Does the Bible condone slavery? Eventually, every thinking Christian must
confront this question. For one thing, if you read your Bible on a regular basis,
it is only a matter of time before you will run into passages that speak quite
frankly of it, such as the laws in Exodus that govern slave-master
relationships. The New Testament too has passages such as Ephesians 6:5:
“Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a
sincere heart, as you would Christ.” Paul convinced the fugitive slave Onesimus
to return to his master Philemon, who was a Christian prominent enough to host
a house church. We must all face the grim reality that texts like these have
been used to justify even the vilest forms of slavery, such as that which was
common in the American South before the Civil War.
This issue is much deeper than a question of intellectual curiosity, or of
scoring points against the Bible’s critics who love to cite slave texts as a
parade example of the Bible’s alleged ethical shortcomings. For the Christian,
these passages, and others like them, are the inspired Word of God, which
reveal his moral will to us. And so, the question may arise, “How can I love a
God who finds it acceptable that one human being can own another?” Abraham
Lincoln has been quoted as saying, “If anything is wrong, slavery is wrong.” If
Lincoln knew this, why doesn’t God? And is such a God worthy of our love, adoration,
and worship?
Here we will confront these issues head-on. Our purpose is not to explain away
the relevant slavery passages in the Bible, but to attempt to understand them
in their proper contexts. This is a somewhat daunting task, and so we will be
as brief as possible, yet hopefully thorough enough to do justice to this
significant issue.
Summary
In order to present an accurate picture of slavery in the Bible, we must delve
in some detail into all of the most relevant passages. By the very nature of
the beast, this requires a somewhat lengthy treatment. Though I have been as
brief as possible, I realize that not every reader will want to read this
entire treatment. For those simply looking for a brief overview, I offer the
following points that will be fleshed out in the following essay:
- In both the Old and New Testaments, the words used
to denote slaves did not necessarily carry the same connotations that we
associate with slavery today. Only by understanding the biblical texts and
the cultures that produced them can we understand what is being referred
to in the Bible.
- The stealing and selling of human beings, such as
has been common throughout human history, is a capital offense according
to Old Testament law. The return of fugitive slaves to their masters was
also illegal.
- In almost every instance, the kind of slavery
governed by Old Testament law was debt-slavery, where an individual would
offer labor in exchange for an outstanding debt that he could not pay. The
laws that govern such transactions are given to protect the rights of such
slaves, who could only serve for a maximum of six years.
- Early Christians had to work out their treatment of
one another under Roman law, which they lacked the political influence to
change.
- The Christian community was a counter-cultural
movement in which social distinctions were all but erased. Jesus is the
true Lord, and masters and slaves were expected to treat each other as
beloved brothers and sisters and equal members of the body of Christ.
Slavery in Old Testament Law
Out the outset, we must make an important distinction between the Old Testament
passages on slavery and those found in the New Testament. The passages in the
Old Testament that we will be considering are found \ in the laws of Exodus,
Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. One of the primary purposes of these laws was to
govern ancient Israel—a nation that enjoyed a special covenant relationship
with God and lived under kings and rulers who were supposed to govern in
accordance with these laws. The New Testament passages, by contrast, are
written to Christians who lived in the Roman Empire, where slavery was an
important, socially-embedded institution. In other words, while the Old
Testament law was given by God to be the law of the land, the admonitions in
the New Testament are given to people living under someone else’s law.
Accordingly, we will treat them separately.
Getting the Terminology Straight
A major cause of confusion for contemporary readers is the assumption that the
word “slave,” as it is found in Old Testament legal passages, meant the same
thing in ancient Israel as it does for us today. The Old Testament was written
in Classical Hebrew, and so it is not surprising that certain words do not have
perfect equivalents in modern English. The difficulty felt by Bible translators
in rendering the Hebrew terms relating to slavery is fairly well-publicized.[1]
Strictly speaking, the Old Testament does not call an individual bound to the
service of another a “slave;” it calls him an ʿebed (pronounced
eved), and a woman in such a role is called an ʾāmâ. While these
terms can connote very harsh slavery, comparable to that which was found in the
Antebellum South (e.g., the Hebrews as Egyptian slaves), it often does not, as
is the case in most of the words’ appearances in the so-called Old Testament
“slave laws.” The most that can be said about in general about these two terms,
especially the first, is that they are used to denote a social class that is
relatively lower than another. Thus, it is common in Old Testament speech for
people to refer to themselves as “your servant” (Heb. ʿabdekā) when
addressing someone submissively.
General Observations
So just how similar was Israelite slavery to our conception of the institution
that bears the same name? Not much. Consider first that Israelite slavery was
voluntary. Exodus 21:16 says, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone
found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Found among the earliest
cluster of slave laws, this speaks directly to the issue of slavery, and
forbids anything resembling a slave trade among the ancient Israelites. This
verse alone should make it clear that “slavery” in Old Testament law is vastly
different than anything that we commonly associate with slavery. By contrast,
Leviticus 25:39 and 47 speak of the poor Israelite as “selling himself” into
servitude, suggesting what we will soon discover—that Israelite slaves were
debt-servants, not human chattel deprived of freedom and basic rights. The
fourth commandment even requires that slaves enjoy the Sabbath along with their
masters (Exod 20:8–11). Thus, any passage that speaks of masters as “buying”
Hebrew servants should be understood as referring to a voluntary act, in which
the slave was not sold by another, but sold his own labor to another Israelite.
Another important law that should inform our understanding of what was legal in
ancient Israel is Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a
slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your
midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it
suits him. You shall not wrong him.” According to the law of Moses, it was
actually illegal to return a fugitive slave.[2] In fact, this passage commands
his fellow Israelites to allow him to dwell wherever he pleases. Effectively,
Israelite slaves could break their service contracts simply by leaving. Slavery
in Israelite law was entered into voluntarily and could be ended voluntarily.
This stands in stark contrast to other ancient Near Eastern law codes of the
day, such as the Law of Hammurabi (ca. 1792–1750 BC), which gives a drastically
different perspective on runaway slaves:
If a man should harbor a fugitive slave or slave woman of either the palace
or of a commoner in his house and not bring him out at the herald’s public
proclamation, that householder shall be killed.
If a man seizes a fugitive slave or slave woman in the open country and leads
him back to his owner, the slave owner shall give him 2 shekels of silver.
If that slave should refuse to identify his owner, he shall lead him off to the
palace, his circumstances shall be investigated, and they shall return him to
his owner.
If he should detain that slave in his own house and afterward the slave is
discovered in his possession, that man shall be killed.[3]
Debt Slavery in Old Testament Law
Slavery, as it is described in Israelite law, was a way in which a family could
deal with debt. Imagine that you are an ancient Israelite—the head of a
household. You spend all day farming and keeping a small flock of sheep and
goats, helped by everyone in your extended household. What do you do if you
have a bad year, and are unable to feed your family? The answer is that you
borrow from someone who has enough surplus grain (or some other commodity) to
lend you. Under Israelite law, this loan would be interest-free (Lev 25:35–37),
but you still need to pay back what you borrowed. But now imagine that you have
another bad year, and so you need to borrow again. Year after year, your debt
accumulates, and you have no way to pay it back. Unless your intention is to
default on the loan—effectively stealing from the one who lent to you at no
interest rather than selling his grain—your only option is to repay your debt
with your only means available, the labor of the people in your household.
The term of service that an Israelite could serve another under these
conditions was six years. In the seventh, he had to be released (Exod 21:2).
This is an upper limit; smaller debts could presumably be paid in less time. As
far as the nature of the labor involved, it is important to note that the
Israelite slave would be doing essentially the same thing that he would have
been doing in his family’s household: Working fields and shepherding flocks.
Under the care of a wealthier family, he would have been better fed, better
clothed, and able to engage in work that was probably more rewarding. Then, at
the end of their six-year term,[4] Israelite slaves had two options:
They could return to their household. If this is chosen, the master would be
obligated to follow Deuteronomy 15:12–14:
If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, sells himself to you, he
shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free
from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go
empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your
threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed
you, you shall give to him.
The Israelite slave was not expected to start over from scratch after he was
released from service. Rather, his now former master, who had benefitted from
his labor, was to provide him with “liberal” amounts of livestock, grain, and
wine, in order to get him back on his feet, as part of Israel’s legal provision
for the poor.
They could remain permanently in the house of their master. Exodus 21:5–6 reads
as follows:
But if the slave plainly says,[5] ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children:
I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall
bring him to the door or doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through
with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
Deuteronomy 15:16, which addresses the same situation, adds an additional
reason why a slave might choose to stay: "Since he is well-off with
you."
What is interesting about these passages is that they speak indirectly to the
nature of Israelite debt-servitude, and speak to the reality that, for some (or
many) Israelite slaves, life could have been significantly better with their
masters than it would have been in their own households. There is a real “love”
for the master, akin to the love for his own family (i.e., his wife and
children).[6] If the slave desires to stay, then he and his master are to go to
a public area (“to God” probably designates the tabernacle or temple), and to
put a mark on his ear that would serve as permanent evidence that the servant
publically declared his desire to remain with his master, and that he was not
being exploited by being held against his will.
The passage at the beginning of Exodus 21 continues with a stipulation that
requires some comment. Speaking of the debt slave introduced in verses 1 and 2,
we read, “If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in
married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife
and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her
master’s and he shall go out alone” (Exod 21:3–4). At first blush, this seems
misogynistic, denying the woman of the same rights given to the man in the
previous verse. A man can be released after six years, but not a woman? This is
emphatically not what is going on here. Notice that the woman in question was
given to the male slave as a wife during his time as a slave. This woman would
have been a female slave.[7] What this passage is teaching is that her term of
service is not to be cut short simply because her husband’s ended before hers.
In such a case, his options would have been either to wait for her to be freed
or to ransom her, perhaps with some of the provisions that he received at the
time of his release. As for the children, these would all be young, a maximum
of five years old (assuming the woman entered service a year after the man and
was married to him immediately), an age at which they need their mother, not
their father. This law probably would have influenced how often marriage
between slaves would have taken place and would have prevented women from
foolishly entering into a marriage only to gain an early manumission.
The following paragraph also prevents a puzzling case:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male
slaves do [that is, she shall not be released from her service at the end of
six years]. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for
himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her
to a foreign people since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her
for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another
wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital
rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for
nothing, without payment of money (Exod 21:7–11).
It is clear that the woman in this passage has been given in marriage to the
master’s household. The master here has either “designated her for himself” or
“for his son” (vv. 8–9), and verse 10 gives the condition, “If he takes another
wife for himself . . .” In ancient Near Eastern marriages, the groom
customarily gave the bride’s family a bride price.[8] Here, forgiveness of debt
would serve as that gift. The reason, then, that this female “slave”[9] is not
given release is because marriage is for life, and doesn’t magically end after
six years. If the notion of a father giving her daughter in marriage to man in
order to pay off debt seems disturbing, it should be remembered that the
practice of arranged marriage has been the norm in many cultures, even in our
own day, and often results in marriages that are just as happy and fulfilled as
ones that are not arranged. At any rate, such an objection is not to the
institution of Israelite debt-slavery per se, but to the practice of arranged
marriages.
The law under question is geared exclusively towards the protection of the
woman’s rights, to protect her from exploitation at the hands of a more
powerful family. Should the master desire to divorce her (i.e., “if she does
not please her master”),[10] he is not permitted to sell her to a foreigner (v.
16). Since it was illegal to sell an Israelite to another Israelite (see
above), only foreigners are mentioned here. In other words, the master couldn’t
circumvent Exod 21:16 by attempting to turn a profit in selling his ex-wife to
a non-Israelite. No Israelite could deprive another of their membership in the
covenant people of God. Instead, he was to permit her to be redeemed (v. 8)—a
provision which only needs to be specified here since a marriage is in view.
The second situation, mentioned in verse 9, is that if she has been given to in
marriage to his son. Here she must be treated as a full-daughter, which means
that her children would be legitimate heirs with full inheritance rights, not
second-generation servants. In case it isn’t obvious, this was a very big deal.
Finally, in the event that a second wife is taken (polygamy was sometimes
practiced in Israel, always with disastrous results), her status is not to be
lower than the second wife. Any violation of the terms stated here result in
her “freedom” (lit., her “going out”), and her family’s debt is forgiven, even
if the marriage was short-lived.
If the idea of debt servitude strikes us a primitive, we need to remember that many
of the options that are available to us today were not available in the ancient
world, for better or for worse. And how preferable is the modern situation,
where the poor grow ever poorer as debt grows and grows, until the only option
for the poor becomes bankruptcy, which not only destroys the debtor’s access to
credit, but also amounts to breaking one’s oath at best, and thievery at worst?
This system in ancient Israel was intended to maintain incentives to lend to
the poor, where interest is not an option and when the risk of default
werenoften quite high. These are the kinds of situations addressed by Old
Testament law in a society that differed greatly from our own. It isn’t a
matter of whether these options would be good for us, living in twenty-first
century America, but whether or not these were good for the ancient Israelites,
living from 1200 to 586 BC.
Difficult Passages
The laws that we have considered so far have shown a high degree of concern for
the rights of Israelite slaves, and for their dignity as human beings created
in the image of God. Later in Exodus 21, however, there are two other laws that
are much more liable to confusion. Yet, as we will see, any offense taken at
these laws owes more to our unfamiliarity in reading biblical law than it does
with anything inherently immoral the laws themselves. We will consider the
latter law first, since a good understanding of it will have a bearing on how
we understand the former.
In Exod 21:25–26, we read, “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or
female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If
he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go
free because of his tooth.” The first thing to note is that many Old Testament
laws begin with “when” or “if” clauses (i.e., conditional clauses, Heb. kî or ʾīm):
“If or when someone does x, then do y.” An application of very simple logic
reveals that such laws in no way condone what is contained in the when/if
clause. If I say, “If a man robs this liquor store, don’t shoot him on sight;
call the cops,” I’m not condoning the robbing of liquor stores. The situation
is exactly the same with laws like this one. In fact, Jesus seems to address
one such misreading of Deuteronomy 24 by the Pharisees in Matthew 19. Exodus 2
in no way sanctions physical mistreatment of slaves.
What this verse does do is provide release from servitude for any serious
physical injury caused by a master. The mention of eyes and teeth here does not
restrict this provision to only these two kinds of injuries, any more than it
does in the “eye for eye/tooth for tooth” principle given in the immediately
preceding verses (vv. 23–25).[11]
Exodus 21:20–21 says, “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod
and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave
survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”
Does this give masters impunity to beat a slave within an inch of his life?
Absolutely not. As was the case with the previous example (vv. 25–26), we
should not read an implied approval into the presence of a conditional (i.e.,
an if) clause. Actually, by allowing the slave’s death to be “avenged,” the law
is treating the slave’s life on par with any other free Israelite.[12] Only
eight verses earlier, murder is established as a capital crime (v. 12). The
slave’s life is of no less value than his master’s.
Or is it? The truly tricky part of this law is verse 21. The ESV reads,
"If the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged." This,
however, is a misleading way to translate this verse, because the Hebrew
literally reads, “If, in a day or two, he stands up . . .”[13] The NIV is
helpful here: “If the slave recovers after a day or two.” That, in itself,
doesn’t help us very much, until we take into account the law that immediately
precedes this one in verses 18–19. This describes a situation that arises when
two men fight and one is injured so that he cannot work. Verse 19 concludes
with language very similar to our slave law in verse 21: “Then, if the man
rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be
clear.” So, the scenario painted here is of a slave owner who beats his slave
but does not kill him, and this law prohibits a family member from exacting
vengeance on the master for the mistreatment.[14]
But that’s not all. Recall that, according to verses 26 and 27 (see above), a
master who beats his slave is required to release him. This would have been the
case here, and explains well the otherwise troubling way this law ends: “For he
is his money.”[15] In other words, the slave is his master’s capital investment
(his “money”), and losing him under the law of Exod 21:26–27 is punishment
enough; it hits him in the wallet.
The most difficult passage on slavery in Old Testament law is Leviticus
25:44–46:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and
female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from
among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who
have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath
them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make
slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule,
one over another ruthlessly.
Having observed the lengths to which the law goes to protect the rights and
dignity of Israelites who sold themselves into slavery in order to pay off
debt, it now seems that the same law denies these things to foreigners. There
is a degree of truth to this. Most strikingly, while Exodus 21:16 forbade a
slave trade within Israel, this passage permits Israelites to engage in the
slave trade of other nations. Individuals acquired through these means do
become “property,”[16] which can be passed down from generation to generation.
But this law does not exist in isolation, either from other passages regarding
the treatment of foreigners, or from the culture to which it was given. It is
quite easy to criticize a law from over 3,000 years ago from the comforts and
standards of a twenty-first century liberal capitalist democracy, with a
worldwide community that is more or less concerned about human rights. But we
must remember that this was not the world into which God spoke when he gave
Leviticus 25. Ancient Israel was a tiny part of a much larger world, were a
robust and often ruthless international slave trade existed. Of course, one
option would have been for God to have forbidden his people to participate in
it, and that would have meant that those slaves would have been sold in other
lands, where there was no understanding of the basic dignity of all human
beings created in the image of God and where slaves were less than full
persons. Such individuals would have often found themselves in conditions
similar to the Israelites in Egypt, as human chattel forced into backbreaking
and degrading labor, with no Sabbath rest, and no laws defending the worth of
the sojourner and the alien, let alone those purchased from slave caravans.
The Old Testament’s emphasis on the loving treatment of the foreigner is
apparent from several important passages. Leviticus 19:33–34 instructs, “When a
stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall
treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall
love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the
LORD your God.” Notice that this verse clearly extends the category of
“sojourner” to slaves, using the same word (gēr) to refer to the status of the
Hebrews when they lived in Egypt (also Deut 10:19). We should not miss the
language: He or she shall not be “wronged” (oppressed), and he shall be treated
as a native Israelite. In fact, the same wording is used for this person as is
used for the “neighbor” in the second greatest commandment, quoted by Jesus
(Matt 19:199; 22:39; Mark 12:31; also Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8), which is
found originally in Lev 19:18: “You shall love him as yourself.”[17]
It should also be noted that the land of Israel was given to tribal clans for
perpetual ownership (Joshua 14–21; Num 26:52–56), and therefore could not be
permanently sold outside the clan to whom it was designated. This is why
land—even land that had been sold—was to be returned to its owners in the years
of liberty (i.e., every forty-ninth year; Lev 25:13–17, 23).[18] The reason for
this was to prevent the oppression of poorer Israelites by opportunistic
landowners. Refusal to observe these laws becomes the object of prophetic
rebuke later in Israel’s history (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:3; Isa 5:8; Mic 2:1–2). For
this reason, foreigners could not be easily assimilated into Israel’s agrarian
and pastoralist socio-economic system, although there are plenty of examples in
the Old Testament of non-natives who were. Examples of this include Rahab,
Ruth, and Uriah the Hittite (who lived within eyeshot of David’s palace), as
well as lesser-known examples such as Obed-edom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6), Ittai
the Gittite (2 Samuel 15), and Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24). Given these
considerations, we can see how slave purchase provided a place for individuals
enslaved in other countries to be integrated into Israelite society, and to be
blessed by the Lord as a part of the covenant community. God constantly reminds
the Israelites that they are not to mistreat slaves as they were mistreated in
Egypt (Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:34; Deut 5:15; 10:19; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22).
And we should also bear in mind that nothing in the prohibition against
returning fugitive slaves (Deut 23:15–16) restricts the law to Hebrew debt
servants.
Slavery in the New Testament
The situation with New Testament slave texts is significantly different than
what we find in the Old, and it is not hard to see why. As noted earlier, the
Old Testament law was given by God to govern his people Israel, and it
expresses the moral will of God for a specific people at a specific time and
for a specific purpose. It was given in order to provide the national law for
Israel, a theocratic nation under the sovereign rule of God. The New Testament,
by way of contrast, speaks to God’s people, the church, as subjects living
within an already-existing political entity (the Roman Empire), whose laws and
norms were the result of human political philosophy, not God’s moral will. In
the New Testament, God is not at work establishing a political entity, but is
rather redeeming a people for himself, called out from every nation.
Accordingly, God gives his people instructions on how to live in already
existing social structure.
Christian slaves are addressed directly in Ephesians 6:5–9, Colossians 3:22–25,
and 1 Peter 2:18–25. In all these passages, emphasis is placed on obedience
towards masters and serving faithfully as an act of obedience to God. Ephesians
6:9 and Colossians 4:1 also address masters, both stressing fair and just
treatment, and an understanding that we all have the same “master” in heaven,
the Lord Jesus.[19] The passage in first Peter is geared specifically towards
slaves who are treated unjustly by apparently non-Christian masters, and is
part of Peter’s exhortation to endure suffering in the footsteps of Jesus.
The short book of Philemon is addressed to a Christian slave owner whose
escaped slave, Onesimus, had come into contact with Paul while Paul was in
prison. During the course of their interaction, Onesimus became a Christian and
had been discipled by Paul. Paul then sent Onesimus back to Philemon, carrying
the letter, in which Paul tactfully exhorts Philemon to receive Onesimus back,
“no longer as a bondservant, but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother”
(16). Not only does Paul not want Philemon to punish Onesimus; he wants him to
accept him as a full member of the Christian community, and even promises to
pay from his own pocket for any of the damages Onesimus’ flight may have cost
Philemon (18–19). Due to the diplomatic way in which Paul makes his requests in
this letter, it is not entirely clear if Paul is urging Philemon to free
Onesimus. But he does seem to imply this when he states that he wishes Onesimus
would remain available to him in order to help in his ministry (13–14).[20]
Moreover, it has been argued (persuasively, in my judgment) that reception of
Onesimus “as a beloved brother . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord” amounts
to a direct request for his manumission.[21]
Greco-Roman Slavery
In order to address some of the questions that arise from these passages, we
need to observe some aspects of the deeply-embedded and exceedingly common
institution of slavery in the Greco-Roman world. Some estimates place the
number of slaves in Rome itself at up to 90 percent of the city’s total
population.[22] In this culture, people became slaves either to pay debt,
because they had been captured in war, or because they had been born into the
slave class. An individual could also sell himself into slavery in order to
live an easier life than he had as a freedperson, and even to advance
socially.[23] Following the precedent set by earlier Greek law, slaves differed
from freedpersons in four primary ways:[24]
1.
They could not represent
themselves in legal matters.
2.
They were subject to seizure
and arrest in ways that freedpersons were not.
3.
Their occupation was determined
by their master.
4.
They had to live where their
master decided.
In Roman society, slaves could own property
and other slaves, they were not enslaved based on the color of their skin (it
was not a racist institution), and slavery was often temporary. While there
were certainly very degrading and dehumanizing forms of slavery in the Roman
world (e.g., mining), many served in more dignified positions, such as tutors,
professors, estate managers, bookkeepers, and doctors, or as artisans. Roman
Emperors used slaves to manage imperial estates and often placed them in charge
of important tasks, such as lighting, tailoring, wine-keeping and tasting, and
cooking. The slaves addressed in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3, as well as
Onesimus in Philemon, would have been household slaves, as is evident by the
placement of these texts amongst advice to household members (i.e., husbands,
wives, and children).
The conditions of a slave’s life depended highly on the disposition of their
master. Some were brutally abused, while others enjoyed very kind treatment,
such as was shown by the centurion who sought Jesus on behalf of his slave who
had fallen sick (Luke 7:1–11). Of course, fair treatment of slaves was not
purely altruistic; masters benefitted from slaves who were content.[25]
The New Testament Response
As modern readers, it is common to wonder why the New Testament writers don’t
speak more forcefully against slavery. Many feel justified in criticizing Paul,
or Peter, or Jesus, for that matter, for not being staunch abolitionists.
However, such objections reflect modern sensitivities and a lack of
appreciation for both the historical realities in the first century and the
transformative nature of the gospel.[26] If we are to gain understanding, we
need to allow these texts to speak first into the culture to which they were
originally written. The possibility of wholesale abolition was not available
until much later in history, and then it was the result of the theological
convictions of Christians, based on the very texts in question.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that at least twice in the New Testament, the
institution and practice of slavery is condemned. In 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul lists
“enslavers” (Gk. andrapodistai) among “the lawless and disobedient,
the ungodly and sinners,” who practice “what is contrary to sound doctrine.” In
Revelation 18:13, the trading in “slaves, that is, human souls” is listed among
the evils of Rome (called “Babylon the great” in v. 2).
For us, living in a post-Enlightenment, “post-Braveheart world,” freedom
appears to be a basic value—indeed the fundamental right without which
happiness and fulfillment cannot be attained. But we need to realize that this
is a modern conviction that may have not been obvious or desirable at earlier
points in human history. Moreover, it was well-understood that freedom in the
Roman world often meant a lower standard of living for freed slaves. The Stoic
philosopher Epictetus (himself once a slave) writes of the common experience of
freed slaves:
“'If I shall be set free, immediately it is all happiness, I care for no man, I
speak to all as an equal and, like to them, I go where I choose, I come from
any place I choose, and I go where I choose.' Then he is set free; and
forthwith having no place where he can eat, he looks for some man to flatter,
some one with whom he shall sup: then he either works with his body and endures
the most dreadful things; and if he can obtain a manager, he falls into a
slavery much worse than his former slavery; or even if he is become rich, being
a man without any knowledge of what is good, he loves some little girl, and in
his happiness laments and desires to be a slave again. He says, 'What evil did
I suffer in my state of slavery? Another clothed me, another supplied me with
shoes, another fed me, another looked after me in sickness; and I did only a
few services for him. But now a wretched man, what things I suffer, being a
slave of many instead of to one.'”[27]
We must also realize that the early Christians did not enjoy the kind of
political influence they do today. They lived under a powerful authoritarian
state, and were virtually powerless to change government policies. Were any of
the New Testament writers to incite slaves to rise up against their masters,
they would essentially have been compelling them to death, probably by
crucifixion, as was the fate of the 6,000 who revolted with Spartacus a century
earlier. There were also laws restricting manumission, such as the lex Fufia
Caninia, instituted by Caesar Augustus in 2 BC, which set limits on the number
of slaves that masters could free: only two out of three, half of between four
and ten, and a third of between eleven and thirty. Nevertheless, Paul does have
words for those slaves who were able to gain their freedom: “Avail yourself of
the opportunity” (1 Cor 7:21).
The most important dimension to the New Testament’s stance on slavery, however,
is the gospel’s transformative power, beginning in the hearts of individuals.
Application of the ethics of the kingdom of God to the community of believers
resulted in a counter-culture that transcended, and in some ways abolished,
social hierarchy. This is exemplified in texts such as Galatians 3:28: “There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and
female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (also Col 3:11). Jesus himself
assumed the role of a slave, and this in turn influences the way Christians
related to one another. Several texts that employ slave language are
illustrative of this important point:
After washing his disciples feet, Jesus taught his disciples: “Do you
understand what I have done to you? You call me teacher and Lord, and you are
right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet,
you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example,
that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you,
a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the
one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them”
(John 13:12–17).
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great
ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever
would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among
you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to
serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt 20:25–29).
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though
he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be
grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a slave, being born in the
likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming
obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly
exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the
earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father” (Phil 2:5–11).
The ethic taught in these passages would have applied to masters’ conduct
towards slaves as well as slaves’ towards their masters.
Another dimension to the radical transformation that takes place within the
Christian community is the leveling of all individuals to the level of brother
and sister. This language is so common in the New Testament that we pass by it
without thinking twice, but there would have been profound implications for
slaves and masters regarding one another as brothers and loving one another
with sincere “brotherly affection” (Rom 12:10; 2 Pet 1:7), as Christ first
loved us. Indeed, Paul’s appeal to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus is nothing
less than revolutionary, that he might “have him back forever, no longer as a
slave, but more than a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how
much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Phlm 15b–16). The appeal
(which seems strange to us) to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom 16:16;
1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26) is another strong example of the
affection and egalitarian spirit that pervaded the early church. Marianne
Thompson sums up the situation well: “It should be noted that for Paul
manumission was not the highest good or goal; belonging to Christ was—and that
had implications for both the master and the slave. If a Christian owned a
slave, the highest duty to which that master could be called was not to set the
other free but to love the slave with the selfgiving love of Christ.”[28]
Although for centuries they were relatively powerless to change Roman society
from the top down, the early Christians changed it from the bottom up.
Following the example of Christ, they plowed a counter-culture based not on
worldly social stratification, but on oneness within the body of Christ. Even
leadership within the church was to be based on Christian maturity, rather than
connections and impressive worldly credentials. The second century church
father Ignatius of Antioch even makes an intriguing reference to an individual
with familiar name who served as the bishop of Ephesus: “I received, therefore,
your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of
inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus
Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him.”[29]
Notes:
[1] The preface of the English Standard Version, for example, notes, with
respect to both the Hebrew term ʿebed and the Greek doulos, “A particular
difficulty is presented when words in biblical Hebrew and Greek refer to
ancient practices and institutions that do not correspond directly to those in
the modern world” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [Wheaton,
IL: Crossway, 2001], x).
[2] Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona
Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1992), 272 n. 5; Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1985), 133. Some commentators, following Jewish tradition (Gittin
45a), restrict this to foreign slaves who have fled for refuge to Israel,
claiming that the wording of verse 17 suggests this (Peter C. Craigie, The
Book of Deuteronomy [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 300). I
remain unconvinced of this. There is no clear designation of the slave in
question as a foreigner, as is the case in Lev 25:44, the only passage in the
Mosaic law that speaks unambiguously of foreign slaves. Moreover, there are a
variety of reasons why an escaped Israelite slave may wish to dwell in a town
not his own. For example, perhaps the household he had served in was more than
a day’s journey from his home. The Hebrew actually reads, “. . . in one of your
gates (šeʿāreykā), wherever is good to him,” suggesting that he is
seeking justice for having been wronged (justice was often administered in city
gates, which had various chambers built into them for the purpose of public
legal transactions.
[3] Martha Roth, “The Laws of Hammurabi,” in Context of Scripture Volume
2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (ed.
William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 2.131
§16–19.
[4] It is unclear whether manumission was to be at the beginning or the end of
the seventh year.
[5] Here, the Hebrew employs an infinitive absolute, which is a verbal form
that intensifies the main verb or “forcefully presents the certainty of a
completed event” (Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction
to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004] §
35.3.1b; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew [trans. and
rev. T. Muraoka; Subsidia Biblica 14; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1993] § 123j). This is the same form that is used in the serpent’s initial
question to Eve in Gen 3:1: “Did God really say?" The reason this is
important here is that it stresses the necessity of determining whether or not
a slave truly desires to stay. This would have been the responsibility of the
town judges to decide. Here we have one of the many reasons why there is so
much stress in the Old Testament on using judges who will not take bribes or
otherwise pervert justice.
[6] The mention of a wife and children here reflects the situation covered in
the previous verses 3–4, where the slave is given a wife during his term of
service.
[7] Would a well-off Israelite give his birth daughter to one of his slaves as
a wife?
[8] For example, Abraham’s servant gives Rebekah’s family “costly ornaments” in
exchange for her hand in marriage to Isaac (Gen 24:53).
[9] The translation “slave” here is unfortunate. As noted above, this is not
what the Hebrew text says. This is merely a translation of a social status
designation—the female servant is an ʾāmâ.
[10] The sexual connotations associated with the language of “pleasing” come
from our preconceptions and English innuendo, rather than any notion of this in
ancient Hebrew culture. The expression used here is much more general.
[11] This principle, commonly referred to as lex talionis, is meant to restrict
retaliation by limiting it to punishments that fit the crime as exactly as
possible. Jesus, in the New Testament, dismisses this as the standard for the
people of his kingdom, and it is worth quoting him in detail: “You have heard
that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to
you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your
tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one
mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not
refuse the one who would borrow from you” (Matt 5:38–42).
[12] One of the ways the law deals with murder is by allowing an “avenger of
blood” (lit. “the redeemer of blood;” Heb. gōʾēl haddām) to
avenge the death of his kinsman. Cities of refuge were provided in order to
protect those merely guilty of manslaughter from blood “vengeance” in the
interim period before their trial (see, e.g., Num 35:9–34).
[13] Heb., ʾak ʾim-yôm ʾô yômayim yaʿămōd.
[14] The implication may be that vengeance may be sought if the slave does not
“stand” after two days. The law governing this would probably be “eye for an
eye,” which is also in the immediate context (v. 24).
[15] The NIV has “the slave is his property.” This is absolutely incorrect and
has often been used by the Bible’s critics who accuse this verse of saying
something it does not say. The term in question (kesep) literally means
“silver,” and always refers to currency, not property in either a general or
specific sense. The standard Hebrew lexicon, HALOT, gives four definitions:
“silver as metal,” “[silver] as material,” “in general, money,” and “misc.: pl.
uncoined pieces of silver” (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [rev. Walter Baumgartner
and Johann Jakob Stamm; trans. and ed. M. E. J. Richardson; Leiden: Brill,
1994] 2:490).
[16] The word used here is ʾăḥuzzâ, which is used elsewhere of
property that is owned. Nonhuman examples would include land, usually as an
enduring inheritance (e.g., Gen 17:8; 23:20; 47:11; 49:30; 50:13; Lev 25:33;
Jos 22:19; Ps 2:8; Neh 11:3). This is in contrast to Exod 21:27, where we saw
Hebrew slaves referred to as “money” (Heb. kesep, i.e., “capital
investment”). Interestingly, in Ezekiel, God refers to himself as
Israel’s ʾăḥuzzâ (Eze 44:28).
[17] Heb. ʾāhabtā lô kāmôkā.
[18] Heb. derûr, often translated “Jubilee.”
[19] The same Greek word (kurios) stands behind both “master” and
“lord.”
[20] The lack of clarity on this and several other questions relevant to the
intent of Philemon is due to the fact that Paul apparently wants Philemon to
choose to do this of his own accord, and therefore avoids issuing explicit
commands. Paul expects Philemon to conclude for himself what is the right
course of action. At the same time, he also employs highly suggestive language
to urge Philemon in the right direction. Paul even explains his strategy in
verses 8 and 9: “Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you
to do what is required, yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul,
an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus.” Also, in verse 14: “I
preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might
not be by compulsion but of your own accord.” He does this by reminding
Philemon of his love and charity towards “all the saints” (4–7); he states his
desire to have Onesimus help him in his own ministry, calling him “my very
heart” (12–14); he offers to personally bear the burden of any loss that
Onesimus’ behavior may have cost him (17–20); he says he is “confident of
[Philemon’s] obedience;” he tells him that he intends to visit after he is
released from jail, implying that he will personally follow up on the
situation; and he concludes with greetings from other prominent Christians, who
are apparently aware of the situation and in agreement with Paul (23–24).
[21] Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Pillar
New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 373.
[22] A. A. Ruprecht, “Slave, Slavery, “in Dictionary of Paul and His
Letters (ed. Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid;
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 881–83.
[23] S. Scott Bartchy, ΜΑΛΛΟΝ ΧΡΗΣΑΙ: First-Century Slavery and the
Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 (SBLDS 11; Missoula, MT: Society
of Biblical Literature, 1972), 46.
[24] Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 801. See also W. L. Westermann, “Slavery and the
Elements of Freedom in Ancient Greece,” Quarterly Bulletin of the
Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 1 (Jan. 1943): 10–11.
[25] Hoehner (803) cites Pseudo-Aristotle Oeconomica 1.5.2–5 §§
1344a.29–1344b.22; Columella Rei Rusticae 1.8–9, and Seneca Epistulae Morales
47.11 as writers who strongly urged masters to treat their slaves well.
[26] Steven Spielberg’s excellent film, Lincoln, contains an exchange between
Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens, in which Lincoln tempers
Stevens’ unrealistic idealism: “The compass . . . will point you true north
from where you’re standing, but it’s got no advice about the swamps, the
deserts, the chasms that you’ll encounter along the way. If, in proceeding to
your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing
more than to sink in a swamp, what’s the use of knowing true north?”
[27] Epictetus, Dissertationes 4.
[28] Marianne Meye Thompson, Colossians and Philemon (The Two
Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 266.
[29] Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 1. It is not beyond dispute
that this is the same Onesimus from Philemon, but several scholars of
considerable standing have argued that this is precisely the case: F. F.
Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the
Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 202; C. F. D.
Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to
Philemon (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 21; Peter
Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an Philemon (4th ed.; EKKNT 18;
NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener and Düsseldorf; Benzinger, 2004), 19.
No comments:
Post a Comment