘readings’ of the text: scholars, translations and theologians[2] who favor “take freedom” and those who favor “use [or stay in] slavery.” For those who accepted the first category “take freedom,” we have Origen of Alexandria,[3] Ephraem and Syrus,[4] Jerome,[5] the opponents of Chrysostom,[6] Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, C. Hodge, Lightfoot, C.H. Dodd, the RSV, C.F.D. Moule, NEB and TEV. Modern commentators include Gordon D. Fee,[7] Philip Payne,[8] Robert A. J. Gagnon[9] and Alan F. Johnson.[10]

For those who prefer the “use [stay in] slavery” opinion, we have Chrysostom,[11] Ambrosiaster, Cyril of Alexandria, Pelagius, John of Damascus, Sedulius Scotus,[12] Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bengal, Jonathan Edwards, Von Harnack, Goodspeed, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kummel, Kasemann and Barrett.

So, the question comes to this: did Paul call for slaves to attain freedom, or to stay as a slave? The bigger historical question is could a slave refuse manumission (freedom)? Most plausibly, he/she couldn’t. Reasons for manumission are complex,[13] but usually derived from the generosity or personal interest of the owner. Social “generosity” included egoism and narcissism,[14] but one doubts that a freed slave would care much for the reasons of manumission. In regards to the slave’s options regarding their freedom, “Under both Greek and Roman law, a person in slavery could seek to bring nearer the day of his manumission by working hard and by conducting himself in a manner which pleased his owner.”[15] Financially, one could buy their manumission, as a slave once bragged “he paid 50,000 sesterces for his freedom.”[16] Most probably, since slaves were within the poverty line, hard labor and the good nature of their owner was their most likely method of freedom. The nature of Mark 10:45 “ransom for many” evocates the language not only of liberation from slavery (physical) but also that this is something that the Messiah sought to fulfill. To fulfill this, to some early Christians, was to be “in Christ.”

In short, it is historically implausible that a slave (still beneath his or her master) could refuse his manumission from the owner that still owns him. Since there is no evidence for this, the nature of “but if you are actually able to be free, take advantage of the opportunity” (CEB) is clear: do not be bothered if you are ‘called into Christ’ when you are in slavery. But since you cannot remain a slave when manumitted, ‘do not become [or stay] as a slave to people.’ Paul’s awareness of the historical nature of manumission (as well as his Judaism) supports the reading of “take freedom” since a slave simply didn’t have any alternative.

Bartchy notes that “as a first century Jew from Tarsus who had spent much time in Jerusalem, Paul was well-acquainted with the enslavement of both Jews and Gentiles…”[17] Paul was most likely not unsurprised by the institution of slavery, but was aware of the tension displayed in Galatians 3:28 as well as the fundamental equality for every human being.[18] Since the shift of the eschatological age, Paul was clearly not comfortable with slavery. As Gagnon suggests, “…1 Cor. 7:21 should be read as Paul’s attempts to support freedom from slavery as at least penultimate good.”[19] Slavery was a given in the ancient world, and it must be said that Paul wasn’t on a campaign to end the institution. However, since manumission was not an isolated occurrence in the first century, many slaves ‘in Christ’ could attain their freedom and be brought out of slavery [both physical and spiritual] to serve Christ; and Paul most certainly wouldn’t prevent them from fulfilling their “status of being the Lord’s free person” (CEB).

---

[1] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 6-7.

[2] The list apparently surprised Gordon D. Fee who calls the findings “impressive!” 1 Corinthians, 316 n41. In the following list, Bartchy’s opinion is of course the former reading.

[3] Who twisted the text to mean, “Go free from marriage.”

[4] Both who took it to mean, “go free to preach.” While arguably as convincing as Origen’s reading, this does display some hope that slaves could indeed be ‘preachers.’

[5] He read it as free “from marriage.”

[6] Unnamed as Chrysostom doesn’t give them (and us) the benefit of any recognition.

[7] Gordon D. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 317-320.

[8] Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 91.

[9] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 446-47. See especially n171.

[10] Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, 121-123.

[11] Who argues against the unnamed opponents in n359.

[12] Who took it as “stay in marriage,” a reading that suggests matrimony was anything but a picnic in those days.

[13] As opposed to Civil War slavery, the system wasn’t entirely predicated upon the skin color of the slave.

[14] “An owner usually based good treatment of slaves on the desire to gain a reputation for generosity rather than on insight into a slave’s inherent equality as a human being.” S. Scott Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, 176.

[15] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 97.

[16] Marleen B. Flory, “Family and Familia’: A Study of Social Relations in Slavery” Ph.D dissertation 1975, Yale. 112.

[17] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 116.

[18] Paul’s consistent use of ‘slave language’ to describe himself and others attests to this point. We were once “slaves of sin” (Rom 6:16-20); Paul has “made himself a slave to all…” (1 Cor. 9:19); “slaves for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 11:20); “no longer a slave, but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God” (Gal. 4:7); “become slaves to one another” (Gal 5:13) and ultimately, Paul says this of Christ who “took the form of a slave” (Phil 2:7).

[19] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 444. While he disagrees with some of Bartchy’s translational work, he supports the overall thesis.

Paul & Slavery (Part I)

I wrote an essay for personal gain on the topic. In the larger essay I wrote (56 pages on Paul and women), I included several appendices addressing various related topics. Slavery was one of them. I do not pretend to solve any problem, nor do I assume that my research is complete. In fact, I know it isn't. But, I enjoyed my research and hope someone could profit from it. Thanks for reading.

GRECO-ROMAN SLAVERY

This may be the longest appendix, simply because it carries the most individual verses.[1] What must be admitted up front is that the topic of slavery is a truly difficult issue within the New Testament, and within the wider socio-cultural context. For instance, Rome was built upon the slave culture.[2] They viewed it as normal behavior. S. Scott Bartchy points out that “no ancient government ever sought to abolish slavery.”[3] Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke list several ways a person could wind up in slavery:[4]

1)    War/Piracy.

a.     The spoils of war; while in some sense more humane than killing the defeated, one wonders to what extent the selling of the defeated contributes positively to their dignity.

2)    Slave Markets.

a.     It is reported that there were daily rates of over a thousand people in many cities, including Athens and Corinth. The purchase of a slave was an investment, as the owner would inherit the debt incurred from the slave’s previous life.

3)    Self-Sale.

a.     A free man could sell himself into slavery on the basis of paying off any debts. His own, or those he loved.

4)    Court Sentences.

a.     The penalty of a court that results in slave labor. Sometimes men were condemned to the gladiatorial arena.

5)    Exposure of Children.

a.     An unwanted child – most probably girls – could be sold for whatever reason deemed fit. Their likely destination was brothels. Only if they could prove that their parents were free could they be released.

6)    House Birth.

a.     The breeding of slaves within one household. Usually begotten by masters and slave women.

The early mentalities towards slavery were largely negative, though with some exceptions. Aristotle viewed a slave as a “living tool” (Pol. 1252a-55b) and that “the use made of slaves and tamed animals is not that different” (Pol. 1254b). Plato wrote that while some slaves were more virtuous than family, the soul of the slave is “utterly corrupt” (Od. 17.322-23). Often slavery was viewed in philosophical and existential terms, as we see in Philo’s essay Every Good Man is Free. What mattered to some most of all was mental freedom.[5] Simply, slaves were utterly at the whim of their masters, and women were significantly oppressed.[6] Wayne Meeks suggests that “…freedwomen were usually manumitted at an earlier age than freedman and quite often for purposes of marriage. In fact, 29 percent married their own patrons—one of the most common means for female slaves to gain freedom and improved status.”[7] Slaves could also be educated, often more educated than their owners. This increased their value as servants.[8]

A person’s experience in slavery depended almost entirely upon the customs of the owner’s family, the business and the particular class of society to which the owner belonged, and the character of the owner himself.[9] Several early authors confirm that a specific slave owner threw slaves to his carnivorous fish.[10] Some slaves could even be crucified,[11] though the more common punishment was beating.[12] Crucifixion even appeared in some comedies, the phrase “go to the cross!” being used to exclaim, “go to hell!”[13] On the other hand, slave owners such as Pliny the Younger repeatedly sent sick slaves to high-caliber physicians.[14]

Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians sheds some important light on the issue of Christians and slavery. Chapter 55.2 states “We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others. Many, too, have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves, they might provide food for others.” Hermas (Mandates 8:10) states, “Next hear the things which follow: to minister to widows, to look after orphans and the destitute,[15] to redeem from distress the servants (“doulous” slave/servant) of God, to be hospitable…to resist none, to be gentle, to be poorer than all men…to practice justice, to preserve brotherhood…not to oppress poor debtors, and whatever is like to these things.” Apostolic Constitutions 5.1.3 recommends the practice of selling one’s self into slavery for others, as Hermas (Similitudes 1:8) encourages people to “purchase afflicted souls” instead of land.”

While not universal or widely documented, these noble practices do offer some help in determining some of the early practices of some Christian communities. However, by and large, the early Christians didn’t appear to be known for their opposition to the social institution of slavery.

---

[1] It ought not be assumed that I find slavery more important than the Trinity. It simply has the most expansive selection of data.

[2] S. Scott Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, 169-178, 169.

[3] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 63. Bartchy’s groundbreaking dissertation is the backbone of this paper.

[4] Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 5-8.

[5] Epictetus is a fine example.

[6] Barth and Blanke point out that very little primary and secondary data exists detailing the suffering of girls and women during this time. In some sense, this is preferable to reading sexual abuse of the lowest possible denominator. 

[7] Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians 2^nd Edition, 23.

[8] S. Scott Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, 173. This indicates a possible reason for why Onesimus was running away, and his possible status in the home of Philemon.

[9] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 68.

[10] Seneca, De ira, III, 40; Dio Cassius, LIV, 23 as well.

[11] In the revolt of Spartacus (roughly 71BCE), over 6,000 slaves were crucified in the defeat of Spartacus.

[12] “You school a Phrygian by the whip” was a proverb of the time.

[13] Barth and Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 86.

[14] Pliny, Ep. 5, 19. To set a modern example, if a car blows a tire, you fix it in order to keep the car going. If the car continues to die and break, you rid yourself of it.

[15] James 1:27 parallel.