Slave of Christ

Studies over my first year of graduate school forced me to begin wrestling with the issue of slavery in the Bible, as readers of this blog may have picked up from the paper on Philemon.  The Bible’s treatment of slaves is one of the issues most offensive to modern Christians today, because for us the issue of slavery is tied so closely to the issue of racism, a blight far to close to us to be comfortable.  To be fair I must say that my examination of the issue is at the current time is woefully incomplete, and due to the arrival of a new semester in a couple months will most likely remain in that condition for the forseeable future.  However, a more relaxed schedule over the Summer afforded me the opportunity to peruse an excellent book related to the issue of slavery in the New Testament, that is the image of being a slave of Christ.  Murray J. Harris has written an excellent book on this subject that many of you may find helpful, Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. Harris explores the word doulos (slave) in both the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the NT (hereafter the LXX), and the New Testament.  But the book is more than a simple word study.  Harris does admirable work exploring the New Testament cultural background of slavery in the Greco-Roman world.  Along the way, students who are doing advanced New Testament studies will be introduced via footnotes and bibliography to some of the best resources on slavery in ancient times available.  Careful attention to the authors quoted by Harris will certainly suffice to acquaint one with the major figures in this field.  Harris also does a beautiful job of examining the teachings of the New Testament, looking both in the gospels at the parables of Jesus, and to the language of the apostle Paul, who uses the image of slave several times in his letters.  The book is a bit heady, but for those willing to wade through the thickness of cultural background studies, word studies and exegesis the reward will be a better understanding of the biblical text, the God who stands behind that text and our responsibilities as worshipers of that God who are in truth slaves of Christ.

Runaway Slaves in the Greco Roman World In Relation to Paul’s Epistle to Philemon: Part 4

Examining Paul’s Letter to Philemon

With this background in place we now want to briefly examine the bearing of this study on Paul’s letter to Philemon. We will look at three things. First we will look at the nature of Onesimus’ wrongs against Philemon. Second, we will consider the rights of Philemon as slaveholder. Third, we will consider Paul’s request of Philemon.

Onesimus’ Wrongs

The background to the letter of Philemon is not as cut and dried as it was once supposed. There are in fact four primary scenarios for the background of the letter. The most likely scenario however, still has Onesimus as a slave in the household of Philemon. There is some thought that perhaps Onesimus is attempting to have Paul mediate a dispute between him and his master, Philemon, but Paul’s letter mentions none of this. However, clearly there is some hidden background to the story which removes the “coincidence” from one runaway slave happening to “bump into” the apostle Paul in a city of half a million people in the first century A.D.[1]

If we go with the hypothesis that Onesiums was a runaway slave, and it seems most probable that this is the primary background to the story, then our next question could be to ask what prompted Onesiums to flee. Onesimus could have run away simply to escape servitude and achieve greater freedom. However, it is still best to see Onesimus as having in some way wronged Philemon (v.18) and his point in fleeing to Rome was in fact to find Paul and ask for Paul’s help in convincing Philemon to either pardon him or to set him free. Either way what Onesimus finds with Paul is freedom and forgiveness in Christ, not simply social freedom and legal forgiveness.[2]

Philemon’s Rights

The exact situation of Onesimus with Paul has bearing on the rights of Philemon in the situation. If Philemon was in fact seeking out Paul for help then Onesimus could technically be considered as seeking asylum and would not have been considered a full fugitive because Paul sent him back to Onesimus.[3] However, the apparent wrongdoing of Onesimus (v.18) before fleeing then must be accounted for by this theory. Philemon’s rights as a slaveholder and the very fact that Paul feels the need to make a special request on behalf of Onesimus indicates that Philemon apparently had in this situation all the normal rights of a wronged slaveholder. In other words, Onesimus was completely at the mercy of Philemon. This provides the picture for Paul’s request, and makes his request so great.

Paul’s Request

Paul’s request of Philemon is a bold one which he crafts carefully, including a subtle promissory note.[4] Paul structures his entire request around the nature of his relationship with Philemon, their shared experience of the gospel and their shared work for the spread of it. More than that Paul applies pressure to Philemon reminding him of the debt which Philemon owes Paul as his spiritual father. What Paul’s request effectively does then is subverts the social structure of the day. Paul does not ignore the rights of Philemon, rather he merely goes beyond them to a law of love. He places both Philemon and Onesimus as his children who have received from his spiritual legacy and urges now that Philemon’s relationship to his slave Onesimus be based not upon a social system of subjugation but upon a shared experience and common brotherhood in the Lord.

Conclusion

An examination of the Greco-Roman treatment of runaway slaves reveals some helpful clues for understanding Paul’s letter to Philemon. First, Onesimus was in a dire situation from a social standpoint. At the best, he could be viewed as a slave who had most likely wronged his master (v.18) and then sought asylum and a mediator to help plead for him. At the worst he was a thief and then a runaway who could be killed as an example by Philemon. In either case, Onesimus was at the complete mercy of his master, Philemon. Second, regardless of what brought Onesiums to Rome it is relatively certain that Onesimus did not happen to meet Paul by chance. It is much more likely that Onesimus was enlisting Paul’s aid in either mediation or asking for Paul’s help in obtaining forgiveness, freedom or both. Third, understanding the background to this epistle gives a new and greater appreciation for the subversive and transcendent nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The message of the gospel cuts straight through the social boundaries at work in this world. A consideration of the characters in this brief epistle reveals a slave, a freedman and a wealthy slave owner. Yet, these three men relate to one another as brothers in the Lord. Onesimus, a new convert, is forgiven and perhaps given a new position[5] and in his presumed experience of grace we see ourselves.

---

[1] For an excellent discussion of the background scenarios to Philemon see Douglas Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon Pillar New Testament Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008): 364-369.

[2] See Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996): 301-306.

[3] Barth, Markus & Helmut Blanke The Letter to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 2000): 28. For more see the entire background discussion on pages 1-53.

[4] O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians and Philemon Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 44. (Waco: Word, 1982): 267.

[5] Note that although there is an absence of direct mention of manumission in Paul’s letter, yet the appeal is for a new foundation for relationship, one which dictates new and better standing between slave and owner.

Runaway Slaves in the Greco Roman World In Relation to Paul’s Epistle to Philemon: Part 3

Runaway Slaves

Reasons for Flight

There are three broad ways to categorize reasons a slave might have had for running away. A slave might run away to escape a dangerous or harmful situation, i.e. a slave might run away because he or she was being treated unfairly or was being beaten. Second, a slave might run away as a means of rebelling against slavery as an institution. Third, a slave might run away in the hopes of somehow gaining his freedom. In the first case a slave runs away from a sense of self-preservation and need for protection. In the second, a slave runs away not only to gain some sort of freedom and advancement but to rebel against an oppressive social system. In the third it is primarily an effort at self-advancement. There is certainly overlap between the three and a slave need not have worked out clearly which reason he was employing for running away. Very likely an element of all three of these motivations were present in many attempts to run away. Although these categories might not cover every situation they ought to give us a broad framework within which to consider the issue of runaway slaves. The problem of runaway slaves is well documented in ancient literature among primary sources.[1]

Considering the first situation unusual cruelty by a slave owner could result in the slave running away.[2] As the Republican period of Rome’s history came to a close increasing reforms began to creep into the legal system protecting slaves. From the New Testament era came restraints on forcing slaves to fight against wild animals.[3] Also, “protection was afforded a mistreated slave if he fled to the statue of the emperor.[4]” However, these reforms were minimal and likely did little to actually change the treatment of slaves. Further, regarding the last comment we must say that given the general tenor of Roman attitudes towards slavery and even low class freedman this hope of mercy at the hands of the emperor was probably minimal. In some sense we can say that running away in the hope of relief from suffering brought only greater suffering later if the slave were caught and returned.

The second reason for running away was an attempt to rebel against a rigid and merciless social system. Here a slave running away should be viewed within a broader category of attempts made by slaves to resist slavery.[5] It should be noted that “willful escape by the slave was one of the most important acts by which resistance to slavery manifested itself in the slave society of Rome.[6]” In the two hundred years or so leading up to the time of the New Testament Rome had experienced several slave revolts, the best known of which is the revolt of gladiators led by Spartacus. Thus the cultural backdrop against which the New Testament and Paul’s epistle to Philemon is framed must consider such events. Such events lead not only to the reconsideration of how slaves were treated but then also to firmer punishment when slaves did rebel in any way.[7]

The third reason a slave could run away would be in the hopes of gaining some freedom. Again, this goal could very well overlap with the other two and so at first may not appear to be a valid distinction. However, what some slaves attempted was to engineer an escape and then through capture by a slave trader, manage to change masters and achieve manumission quicker. Legislation put into effect however, made this hope virtually nonexistent as it became impossible for a slave to receive manumission within ten years of a change in ownership without the consent of his former master. Furthermore, increasing stipulations placed on slave catchers and greater rewards offered for the capture of slaves made running away to gain official manumission much harder.[8] A penalty could also be enforced against anyone who discovered a fugitivus on his property and did not report it within twenty days.[9] However, a slave could still flea to a city and attempt to merely blend in with the crowds. It appears that slaves were not required to wear a distinctive dress.[10]

The Capture of Runaway Slaves

The capture of runaway slaves became an important aspect of the slave system in ancient Rome. This fact is attested by the legal material which addresses the situation and by the personal correspondence addressing this topic.[11] Eventually “the search for slaves in fuga became under the Empire an organized business conducted by private fugitivarii who delivered the apprehended runaways either directly to the owners to the nearest municipal magistrate.[12]” From personal letters left us by Cicero it seems that a slave could fairly easily escape his master’s clutches and live as a fugitive if he was able and willing to take the risks.[13]

In keeping with slaves being viewed as property it was regarded as the master’s responsibility to recover his slave.[14] The letters of Cicero back this claim up as do several papyri recovered from Egypt.[15] A master’s concern in regaining his slave is understandable when we consider that “a slave was usually a master’s largest investment apart from his investment in land.[16]” Thus the value of slaves helped motivate masters to use both their private networks of friends and also some professional slave catchers to help them recover their slaves. The question then becomes what would become of a slave who was caught attempting to run away.

Punishments Inflicted Upon Runaway Slaves

The first thing we must identify here is that for a slave to run away was considered legally a form of theft. A runaway female slave is considered to have stolen herself according to the law.[17] Because the slave was considered the property of his or her master by running away a slave was stealing from his or her master. However, because in this case the property, or object, being stolen was also the thief there was no legal precedent for how to punish a runaway slave, above and beyond what could be described against a thief. However, once a master had gone to the trouble of tracking down and regaining possession of a slave it seems unlikely that he would then kill the slave directly unless he desired to make an example of the runaway. In general the law seemed to prescribe that the greater the offense done by a slave the greater the punishment his master could freely and legally inflict on him with no concern of impropriety.[18] Running away then was something between the more minor offenses of petty theft and mismanagement, which resulted in beating, and the lethal attempt at sedition or plotting directly against the life of the master, a crime which would result in death.[19] Running away then could not be considered a safe exercise by any means but it afforded some chance at liberty. However, if caught a slave could scarcely have hoped for mercy and would have been completely at the whim and whit of his now irate master.

---

[1] See Petronius 98, 107; Juvenal, Satires, 10, 3; Pliny, Epistles 9: 21, 1.

[2] Westermann,107.

[3] Digest 48.8.11.1 (Modestinus, book 6 of Rules) and Digest 18.1.42 (Marcian, book 1 of Institutes).

[4] Watson, 121; Westermann, 108. See also Seneca, De beneficiis 3:22; De clementia 1:18, 103; Digest 1:12, 1, 1, 8; 21:1, 17, 12.

[5] Bradley, 110.

[6] Bradley, K. R. Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989): 32.

[7] For more on the slave rebellions of ancient Rome see Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World by K. R. Bradley.

[8] Watson, 64-66.

[9] Westermann, 108. See also Apuleius, Metamorphoses 6:4; Digest 11:4, 1, 1.

[10] Ibid., 106. However there may have been owners who forced certain slaves to wear collars. See Shelton, 177.

[11] For one example see Cicero, Letters to His Friends, 212.

[12] Westermann, 107.

[13] See Bradley, Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 32-36.

[14] Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, 121.

[15] P. Turner 41; P. Oxy. XIV 1643; P. Oxy. XII 1423; P. Oxy 1422.

[16] Context of Scripture, 57.

[17] Digest 47.2.61 see also Watson, 117.

[18] Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, 129.

[19] Ibid., 129. Consider again the relatively recent slave revolts in Rome’s history and the accounts of slaves either attempting to murder their masters regardless of whether those attempts were successful (Pliny the Younger, Letters 3.14).

Runaway Slaves in the Greco Roman World In Relation to Paul’s Epistle to Philemon: Part 2

Slavery in the Roman World

A careful distinction ought to be drawn between slavery as it was practiced in North America in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and the slavery practiced by the Romans in the 1^st century. Slavery in the Greco-Roman world was not a racial institution. That is not to say that certain races or ethnic minorities were not enslaved but that slavery was primarily a “social relationship founded on the exercise of authority over an inferior party by a superior party.[1]” Slavery as a primarily social institution then helped fuel the economic might of the Roman Empire.[2]

Because of the great length of time spanned by the Roman Empire there is necessarily some limitation of sources which can be used for a social study. However, this limitation is not so great as might be supposed for there is little evidence that the legal practice regarding slaves changed between the late Republican and early Imperial period of the Roman Empire.[3] A lack of change in legal precedent then could well be taken as a sign that there was little change in social or cultural practice regarding slaves either. Three important areas of slavery ought to be highlighted here: First, types of slaves; second, the social position of slaves; third, the ethical treatment of slaves.

Types of Slaves

Ancient Greece recognized two types of slavery and it seems that Roman slavery practice was somewhat close to this practice. The two primary types were chattel slavery and communal servitude.[4] Communal servitude was slavery in which “populations were compelled to cultivate plots of land held by their masters and to hand over a large proportion of their products.[5]” This type of slavery is comparable then to serfdom which came to be commonly practiced during the Middle Ages. Chattel slavery then involved a person being uprooted and forced to live in the house of his master and be considered the property of another.[6] These broad types of slaves expressed here perhaps best represent two broad situations in which slaves might find themselves. Simply because a slave was not present, or had to live under the roof of his master does not mean that he was any more or less the property of another human being, devoid of certain rights.

Slaves were employed for a number of different occupations. Slaves who belonged to the government could be used for building projects. Privately owned slaves could be used for physical labor, for service, or for more educated professions such as doctors, medical professionals, teachers etc.[7]

The different type of slaves in ancient Rome is related to the issue of how enslavement occurred. One could speak of enslavement occurring in one of three broad manners: being captured in either a war or for some criminal act[8]; being sold, or selling oneself into slavery; and being born a slave.[9]

Social Position of Slaves

A slave “had no socially recognized existence outside of his master.[10]” Although, there was specific legal precedent related to slaves, a slave’s “individual honor, social status, and economic opportunities were entirely dependent on the status of their respective owners.[11]”

Essentially a slave could be treated as a thing and be regarded simply as a piece of property. However, “in many regards the legal position of a slave was very similar to that of a son.[12]” In either case the inferior was under the jurisdiction of the paterfamilias and his legal and social positioning was extremely limited.

Because a slave was viewed as property his value was determined by his economic potential.[13] Because of this economic view of a slave it is easy to see why a slave would be classified in the same category as domestic animals[14] and why the killing of a slave was legally the same as killing a mule.[15] Slaves could then of course be sold as property.

From an occupational standpoint we can say that “no occupation in Roman society was closed to slaves.[16]” However, this does little to overshadow the low place of slaves in Roman society.

Manumission was a way of upward mobility in Roman society but it was probably available only to a few[17] and furthermore, once a slave was manumitted and became a freedman his social and legal status would have remained well below that of his former master who was now his patron.[18]

Ethical Treatment of Slaves

Because slaves were considered to be property, there were few rules regarding the ethical treatment of slaves. For the most part, pragmatism would have dictated that a master not attempt to kill a slave, because outside of land slaves formed the greatest source of wealth. Thus ethical treatment of slaves was an issue more of pragmatism than virtue. However, this idea ought to be balanced somewhat by the admission that in Roman law a slave was not only property but also a person.[19] However, even up to the time of the emperor Justinian, a master had the right to kill a slave.[20] The food allotted to a slave was merely enough to live on,[21] and “the treatment of sick slaves was dependent upon the individual kindness or callousness of the owner.[22]” These practices are in keeping with the view of slaves as property. Slaves would be cared for and protected in the way a person could be expected to care for and protect a financial investment. In fact it is this care for financial investment which would have made runaway slaves such a problem for slave owners and it is to this topic that we turn our attention now.

---

[1] Bradley, K. R. Slavery and Society at Rome, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994): 16.

[2] For a helpful discussion of whether slavery in Rome ought to be viewed through primarily economic terms or sociological terms see Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, 15-16.

[3] Westermann, W. L. The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity. (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955): 80.

[4] Garlan, Yvon, Slavery in Ancient Greece rev. ed. trans. Janel Lloyd (Ithaca: Cornell, 1982).

[5] Garlan, Yvon, “War Piracy and Slavery in the Greek World” in Classical Slavery ed. M. I. Finley Classical Slavery (Totowa, NJ: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1987): 11.

[6] Ibid. 11.

[7] Bartchy, S. S. “Slavery (Greco-Roman)” in Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 6 ed. David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992): 69.

[8] Diodorus Siculus, The History of the World 23.18.4 and 5.

[9] Shelton, Jo-Ann, As the Romans Did (New York: Oxford, 1998): 163.

[10] Patterson, Orlando Slavery as Social Death (Cambridge: Harvard, 1982): 5.

[11] Bartchy, 66.

[12] Watson, Alan Roman Slave Law (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1987): 46.

[13] Ibid., 46.

[14] Ibid., 55.

[15] Ibid., 55.

[16] Bradley, 65.

[17] Watson, 23.

[18] Ibid., 43.

[19] Westermann, 104.

[20] Ibid., 120.

[21] Bradley, 81.

[22] Westermann, 107.