[This is a continuation of the question of Slavery. The Intro and OT discussion is at www.Christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html.]
Now, when we come to the NT situation, the situation gets somewhat more complex, but we will STILL have the issue of "how slavery was NT slavery?"...
Remember, most people assume that the slavery of the Roman Empire at the time of Paul's writings was at least as bad as New World Slavery, with all its horrors, injustices, and atrocities. For us to be able to lodge the ethical objection of "the NT condones slavery" against the Christian worldview, we will have to demonstrate that what the NT calls "slavery" is equivalent to what we would understand by that term, and we will have to show that NT teaching 'condones' that practice. In the case of the OT/Tanaach, we saw that the two different systems of 'slavery' were not even close enough for meaningful comparison. We will need to compare and contrast Roman slavery and New World slavery here too, to ensure that we are not committing crimes of equivocation.
So, our method here will be to first determine to what extent 'slavery' in the Roman Empire in the mid-first century exemplified the oppressive character of later New World slavery (of Brazil, the Caribbean, and the USA).
Then, we will ask what type of responses to this should have issued from Paul's pen (in light of general NT ethics and worldview) and what type of responses actually showed up in his writings. [We can then consider how much this position might be considered "condoning slavery"--the original objection.]
Then, we need to look at any theoretical/theological concepts and historical realities that might have informed these responses, and finally, what evidence we have about the early church's actions in this area.
Our order of investigation would be something like this:
2. Given the actual character of NT 'slavery', what SHOULD HAVE BEEN a Christian response to it in the first century AD?
3. What actual response do we find in the writings of the NT--esp. Paul?
4. To what extent could this be considered "condoning slavery", as voiced in a typical objection?
5. What theoretical/theological concepts (e.g. example of Jesus, equality in Christ) and historical situations (e.g., church size and political visibility in 1st century AD) might have informed this response?
6. What evidence do we have about the early church's actions in this area?
1. So, our first topic concerns the question of identity--does
the slavery of the NT-period Roman Empire resemble New World slavery enough
for the objection to have its customary force?
The data is quite strong that the two systems are substantially different, especially in the areas most troubling to modern minds--the abuse, the oppression, the future prospects of the slave.
I have summarized the data in this comparative chart, and adduce the
detailed data for each of these issues below it:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Motive -- the differences in this category are very considerable.
"The writers and framers believed that adequate social and political remedies were available to curb possible abuses. A number of examples spring to mind. A slave might seek asylum in an appointed temple or may request that a third party intervene on his behalf. The social stigma of either remedy may have sufficed to inhibit the misdemeanors and offences of a status-conscious master. [NDIEC7:195f]
"At the opposite extreme, however, domestic slaves who worked as ministratores and pedisequi had special liveries or uniforms, in addition to their everyday clothes, to wear on those occasions when their owners wanted to advertise their wealth and taste, including plentiful amounts of jewelry." [HI:SASAR:87]
In the Jewish war of AD66-70, Josephus tells us of:
"Often in antiquity wars were waged to acquire laborers, and the armies were followed by slave merchants. The axiom occurs constantly: "The one who is taken in war belongs to the conqueror" (Aristotle); the law of war transformed prisoners into slaves (Heliodorus, Philo). The prisoner, who was like captured booty (Plato) took on an exchange value and would not be freed except for ransom." [TLNT:spiq, 427]
cf. 2 Peter 2.19: "for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved"
cf. Rom 7.23: "but I see another law at work in the members of my
body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of
the law of sin at work within my members."
"But having children could bring slaves certain benefits in real terms.
Columella believed that female slaves should be rewarded for bearing children
and said that he himself had given a mother of three time off from work
and a mother of more than three children her freedom as well." [HI:SASAR:34]
"Even more, the law itself might create a situation that casts doubt on the distinction between free and slave. What are we to make of the perfectly possible case of an elder brother who is a slave and a younger brother who is freeborn because the father had freed their mother, his slave, in the interim? The elder would thus not only be the servus of his father but could become the property of this brother at the father's death. Or what are we to think of free men who voluntarily became slaves, on one end of the scale, in order to be eligible for an important administrative post or, on the other (a more frequent case), because they were miserable wretches reduced to selling themselves in order to survive?" [HI:TR:168)
"Government service was not the only area that offered such opportunities
for slaves. There were as many or more for those employed in the running
of businesses or of great households, the sort of post that gave Trimalchio
his start. Slaves in such positions who had managed to accumulate enough
money to serve as investment capital could work not only for the master
but with him: they could become his partner in trade, in the holding of
real estate, and so on. Posts of this sort were so sure a way of getting
ahead that free men with bleak prospects would sell themselves into slavery
in order to quality for them. The free man who was a Roman subject
living in one of the conquered lands could figure that, by so doing, he
would eventually earn manumission and, with it, the citizenship." [HI:ELAR:61]
"Scholars have often noted an essential difference between rural slaves and those employed in the city, particularly when the latter worked in their master's household. This notions seems to hold true: the countryside rose up in the great servile revolt led by Spartacus, but there seems to have been little or no reaction from urban slaves. This is quite understandable. Most of the slaves used in the country were put to hard labor.," [HI:TR:141]
"Jurists such as Paulus and Ulpian, who both lived in the age of the Severi, state that slaves must be fed and clothed according to their rank" [HI:TR:145]
"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery. [HPL:55]
"The treatment of slaves varied enormously, depending on their employment and their owner. Harsh treatment was often restrained by the fact that the slave was an investment, and impairment of the slave's performance might involve financial loss." [HI:HLAR:342]
"The Roman slavery system cannot be understood, therefore, without at once acknowledging its enormous diversity and variability, and any attempt to define its general features must constantly allow for the unanticipated and the exceptional." [HI:SASAR:4]
"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. And often they were slaveowners themselves." [HI:SASAR:70]
"The material life of the slave in the Roman world, as in later slave societies, was determined on the one hand by the slave's function, standing and relationship with the master and on the other hand by the degree of responsibility with which the master met his (or her) material obligations to the slave." [HI:SASAR:89]
"To judge from evidence in the Digest on arrangements owners made for their slaves' welfare once they - the owners - were dead, it must be inferred that many men and women took their material responsibilities very seriously. One owner for example imposed a testamentary charge on an heir for supporting slave temple guardians as follows: 'I request and impose on you afidei commissum to give and supply in my memory each of my footmen (pedisequi) whom I have left to take care of the temple with monthly provisions and a fixed amount of clothing per annum' (Dig- 34- I. I 7). Another set free in his will the grandson of his nurse, provided him with an annual allowance of cash, and conferred ownership upon him of his own slave wife and children, together with 'the things he was accustomed to provide for them in his lifetime' (Dig- 34.1-20 pr.). Such liberality to slaves or former slaves was by no means extraordinary: alimentary arrangements, as they are called, appear in the well known Will of Dasumius, and the younger Pliny as seen earlier provided in his will for the maintenance after his death of one hundred of his freedmen's [HI:SASAR:99]
"In many real-life contexts there may equally have been little material incentive to protest. Imagine, for example, how slaves fared within a large domestic household such as that of Augustus' wife Livia.... Secondly, Livia's household staff provided many services that were available not simply to the owner and her immediate family but to the slaves (and freedmen and freedwomen) who made up the familia as well:, the cooks, caterers and bakers, fullers, wool-weighers, clothes-menders, weavers and shoe-makers, nurses, pedagogues, midwives and doctors - these were all functionaries whose labour contributed to the material well-being of the familia as a whole.[HI:SASAR:102]
"There were multitudes of Greek and Roman slaves--the gangs in the mines or on the vast ranches--who lived lives as hopeless and full of hardship as the slaves on the sugar plantations of Brazil or the cotton plantations in the American south. But in the days of the Roman Empire there were also many, a great many, who were able to escape from slavery and mount the steps of the social ladder, in some cases to the very top. [HI:ELAR:64]
"whether the slaves in the workhouses are carefully fettered
... and whether the manager has chained or released any without authorization....should
inquire not only of the inmates but also of the slaves not in shackles--who
are more to be believed--whether they are getting what is their due,
should sample the quality of their food and drink by tasting it himself,
should check on their clothing, mittens, and foot coverings. What is more,
he should give them frequent chances to register complaints against
those who treat them cruelly or dishonestly." Selection from Columella,
who wrote a book on agriculture in middle 1st century ad [HI:ELAR:27]
"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. And often they were slaveowners themselves." [HI:SASAR:70]
"Rural slaves, Varro suggests (R. 1.19.3), regularly kept
livestock, more or less their own, from which to supplement their rations,
and field hands who had only portions of bread and olives were able to
gather as many wild greens as they wished to eat with. Both in the city
and the country, kitchen-gardens produced a wide range of vegetables--onions
and lettuce, beets and artichokes, peas and beans--which not only gave
extra food but allowed the chance of extra cash from sale of the surplus."
[HI:SASAR:83]"Most domestics, that is to say, lived under the same roof
as their owners. Within the housing complex the wealthy owner, Pliny
for instance (Ep 7.27.12-14), was able to close himself off from
the slave quarters when he wished to maintain his privacy, but it was thought
odd nonetheless that the slave quarters should be absolutely separate from
the owner's living space as among the tribes of Germany." [HI:SASAR:84]
"The ease with which the slaveowner could freely abuse the slave was diminished by a sequence of laws that, for example, made murderous masters liable for homicide, proscribed castration, and outlawed ergastula; and through recognition of rights of asylum and appeal to magistrates and governors slave victims in the imperial age came to have some means of relief against abusive owners." [HI:SASAR:171]
"The royal diagramma will have intervened in the legal procedure possible exempting certain types of slaves from prosecutions, e.g. state slaves, slaves belonging to officials or slaves employed in vital occupations." [NDIEC7:172]
"In other words, the state intervened in the master-slave relationship to limit and control punishment." [NDIEC7:175]
"The principle of favor libertatis was very old, perhaps, like the convention of conditional manumission, as old as the Twelve Tables. Certainly in AD 19 a lex Junia Petronia established that freedom was to be favoured when judges in a suit for freedom were equally divided." [HI:SASAR:162]
"In doing so [fleeing], he might hope to be lost in the subculture of a large city, for example, or to find work in another region or he might resort to brigandage. Alternatively, he might seek the assistance of a person of social standing to advocate his cause or seek asylum in an appropriate temple (and later in a church or monastery) and have its priests decide his fate." [NDIEC6:58]
"After all, a decree of Tiberius guaranteed asylum to servi
next to images of the emperors, not only in public places but also
in private house (Tacitus Annales 3.36)." [HI:TR:162]
"Awareness of the sexual dangers to which slaves were exposed was thus
very sharp. Even a slave overseer might be a threat. Yet because proprietary
rights were absolute, there was nothing the law could do to prevent slaveowners
themselves abusing their slaves if they wished to do so. A tension developed
consequently between the need to uphold the rights of ownership on the
one hand and a need to punish such obvious injustices as rape on the other.
The dilemma is visible in a directive given by the emperor Antoninus
Pius (Dig. i.6.2) for cases of abuse, including sexual abuse, of
slaves, in which sale of the slaves concerned to a new household was
recommended: 'The power of masters over their slaves certainly ought not
to be infringed and there must be no derogation from any of man's legal
rights. But it is in the interest of masters that those who make just
complaint be not denied relief against brutality or starvation or intolerable
wrongdoing' - the latter to include impudicitia, sexual wrongdoing.
[HI:SASAR:49]
"The non-compliance of slaves manifested itself in several ways, from the most drastic, like slave rebellion and murdering one's master, to the more subtle, like careless workmanship and tardiness. No doubt the frequency and type of non-compliance were correlated; it is reasonable to assume that the more drastic the non-compliance the rarer its occurrence and the more subtle the non-compliance the more frequent its occurrence." [NDIEC6:57f]
"Roman lawmakers regarded attempts at self-destruction on the part of slaves as commonplace to judge from information in the Digest. When a slave was sold the aedilician edict required the seller to declare whether the slave had ever tried to hill himself (Dig. 21.1.1.1)..." [HI:SASAR:112]"The jurists, recalling Apuleius' brigand, used the phrase 'domestic thefts' to refer to this sort of pilfering, misdeeds that were too trivial to justify prosecution, but which must have been deleterious to slaveowners in their overall effects." [HI:SASAR:116]"Literate slaves were able to falsify records and documents to the disadvantage of their owners." [HI:SASAR:116]"Truancy, dilatoriness, lying, dissembling, stealing, causing damage, feigning sickness--at the strictly factual level these types of slave behaviour are all well in evidence." [HI:SASAR:117]"Roman slaveowners acknowledged from time to time that their slaves behaved 'badly' because of the way they were treated and not because of inherent character flaws. It was conceded that the master's threatening words could force the slave to run away, that the dispensator might embezzle because he needed food, that the slave might lie to avoid torture, that apparent greed might have something to do with the slave's hunger. Cruelty, fear, deprivation--these are recurring elements in the record of master-slave relations in the Roman world, and practical slaveowners could see that injustice caused resentment." [HI:SASAR:124]
"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played
an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their
exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented
from the owner. Thus, along with the traditional vilici, who
were simply agents carrying out the owner's will, there appeared vilici
who managed the land on their own account on payment of a fee and who
might farm the land themselves or rent it out in small parcels to slaves.
As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to
an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country,
who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from
inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii,
and so forth. [HI:TR:155]
"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented from the owner. ... As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country, who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii, and so forth.[HI:TR:155]
"The urban milieu underwent a similar change. There were some specifically urban varieties of slaves such as the insularii, who managed the owner's rental properties, and increasing numbers of physicians and intellectuals. More generally, however, the manufacturing mode of production was in decline in the city as well as in the country. It became customary to permit a slave craftsman an autonomous activity, and masters relied on institutores (usually slaves) to run a workshop, supervise the sale and purchase of merchandise, handle loans, arrange transportation, and so forth. As in country areas, these practices were probably not absolutely new, but when they became widespread they took on a new meaning.[HI:TR:155f]
"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master.[HPL:55]
"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman
Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable
lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came
about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity
of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding
increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans had
no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took
a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved
to slaves, and, since they were generous in granting manumission, particularly
to the slaves who worked in their offices and homes, the white-collar slave
worker could be fairly sure of eventually gaining it...Throughout the
Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices of towns and cities, and in Rome
itself they staffed all the ranks of the emperor's bureaucracy: they
were the nation's civil service. Those who demonstrated satisfactory
ability could expect manumission by the age of thirty to thirty-five; after
manumission they would carry on their duties as freedmen...The paths, in
the imperial administration led right to the very top, to posts that today
would be held by department heads, even cabinet ministers. During Claudius's
reign, Pallas, a freedman, served as his secretary of the treasury, and
Narcissus, another freedman, as his secretary of state. Both used their
position to line their pockets and both became so incredibly rich...[HI:ELAR:60]
"Although himself a slave, that is to say, Musicus Scurranus had
a personal slave retinue of his own, and his inscription actually continues
with the names and job-titles, save in one case, of sixteen of its members.
They include a business agent, an accountant, three secretaries,
a doctor, two chamberlains, two attendants, two cooks and three slaves
who were respectively in charge of Scurranus' clothes, gold and silver....Ownership
of slaves by slaves seems strange at first sight, but in societies like
that of Rome where slaveowning was a critical mark of an individual's social
standing it has been far from unusual." [HI:SASAR:2-3]
"The efficacy of this policy depended on a remarkable characteristic of the Roman city--its capacity to remain open to foreign elements--that Greek cities did not share. In classical Greece, the citizen body was a closed world extremely difficult to break into. The Roman city, which often granted the freed slave citizenship, offered a social model radically different from that of the Greek city. The Roman system implied channels that led slaves to manumission and then to access to all economic activities, landownership included--something nearly unknown in the Greek world, but that in Rome underlay the efficacy of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]
"Manumissions were fairly frequent.." [HI:HLAR:342]
"It was possible for such men, whether born into the imperial familia or recruited from outside, to advance through what loosely resembled a career structure, beginning with subordinate positions while still young and proceeding to positions of greater authority after manumission, which typically came when they were about thirty. For some, especially in the first century AD, the way was open to participate directly in the highest levels of Roman government." [HI:SASAR:69]
"Although there were a number of ways by which a slave might be legally manumitted, two were most common: (1) the slave and master would appear before a magistrate (either praetor or consul) who would touch the slave with a rod or wand and thus signify that he was now free; or (2) the master would state in his will that he wished some or all of his slaves manumitted upon his death. The advantage of the latter procedure was that the owner enjoyed the use of his slaves right up to his death, but still appeared to be a generous man. Some owners would free slaves only if the slaves could buy their freedom, that is, pay back the original purchase price or whatever price the owner deemed reasonable. Most slaves would save up the money from occasional gifts and tips; slaves employed in the civil service had the advantage of receiving bribes. Sometimes freedmen who were friends or family members would buy the slave from the owner and then manumit him.[HI:ATRD:190-19]
"Government service was not the only area that offered such opportunities for slaves. There were as many or more for those employed in the running of businesses or of great households, the sort of post that gave Trimalchio his start. Slaves in such positions who had managed to accumulate enough money to serve as investment capital could work not only for the master but with him: they could become his partner in trade, in the holding of real estate, and so on. Posts of this sort were so sure a way of getting ahead that free men with bleak prospects would sell themselves into slavery in order to quality for them. The free man who was a Roman subject living in one of the conquered lands could figure that, by so doing, he would eventually earn manumission and, with it, the citizenship." [HI:ELAR:61]
"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans had no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved to slaves, and, since they were generous in granting manumission, particularly to the slaves who worked in their offices and homes, the white-collar slave worker could be fairly sure of eventually gaining it. ...Throughout the Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices of towns and cities, and in Rome itself they staffed all the ranks of the emperor's bureaucracy: they were the nation's civil service. Those who demonstrated satisfactory ability could expect manumission by the age of thirty to thirty-five; after manumission they would carry on their duties as freedmen. [HI:ELAR:60]
"In urban areas, the locale of most business and government offices, manumission was so common that ex-slaves came to make up a high proportion of the Roman citizenry." [HI:ELAR:62]
"There were multitudes of Greek and Roman slaves--the gangs in the mines
or on the vast ranches--who lived lives as hopeless and full of hardship
as the slaves on the sugar plantations of Brazil or the cotton plantations
in the American south. But in the days of the Roman Empire there were
also many, a great many, who were able to escape from slavery and mount
the steps of the social ladder, in some cases to the very top. [HI:ELAR:64]
"The Augustian laws were a reforming response to the haphazard manumission
practices of the pre-imperial era...the lex Aelia Sentia
of AD 4 set minimum age requirements of twenty for the slaveowner and thirty
for the slave before a living owner could formally manumit a slave..."
[HI:SASAR:156]
"Certain slave-owners abandoned their sick and worn-out slaves on the
island of Aesculapius since they were loathe to provide them with medical
care. ." (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: Claudius 25)
"The principle of favor libertatis was very old, perhaps, like
the convention of conditional manumission, as old as the Twelve Tables.
Certainly in AD 19 a lex Junia Petronia established that freedom
was to be favoured when judges in a suit for freedom were equally divided."
[HI:SASAR:162]
"A parallel phenomenon was an increased number of slaves who played an important role in the management of such properties, supervising their exploitation and handling money, or even farming land that they rented from the owner. Thus, along with the traditional vilici, who were simply agents carrying out the owner's will, there appeared vilici who managed the land on their own account on payment of a fee and who might farm the land themselves or rent it out in small parcels to slaves. As a general rule, supervision of the master's holdings was entrusted to an entire hierarchy of financial agents working in both city and country, who carried out the wishes of their dominus and whom we know from inscriptions-procuratores, actores, dispensatores, cellarii, arcarii, and so forth.[HI:TR:155f]
"The urban milieu underwent a similar change. There were some specifically urban varieties of slaves such as the insularii, who managed the owner's rental properties, and increasing numbers of physicians and intellectuals. More generally, however, the manufacturing mode of production was in decline in the city as well as in the country. It became customary to permit a slave craftsman an autonomous activity, and masters relied on institutores (usually slaves) to run a workshop, supervise the sale and purchase of merchandise, handle loans, arrange transportation, and so forth. As in country areas, these practices were probably not absolutely new, but when they became widespread they took on a new meaning. [HI:TR:155f]
"Most artisans seem to have been slaves." [HPL:55]
"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries or bureaucrats were also imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the administrative chores of the prince, their master. At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery. The system of large estates cultivated by slave gangs was limited to certain regions such as southern Italy and Sicily. (The slave system was no more essential a feature of Roman antiquity than slavery in the southern United States prior to 1865 is an essential characteristic of the modern West.).[HPL:55]
35 different rural jobs listed in the Digest 33.7 and 37 from Columella [HI:SASAR:59,60]50 domestic classes in Livia (p.61) and 39 more from other elite households [HI:SASAR:63]
"No commercial activities, it must be repeated, were the exclusive domain of slaves: 'If a master frees a slave whom he has appointed to manage a bank and then continues the business through him as a freedman, the change of status does not alter the incidence of risk' (so Papinian: Dig. 14.3.19.1)." [HI:SASAR:76]
"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman
Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable
lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom. This came
about because of a vast increase in these years in the size and complexity
of businesses and of the government bureaucracies and with it a corresponding
increase in the number of white-collar jobs. Since native Romans
had no taste for trade or commerce (aside from investing in them) and took
a dim view of the routine of desk work, they turned over the tasks involved
to slaves...Throughout the Roman Empire slaves staffed the offices
of towns and cities, and in Rome itself they staffed all the ranks
of the emperor's bureaucracy: they were the nation's civil service.[HI:ELAR:60]
"In the Roman Empire the emperor's slaves and freedmen played a role
analogous to that played in French history by such illustrious royal ministers
and advisers as Colbert or Fouquet. Most of those whom we would call functionaries
or bureaucrats were also imperial slaves and freedmen: they handled the
administrative chores of the prince, their master. .[HPL:55]
"The efficacy of this policy depended on a remarkable characteristic of the Roman city--its capacity to remain open to foreign elements--that Greek cities did not share. In classical Greece, the citizen body was a closed world extremely difficult to break into. The Roman city, which often granted the freed slave citizenship, offered a social model radically different from that of the Greek city. The Roman system implied channels that led slaves to manumission and then to access to all economic activities, landownership included--something nearly unknown in the Greek world, but that in Rome underlay the efficacy of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]
"Although himself a slave, that is to say, Musicus Scurranus had a personal slave retinue of his own, and his inscription actually continues with the names and job-titles, save in one case, of sixteen of its members. They include a business agent, an accountant, three secretaries, a doctor, two chamberlains, two attendants, two cooks and three slaves who were respectively in charge of Scurranus' clothes, gold and silver....Ownership of slaves by slaves seems strange at first sight, but in societies like that of Rome where slaveowning was a critical mark of an individual's social standing it has been far from unusual." [HI:SASAR:2-3]
"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy
were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest
and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing
the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able
to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who
were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure
material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could
come to resent. And often they were slaveowners themselves." [HI:SASAR:70]
"Large landowners used slaves to cultivate portions of their estates not rented to sharecroppers. These slaves lived in dormitories under the authority of a slave overseer or steward, whose official concubine prepared meals for all the slaves. Philostratus tells the story of a modest vintner who resigned himself to tending his vineyard by himself because his few slaves cost too much to keep.[HPL:55]
"This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is the most degrading and exploitative institution invented by man. Yet many slaves in ancient societies were more secure and economically better off than the mass of the free poor, whose employment was irregular, low-grade and badly paid." [HI:ISAA:5]
"At Rome the slaves who enjoyed the most elevated rank in the hierarchy were those like the father of Claudius Etruscus who belonged to the greatest and most powerful slaveowner in the world and who played a role in governing the Roman empire. Their standing was such that they were commonly able to take as wives women of superior juridical status, women that is who were freed or even freeborn. Many of them lived in relatively secure material surroundings, enjoying wealth and power which others could come to resent. ." [HI:SASAR:70]
"It would be wrong, however, to claim that servile living conditions were uniformly and generically worse than those of all other groups in Roman society..." [HI:SASAR:90)
"In comparison with the free poor, therefore, slaves may often have been at something of a material advantage: given that they were to some degree provided for, they must in many cases have enjoyed a security in their lives that the free poor could never have known." [HI:SASAR:92]
"In many real-life contexts there may equally have been little material incentive to protest. Imagine, for example, how slaves fared within a large domestic household such as that of Augustus' wife Livia. First the immense size of the familia was predicated on the fact that the slaveowner was a person of enormous wealth who was always able to control resources grand enough to maintain a household in a manner that continuously proclaimed the owner's renown and richness. To those comprising Rome's social and political elite, therefore, for whom slaveholdings were a mechanism of competitive display and a means of rivalry, it made little sense to allow the familia to deteriorate in any significantly noticeable way, which automatically meant that the slaves, who made up such holdings--subject to the constraints that affected society at large-- were never likely to find themselves hungry or without clothes and a roof over their heads. Secondly, Livia's household staff provided many services that were available not simply to the owner and her immediate family but to the slaves (and freedmen and freedwomen) who made up the familia as well:, the cooks, caterers and bakers, fullers, wool-weighers, clothes-menders, weavers and shoe-makers, nurses, pedagogues, midwives and doctors - these were all functionaries whose labour contributed to the material well-being of the familia as a whole... For great numbers of Roman slaves, over time, there must have been every practical reason to display to their owners the unswerving loyalty and obedience that ideally all owners sought from those in their possessions' [HI:SASAR:102]
12. Social Advancement opportunities (virtually none in New World slavery; ubiquitous in Roman Empire):
"Indeed, Roman law permitted disinheriting an heir to the profit of an adopted slave (who was thus freed)..." [HI:TR:144]
"The social situation of such financial managers was enviable, but it implied servile status, which gave security to the master. In this case, entering into slavery became a means of social promotion. [HI:TR:157]
"This change contributed greatly to a growing heterogeneity in the slave world. From the first century, the theme of the wealthy and insolent slave paralleled that of the freedman who surpassed the aristocrat in his life-style and his power. The phenomenon was considerably intensified by the rapid rise in the number of slaves who belonged to the emperor. Not only were such slaves endowed with specific rights that distinguished them from private slaves, but also the proximity of power offered a few of them greater opportunities for social promotion, in particular, in the management of the enormous imperial patrimony or in the service of the state. [HI:TR:157]
"The efficacy of this policy depended on a remarkable characteristic of the Roman city--its capacity to remain open to foreign elements--that Greek cities did not share. In classical Greece, the citizen body was a closed world extremely difficult to break into. The Roman city, which often granted the freed slave citizenship, offered a social model radically different from that of the Greek city. The Roman system implied channels that led slaves to manumission and then to access to all economic activities, landownership included--something nearly unknown in the Greek world, but that in Rome underlay the efficacy of the policy of social integration of the slave elites." [HI:TR:159]
" Or what are we to think of free men who voluntarily became slaves, on one end of the scale, in order to be eligible for an important administrative post" [HI:TR:168]
"Some ambitious men did the same [sold themselves] in the hope of becoming the stewards of noblemen or imperial treasures. This, in my view, was the story of the all-powerful and extremely wealthy Pallas, scion of a noble Arcadian family, who sold himself into slavery so that he might be taken on as steward by a woman of the imperial family and who wound up as minister of finance and eminence grise to the emperor Claudius." [HPL:55]
"In Roman Italy of the first century BC, it was evidently possible for the slave to achieve individual distinction despite his lowly origins and to be happily received into the free, civic community."[HI:SASAR:1]
"It was possible for such men, whether born into the imperial familia or recruited from outside, to advance through what loosely resembled a career structure, beginning with subordinate positions while still young and proceeding to positions of greater authority after manumission, which typically came when they were about thirty. For some, especially in the first century AD, the way was open to participate directly in the highest levels of Roman government." [HI:SASAR:69]One captured slave from Smyrna "served as a young administrator in the household of the emperor Tiberius, by whom he was set free. He accompanied Caligula when the emperor traveled north in AD 39 and was probably promoted to a provincial financial posting under Claudius and Nero before eventually becoming a rationibus, secretary in charge of the emperor's accounts, under Vespasian. Vespasian indeed conferred upon him the rank of eques, second only to that of senator and his marriage, under Claudius, to a woman of free birth produced two sons who also gained equestrian standing." [HI:SASAR:69f]
"These remarks imply that it was perfectly possible at Rome for the socially inferior to win the esteem of their superiors and for the latter to draw the former firmly into society..." [HI:SASAR:78]
"Cultural and psychological dislocation of this kind must have been commonly endured by the great numbers of slaves brought from the fringes of the Roman world, those for instance procured from the regions that bordered on the Black Sea or from within the Asian interior. The results were not of course always permanently damaging, and it is possible to find success stories showing how the victimised were sometimes capable of adapting their new circumstances to their personal advantage. For example, the freedman Licinus, who came to hold a procuratorship in Gaul under Augustus and whose name became a byword for great wealth, had originally been captured in war in Gaul, where he was born, but fell into the ownership of Julius Caesar and was fortunate enough to be manumitted by him. Then there was Cleander, the notorious freedman who in the reign of Commodus held the high office of praetorian prefect and exercised enormous political influence; he was a Phrygian by birth who had been brought to Rome as a slave where he was sold on the block. At a more humble level one might notice a pair of freedmen who as slaves had originated from Cilicia and Paphlagonia respectively, the cloak dealers L. Arlenus Demetrius and L. Arienus Arternidorus.[HI:SASAR:47]
"I was no bigger than this candlestick here when I came out of Asia Minor .... For fourteen years I was the master's little darling. The mistress' too .... The gods were on my side--I became the head of the household, I took over from that pea-brain of a master. Need I say more? He made me co-heir in his will, and I inherited a millionaire's estate." The speaker is Trimalchio, the character in Petronius's novel, The Satyricon, who made it from the rags of a slave to the riches of a billionaire...A slave becoming a master's heir and inheriting an estate worth millions? It seems unbelievable. Not in the Roman world of the first century A.D., when Petronius wrote. He was, to be sure, a novelist and not a historian, but his portrait of Trimalchio is based on reality. Though the slave was at the opposite end of the social spectrum from the likes of Pliny, thanks to certain Roman attitudes and ways, avenues of upward mobility bridged the gap between these extremes, and there were many slaves who made it part way across and some who, like Trimalchio, made it all the way. [HI:ELAR:57]
"There were multitudes of Greek and Roman slaves--the gangs in the mines or on the vast ranches--who lived lives as hopeless and full of hardship as the slaves on the sugar plantations of Brazil or the cotton plantations in the American south. But in the days of the Roman Empire there were also many, a great many, who were able to escape from slavery and mount the steps of the social ladder, in some cases to the very top. [HI:ELAR:64]
"Among the Romans, especially during the flourishing period of the Roman Empire under discussion, slaves enjoyed more and more chances to lead comfortable lives and at the same time move toward gaining their freedom...the white-collar slave worker could be fairly sure of eventually gaining it. Moreover, manumission among the Romans brought with it a precious gift--citizenship. Thus the freedman stood politically higher than the multitudes of freeborn peoples who lived in the lands Rome had conquered and were only Roman subjects, not citizens, and hence were denied the vote, marriage with a Roman citizen, access to Roman courts, and other privileges....The paths, in the imperial administration led right to the very top, to posts that today would be held by department heads, even cabinet ministers. During Claudius's reign, Pallas, a freedman, served as his secretary of the treasury, and Narcissus, another freedman, as his secretary of state. Both used their position to line their pockets and both became so incredibly rich...[HI:ELAR:60]
"Slaves in such positions who had managed to accumulate enough money to serve as investment capital could work not only for the master but with him: they could become his partner in trade, in the holding of real estate, and so on. Posts of this sort were so sure a way of getting ahead that free men with bleak prospects would sell themselves into slavery in order to quality for them. The free man who was a Roman subject living in one of the conquered lands could figure that, by so doing, he would eventually earn manumission and, with it, the citizenship." [HI:ELAR:61]
It might also be pointed out that skill development, education, and
life-care support during formative periods were also provided to household
slaves. Unlike New World Slavery, in which the vast majority of the 'skills'
required were for simple agricultural tasks, household slaves received
training in specialist skills, which became marketable after manumission.
And these were not always 'core only' skills: one document from Roman Egypt
of the period contains a case where a mistress is sending a slave girl
to a foreign city for music lessons!
It should be apparent from this detail that these two systems are hardly comparable, and one could wonder along with Usry and Keener if we should even call these by the same name[TH:DBF:37] :
Any socio-economic class that:
2. allowed a servant legal rights against their 'owner';
3. gave the servant the ability to force a change of owner by seeking asylum;
4. created a realistic expectation of freedom WITH ROMAN CITIZENSHIP around the age of 30 years of age;
5. provided much greater material comforts, security, and earning potential than free status
6. provided access to educational training often unaffordable by the
free poor
Accordingly, I have to conclude that the NT-period "slavery" in the Roman Empire is not similar enough to New World slavery for this objection to have its customary force. The gap between NT 'servanthood' and New World 'slavery' is simply too great for us to identify them with each other.
In spite of this inappropriate use of the word 'slavery' to describe this phenomena, I will generally still use the term below, but it should be remembered throughout that this is NOT your normal meaning of 'slave' or 'slavery'.
...........................................................................................................................................
2. Given the actual character of NT 'slavery', what
SHOULD HAVE BEEN a Christian response to it in the first century AD?
Now, here we have to determine 'the good, the bad, and the ugly' in Roman servitude.
As a socio-economic institution, it had a massively ambiguous character:
Freedom was thus not always 'good' and 'slavery' was not always 'bad', and what to 'legislate' about this institution--given its amazing variety and ethically polymorphous character--might be incredibly difficult to determine and perhaps even vary case-by-case!
Some of the more obvious things we might expect to find in the NT would be these:
..........................................................................................................................................................
3. What actual response do we find in the writings of the NT--esp. Paul?
Now, when we compare this expectation-grid with actual NT teaching, we find a good bit of overlap:
This is very strongly stated by Paul: "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (I Tim 1.9-10)
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. 9 And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Eph 6.5ff)
Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. 25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. 4.1 Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, (NIV: Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair) knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Col 3.22ff)
And let those who have believers as their masters not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but let them serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (I Tim 6.2)
Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. (Titus 2.9f)
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph 5.21,
which introduces the household code section)
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3.28)
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3.11)These were contrary to much of his Pharisaical upbringing (esp. as regards Gentile and women!), but even the slave class was despised within first-century Judaism [ Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, Dutton:949, p.203]:
"At the opposite end of the spectrum were slaves who worked as agricultural laborers. To be sure, the age of "plantation slavery" and Spartacus' revolt belonged to the distant past, and it is not true that Roman society was based on slavery." [HPL:55)
Even abuse of slaves was frowned upon (and legislated against) and deplored, as when Pliny the Elder speaks of the cruelty of Vedius Pollio in the manner of execution of condemned slave criminals, or when Seneca describes the beating of a slave by a master for a simple sneeze. These were NOT accepted practices of the time, and it is simply false to assert that owners had complete authority over their slaves.
The general consensus is that Paul is writing to Philemon to accept his runaway slave Onesimus back as a freedman, but the historical and legal context for this is quite precarious.
1. It was a major crime to harbour a runaway (soon thereafter, it became
a capital crime!):
"At the same time that the privilege of asylum was conferred on the temple, a suit for compensation and penalty was instituted against any private individual who should either help or harbour a runaway. Flight of slaves was an issue to be regulated...The prosecution of persons either for persuading a slave to run away, concealing his whereabouts, or seizing, selling or purchasing him was known to Roman law from the second century BC...It became a crimen capitale no longer punished necessarily by a monetary penalty but also by banishment to the mines or crucifixion..." [NDIEC8:35, late 1st century]
2. Paul could NOT afford for the early Church to be stigmatized
in this way:
Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do
what you ought to do,
Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that
you will do even more than I ask.
But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.
I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.
Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you
will do even more than I ask
In this case, Paul communicates the correct action (from the heart) without appealing to apostolic authority. This is what we might expect, given his anti-legalism and pro-Spirit teaching.
[There is also a theme in Paul that says that ONLY voluntary acts of
goodness are rewarded or praiseworthy--this would certainly provide a motive
for him to give Philemon the chance to act voluntarily:
Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully. 7 Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor 9.6)
shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily (Peter, in I Peter 5.2)]
4. To what extent could this be considered "condoning slavery", as voiced in a typical objection?
There are three considerations which make this phrase inapplicable to our situation:
First of all, it should be obvious that this is hardly 'slavery' in the normal, horrible meaning of it, so I think the objection is misplaced to begin with.
Secondly, 'condoning' means (in a context like this) "approve or sanction, usually reluctantly" [Oxford]. The NT data we have looked at certainly doesn't "sanction" it, but rather strongly encourages the church to move away from it, and explicitly condemns those elements of it that were clearly wrong (e.g., slavetrading, deprivation, malice, anti-community social views of it)--the very elements in New World slavery that are problematic. We have seen already how a blanket emancipation would have been inappropriate (given the type of slave-system it was), and as an institution it was too ambiguous and too flexible to deserve a judgement of 'holy' (sanctioned) or 'evil' (condemned).
Finally, we shall see later that the data we have about the early church showed that they believed the institution was not evil in itself, since they could use it to free others or provide relief money for others. In the earliest non-biblical accounts we have (late 1st century), we can see this:
Accordingly, I find it difficult to agree that the NT "condones slavery"
in any meaningful (from a modern standpoint) sense.
..................................................................................................................................................................
5. What theoretical/theological concepts (e.g. example
of Jesus, equality in Christ) and historical situations (e.g., church size
and political visibility in 1st century AD) might have informed this response?
The above data should be enough to show that a "condoning slavery" objection is simply inapplicable to biblical data. The OT and NT systems of 'slavery' addressed therein are just not close enough to New World slavery to make the objection even relevant, much less accurate. So, we could stop the discussion here.
We might profit from looking further at peripheral data, however, since the Suffering Servant motif from Isaiah was applied to Christ, and Jesus' deliberate model in John 13 of servanthood has challenged believers throughout the centuries to a life of humility, service, and other-centeredness.
So, let's look at the wider context of servant hood in the NT:
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave -- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matt 20.25) [Note: the contrast is between elitism and service, with Jesus as the example of one working for the interests/welfare of others.]
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9.35) [Social status should NOT be an ambition of the follower!]
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs (Rom 15.8) [The servant quality in view here is that of performing work for the benefit of others.]
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross! (Phil 2.5ff) [Social status was not as important as performing the will of God--whatever it took.]
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. (I Cor 9.19) [The ideas here are those of service and humility.]
"`I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16 `Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. (Acts 26.16) [Here servanthood is an 'appointment' by a royal figure--the Lord, and will involve the task of proclamation.]
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, (Rom 1.1) [The "status" of a servant was related to the "status" of the owner, as was commonly seen in Ancient Rome. To be a servant of the God of the Universe and of the Lord of History was quite an honor and privileged position...]
For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; (I Cor 7.22) [The status was changed in Christ.]
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. [The illusion of ownership also applied to payment!--the servant would be rewarded by Christ Himself, since HE was the actual one being served by the attitude of the worker.]
It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Col 3.22ff)
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Eph 6.9) [Masters were clearly told here that ownership had "passed" to Jesus! And, that they now had a Master in heaven. All ownership (earthly) was at best a matter of part-time contract agreements. We don't even "own" ourselves--much less others!]
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. (I Tim 6.1)
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Tit 2.9)
Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. (I Tim 6.2)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. (Eph 6.5f) [Notice that Paul points out that the actions of slaves (and masters!) have eternal consequences, and the slightest task done in humility before the real Master Jesus is seen and rewarded by Him!]
According to the bible, authority structures were supposed to be ways of serving/helping others! Governments, for example, are all "ministers" of God (Romans 13, cf. Our modern phrase "public servants"), but some are useful, some are useless, and some are destructive. Authority, biblically speaking, is granted only for the good of others--it is supposed to be a vehicle for doing "distributed good," not for elitism or exploitation.
And if this analogy holds, it has important implications for how far slaves were supposed to 'submit'.
In 1 Peter 2.18ff we read:
This places a very definite limit on the 'authority' of masters (!), and is paralleled in known cases of 'civil disobedience' in the NT (Acts 4.19 and 5.29).
[The topic of civil disobedience is far beyond the scope of this document,
but it should at least be noted here that the biblical teaching on the
matter is not exhausted with a simple "bear it" theme. We know of several
different themes of dealing with 'evil' authorities and responses. For
examples: (1) 'suffering unjustly' is not ALWAYS the appropriate response--FLEEING
sometimes is (Jesus' teaching in Mt 10.23); as can be (2) taking legal
action (as Paul did often, in the Roman court system); as (3) vivid confrontation
and rebuke could be (e.g., Paul and the efforts of the 'enslaving Judaizers').
Even the Romans 13 passage--often understood as a sanction of "divine right"
political theory--has to be read in light of the concrete providential
history of the OT. For example, when Saul had the "Romans 13 authority"
and David was anointed king, David fled and even their armies fought. He
did not 'submit to martyrdom' nor did he assassinate the king. When God
'raises one up and deposes another', this can often be a macro-level process
that involves everything from civil factionalism (e.g., the split between
the tribes after Solomon) to popular revolts (e.g., 2 Kings 21.19ff). The
issue of how authorities are 'replaced' is a more complex one, than
that of obedience as far as is morally right.]
If a Master forced someone into slavery (even the NT type of 'slavery'), it was seen as clearly evil by Paul (i.e., slavetraders). If a master used coercive elements (e.g., threatening, withholding material needs, abusive treatment), it was seen as clearly evil.
If, on the other hand, a person voluntarily entered into servitude, to an owner of great rank (e.g. the royal household), the status and benefits were impressive. It was a win-win situation for everyone, and the quality of life in the larger families of Rome was exceptionally high. Owners often found personal warmth in their servants (to the point of adoption or marriage!), and even manumission was easily attained once the servant had developed and mastered 'marketable' skills.
In the NT, Paul draws upon this disparity between evil/abusive masters and good/affirming masters. The evil masters he tells the believer to avoid are many:
so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil-and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death (Heb 2.14f)
But not only was the change supposed to be in our situation, it was also supposed to be in our character.
Commitment to serving Christ and others, humility toward Christ and others (e.g., Rom 12.10), and working for the interests of others instead of merely our own (cf. esp. Philp 2.4,21) became the highest calling of the Christian life. Jesus said 'follow my example' when he washed the feet of his companions, and urged us to take up our cross daily and follow that example. This calling considers only the welfare of others (i.e., love in action!) to be a worthy goal, when compared to social 'standing' or arrogance of the elite...
The model of Christ, faithfully and from-the-heart serving the Father and us, becomes the model for the heart of the believer.
This ideal of a gentle, committed, persistent servanthood, based on
affection and loyalty DID NOT, HOWEVER, legitimize slavery somehow
(contra common opinion)! Paul's explicit injunctions to (1) not become
slaves and (2) against slave traders, and (3) for voluntary manumission
are very strong indications that preserving the status quo in favor
of the masters was neither a goal, nor an acceptable stopping point for
the gospel of freedom.
But although this would have practically limited the effects of any Christian prophetic voice to the massive empire, the NT authors did not find this to be the limiting factor. They DID speak out against evil institutions (i.e., slave trading), evil usage of neutral/ambiguous institutions (e.g., abusive masters, pilfering servants), and even commonly-accepted morals of the surrounding cultures (e.g., sexual ethics, exploitation, fraud). But their main focus was on individual transformation of the heart, and on the growth of Christ-like community within the fellowship. Social change would be a necessary conclusion of heart-changes of people, and growth in love, kindness, forgiveness, and loyalty could only produce Kingdom-of-God-quality relationships among His followers.
To illustrate how difficult this might have been, consider that Paul had his hands full trying to get believers to understand that sacred prostitution in Corinth was wrong--a full campaign to eradicate it in the Roman Empire would have diverted his efforts from his major work of 'planting freedom' in the lives of people!
Also, we must remember that most of the NT literature deals with specific issues and occasions that came up in the beginning of the Christian expansion. It doesn't represent by any means a systematic or comprehensive critique of the cultures in which it had to live. For example, infanticide was a common practice--the leaving of infants on trash heaps to die of exposure or to be eaten by wild dogs--but the New Testament doesn't even speak about this. Later believers, however, after the church had taken root, spoke out vigorously against this practice.
The NT epistles reflect the mixture of its readership. At the time of Paul's epistles, the recipients would most likely have included household slaves, in urban settings. The number of slaves would have been much greater than the number of owners, and this would be reflected in the fact that there are more passages with instructions for servants, than for masters. Urban household slaves, we have noted often above, were NOT in a bad situation generally--certainly nothing like New World slaves or even the much earlier plantation slaves of the early Roman Republic. For these readers, the owner/slave relationship would not have been the oppressive institution that we are familiar with from modern images of New World slavery.
All in all, we couldn't realistically expect the NT to speak to every
evil, or even to every evil usage of neutral structures, of the day, but
in the case of NT slavery, we have enough data to confirm that it was:
6. What evidence do we have about the early church's
actions in this area?
We don't have a lot of data here, but what we do have seems to indicate that:
We know that the church was very active in social relief programs, because
the church at Rome was supporting over 1,500 widows and beggars in the
middle of the third century. Voluntary slavery may well have been one of
the ways of funding such a large-scale relief program (among the many others
done in the period, see ROC).
"As for such sums of money as are collected from them in the aforesaid
manner, designate them to be used for the redemption of the saints and
the deliverance of slaves and captives." [Apostolic Constitutions ( somewhat
later, c.390) 7.435]
[We would also assume that there were Christians who abused the master/slave
relationship (or even resisted the general principle toward manumission),
just like there were Christians in the NT who violated other major moral
principles, including major sexual ethics (I Cor 5-6!), but this is no
counter-argument to the NT teaching motif itself. We also know that church
leaders had household servants through most of the institutional history
of the post-Constantine church, but these look so much more like the British
servants or French bureaucrats than it does something nefarious like New
World slavery.]
6. But we do know that there were widespread manumissions among Christian
converts, esp. those of wealth. We have data about some actual manumissions
in the pre-Constantine era, that indicates that the principles of the NT
indeed created more and more manumissions among Christians. Phillip Schaff
summaries this data [History of the Christian Church, s.v. "Christian
Life in Contrast with Pagan Corruption: The Church and Slavery" in Volume
II]:
As late as Augustine, we see still see efforts by the Church to free involuntary slaves:
Summary and conclusions:
Now, what emerges from this rather detailed study, is that most of the passages in the NT relating to slavery were not even speaking about what we could consider 'slavery' today (i.e., New World slavery). Given what 'slavery' was like in Paul's day, we should not be morally 'surprised' at the absence of a blanket manumission statement by him, or at the absence of a major Empire-wide anti-slavery campaign on the part of the emerging church. The data that we DO have in the NT lays clear groundwork for refuting New World Slavery (almost all of which was based on slave-trading and piracy--explicitly condemned by Paul and fought by the early church). By the time slavery loses its ethically ambiguous character as an institution (i.e., in the slave trade of the New World period), it cannot legitimately 'use Paul' to defend itself, for it had mutated into something quite unlike either Hebrew "slavery" in the OT, or "household slavery" in the NT.
So, it is incorrect to say that the bible "condones slavery" (in the modern connotation of that phrase).
Glenn M. Miller
December 30, 1999
-------------------------------------------------------
[ .... qnoslavent.html ........ ]