Many people assume slavery in the Old Testament context was the same as in the New Testament. It was not. Slavery in the New Testament context refers to the Roman institution, where slaves were often considered lesser beings and possessions. Many Bible readers find it troubling that Paul would send a slave like Onesimus back to his master. Is it evidence that Paul, and by extension Christianity, condones slavery? To understand the New Testament view on slavery, the context and the biblical teaching on the treatment of slaves must be taken into account.
Slavery in the Roman Empire
Today, people associate slavery with what they know of the practice in the American South. This was race-based slavery where slaves were forced into a life of indentured servitude. These slaves were acquired from slave traders who brought them from Africa.
Slavery in ancient Rome was different. People from all races could become slaves and there were several ways people could become enslaved. Some were spoils of war, some owed debts they could not repay, piracy was another source, and others were abandoned as children. It was not uncommon for people to sell themselves into slavery to survive.
Society was very different from the 1st century BCE to the 5th century CE. It was not easy to survive and make a living in the Roman Empire as a free person. As Douglas Moo writes:
Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox
Sign up to our Free Weekly Newsletter
“Moreover, legal freedom was by no means always a positive move for a slave. The treatment slaves received from their owners naturally varied greatly, but all owners had reason to treat their slaves tolerably well since they were an important economic investment for them. Once set free, however, former slaves (“freedmen”) were on their own and often found it very difficult to make a living. Legal freedom would not, then, have been the obvious good in the first century that we would consider it to be today.”
Old Testament Protections Not in the New Testament
The protections slaves or servants had according to Old Testament law did not apply to the New Testament context. In the New Testament, people from all nations, tribes, and tongues could become Christians and the Old Testament laws only applied to Israel and the slavery in their midst.
Where the Old Testament laws protected against exploitation, abuse, and mistreatment, these safeguards did not exist in the context Paul had to address. Slaves were not free to leave when mistreated and masters could not be executed for killing a slave.
New Testament Teaching on Slavery
Arguably the best-known example that speaks to slavery in the New Testament is the case of Onesimus. He seemingly stole from his master and ran away. He also met Saint Paul and was converted. Paul, knowing his master, Philemon, who was a Christian, wrote him a letter asking him to take back his slave. He asked Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother in Christ, rather than a slave. Paul’s sentiment was that in Christ, there should be no distinction or social hierarchy between believers.
This attitude resonates with what Paul wrote to the Galatians and Colossians:
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.”
Colossians 3:11
“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”
Paul was not denying that these categories were a reality. He was talking about the regard Christians must have for others. In his letter to the Colossians, he continues:
Colossians 3:12-14
“Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.”
There can be no doubt that Paul envisioned a classless Christianity where no one ruled over another. So, why send Onesimus back to his master? Onesimus may have had a much more difficult existence as a “freedman” and may have ended up enslaved again, likely not with a Christian master who would treat him as an equal.
Paul’s instruction to Philemon suggests he wanted him to continue with his commitment of caring for Onesimus. It also created an opportunity for Philemon to live his faith and set an example for others. Douglas Moo quotes Thompson, saying:
“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 self-giving love of Christ.”
Setting the slave free could see the slave destitute. Continued care and concern for his welfare would be better for the servant and master when Paul’s principles were applied. Rather than arguing for freedom, Paul encouraged bondservants to serve believing masters with respect, explaining that “they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved” (1 Timothy 6:2). The relational aspects of the master-servant economy is evident when Paul uses it to describe the believer’s perspective on God:
Romans 6:22
“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.”
This verse does not reflect an abusive relationship but rather one of willing and beneficial service.
Paul, who knew the Old Testament well as a student of Gamaliel, was aware of the Old Testament’s treatment of masters and servants, and seemed to envisage something similar in the Christian context as well. His instructions to servants and masters in Ephesians 6:5-9 indicate as much.
Ephesians 6:5-9
“Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”
Not all masters were Christians, however, and Paul was aware of this. Paul considered the good service of a bondservant as an opportunity to reach the master with the gospel by the example they set to their superiors (Titus 2:9-14).
The New Testament does also speak out against those who enslave others against their will. In 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul mentions enslavers in a list of things people do that does not agree with the gospel. The word translated “enslavers” in the ESV, is translated as “kidnappers” in the ISV and “menstealers” in the KJV and ASV. This verse alone would have forbidden the Southern states’ form of slavery.
Social justice was not the primary concern of early Christianity. Too much emphasis on such matters could have destroyed the fledgling faith. It is important to understand the New Testament from the perspectives and context of those who authored its books. Douglas Moo writes:
“It may well be that Paul accepted the institution of slavery because it was almost impossible to imagine society without it. Further, if Christianity had, in fact, given the slaves any encouragement to revolt or to leave their masters, nothing but tragedy could have followed. Any such revolt would have been savagely crushed; slaves who took their freedom would have been mercilessly punished; and Christianity would itself have been branded as revolutionary and subversive. Given the Christian faith, liberation was bound to come — but the time was not ripe; and to have encouraged slaves to hope for it, and to seize it, would have done infinitely more harm than good. There are some things which cannot be achieved suddenly, and for which the world must wait, until the leaven works.”
Paul was never in favor of the exploitation of people. His primary concern, however, was to bring them to faith in whatever circumstances they found themselves in and to conduct themselves appropriately within that context. Rather than engaging in a mission for social justice, he encouraged fair treatment of all and equality before God. That would address most of the injustices without upsetting the Roman authorities who already treated Christians badly and were soon to persecute them with a vengeance.
It would not be fair to say that the New Testament condoned slavery. As a system that allowed destitute people to have their basic needs fulfilled in exchange for service, it would do much damage. These people willfully entered servanthood to survive. As for forced slavery, the New Testament does not approve of the practice.
Bibliography:
Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008).
