There is an obvious need for a clear understanding of slavery as we approach the book of Philemon. In this post, I want to summarize a few points from John Byron on slavery. The article deals with Paul’s metaphor of a slave, and some of the information provides an excellent entry point into the difficulties of slavery in the first century. Be sure to scan through the comments below. John Byron has interacted with this post in the past. He recently published A Week in the Life of a Slave (IVP Academic, 2019). This short book uses a novel to present the life of a slave in first-century Rome. It is in the same series as Gary Burge’s A Week in the Life of a Roman Centurion or James L. Papandrea’s A Week in the Life of Rome.
John Byron surveys recent attempts to deal with Paul’s slavery metaphors in New Testament studies. The bulk of the article examines a shift from Bartchy’s 1973 work, which made extensive use of Greco-Roman and Jewish legal texts, to more recent sociological studies by Patterson and others. Bartchy’s view was that slavery in the first century was “decidedly benign,” while Patterson argues that slavery was equivalent to a “death experience.” Bartchy’s views have been far more influential on New Testament commentaries than Patterson’s studies, perhaps skewing the point of Paul’s metaphor of slavery. Byron’s article is a challenge to the commonly taught idea of selling oneself into slavery to pay debts and the possibility of a better life as a slave.
This debate highlights the problem of sources. Bartchy, for example, uses legal texts to show that there was a softening of attitudes toward slaves in the first century, which made the slave into something more like an “employee” rather than property. There are several problems with using legal, as Byron points out in his conclusion. The primary source for Roman Law is dated to A.D. 533, well after the first century. In addition, there is a great difference between a law and actual social attitudes. Bartchy may cite laws protecting slaves, but there is no real evidence that society accepted those laws or that authorities consistently enforced them.
Even in America, we know that simply having a law does not guarantee that everyone obeys it, nor does the law tell us anything about society’s attitude toward it. Traffic laws would be a good example here. Someone studying American law could say the maximum speed on the highway is no more than 70 M.P.H., but we know this is not the case at all. In some cases, authorities may choose not to enforce a strict speed limit. The same may have been true for slavery; therefore, Roman law becomes less secure for reconstructing actual practice towards slaves in the first century. Consistency in the application of laws is not a forgone conclusion in the case of slavery in the world of the first century.
There are other literary sources on slavery dating to the first century that may provide some data. Philosophers are often cited as indicating a shift in society’s attitude toward slavery. As Byron notes, there is no evidence that these writings reflect public sentiment. In fact, one might argue that there are very few times in history when the writings of a philosopher accurately reflected the views of society as a whole! It is possible to miss the point of a philosopher by not taking a saying in the context of their system of thought. For example, the oft-cited view of Seneca that masters ought not to mistreat their slaves is not an example of a softening of attitudes toward slaves but rather an example of the Stoic ethic of self-control.
References to slaves also appear in Roman satirists and in novels. These references are also problematic since they do not really say anything about the status of a slave in society. To take sayings of Marital, for example, as indicative of the general thinking of the populace is akin to taking Jerry Seinfeld as an example of how all Americans think. Novels that portray slaves as virtuous, socially mobile, etc., are poor evidence since the slave character is usually a prince who has wrongfully been enslaved and overcomes this setback and is restored to his proper status in the end. If a novel tried to describe the life of a real slave accurately, it would not be a very interesting novel at all! Novelists and satirists do not offer a sociological opinion of the status of the slave in the first century; therefore, it would be dangerous to rely too heavily on this literature in research on first-century slaves.
There is much to learn from the sociological approaches to slavery described by Byron. These studies seem to turn the accepted view of slavery one typically encounters in a commentary on Philemon around in an opposite direction. The law codes are a “legal fiction,” and slavery was far from a pleasant experience. If one was forced into slavery, it was as if one had died. This was no mere economic decision (selling yourself into seven years of slavery to pay off a debt, for example). At the social level, the slave was no longer a person but had become property, no longer his own. This “dying to self” and giving up personal ownership to a master is an appealing element in Paul’s use of the metaphor, but it may be more influenced by American/western values of individuality and freedom rather than those of the Greco-Roman world. Was “freedom” more important than slavery? Perhaps not, sometimes it may have been better to be a slave to an influential person than a freedman.
How does this “background” affect the way we look at Philemon and his slave, Onesimus?
Bibliography: John Byron, “Paul And The Background Of Slavery: The Status Quaestionis In New Testament Scholarship,” CBR 3.1 (2004) 116-139.
Phil,
Thanks for the review of my article. I will post a link to you on my blog.
You might be interested in an essay I wrote on Philemon in a festschrift for Jimmy Dunn. A bit of it covers the problems with legal texts and expands my CBR article. Here is a link to the book. If you email I would be happy to send you a PDF of the essay.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0567629538?tag=johbyr-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0567629538&adid=0ABSC71QY3Y4DP28P8EE&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fthebiblicalworld.blogspot.com%2F
I would love to read the article, if it is convenient. Thank you for the kind offer.
I can’t imagine in my mind P. Long driving. hmm…
I got no car, and it’s breaking my heart.
It’s hard sometimes for Americans to wrap their heads around the idea that slavery likely wasn’t quite as bad back in the first century as it was in America with black slavery, where sometimes it was even preferable to be a slave if you had to pay a debt or could live under a wealthy master. But yes, you did in a sense become less of a person, sold to your master, which makes a great analogy for our indebtedness to Christ, as Courtney wrote.
It is interesting how Paul uses Philemon’s characteristic qualities “against him” in a way, saying in essence, “You have such love for others, you have behaved favorably towards them, now show love and favor towards me and Onesimus.” As Polhill says (pg. 347), “In short, in his thanksgiving Paul appealed to Philemon’s generosity and Christian love. In the body of the letter he urged him to demonstrate these same qualities on behalf of Onesimus.”
Ryan,
Many Roman history and New Testament scholars now understand that slavery in the first centruy was just as bad as it was in the 16th-19th New World. In the Roman Empire, one was either slave or free. These two statuses were central to the social and the legal fabric of the Roman world. Unlike more recent experiences, slavery in Rome was not based on race or ethnicity; anyone could become a slave and any slave could become free. Consequently the Roman world was comprised of two groups of people who lived and worked together and were distinguishable primarily by their social status. It is sometimes said that the type of slavery practiced in Rome was different than that of North America in the 16th – 19th centuries. In one sense this is correct since Roman slavery was not based on race and there were more opportunities available for slaves to become free. But caution should be exercised. At times Roman slavery can be presented as a harmless institution that provided security and economic benefits to the enslaved. But it is important to remember that slavery, in whatever form or time period, is not a positive experience for the enslaved.
JB
I just typed a ton for this and lost it all. You gotta be kidding me!!!
Well, I’m tired so here is my quick gist.
Onesimus ‘ran away’… couldn’t have been that great, right?
Some slaves are treated better than others; it depends on the master.
So, who is our master? Is it the merciless master that is the world or “freedom?”
Or, is it the light yoked slavery that comes from following the master of mercy, Jesus Christ?
Sorry, this WAS in an elegant two paragraph rant where I regretfully used American slavery as an example.
Well said and most accurate I think.
Sam
I think the question that needs to be asked is simply this: “Did one choose to become a slave or were they forced to become a slave?” If one is forced then this is a terrible situation, if one chooses, then they are making a “free” choice to do something that will hopefully be a better situation then before.
So is there evidence that people were forced into slavery or that they chose this path? My only evidence is the movie Gladiator, where Maximus is forced into slavery. This movie has to hold some weight, right?
Hello Pat. I am so glad you responded to this post (even if it was eight years ago. I am assuming you were not a student at that point, but I could be wrong. I hope you still use this account so you can see this comment and we can be online friendsies :D). As PLong discussed in class, Gladiator is a fairly historically accurate. This is why by his recommendation, off campus of course, I watched this movie for class purposes. I do believe that Gladiator does carry some weight in this situation. It brings to mind the fact that Rome enslaved their enemies. After Rome conquered a territory it often enslaved its people. This then resulted in Romans having slaves from all over the ancient world, from all different backgrounds and ethnicities. These slaves, just like Maximus, were from outside of the Roman empire, could have been considered enemies, and were then taken into slavery and sent to all different parts of the empire. It is true that Maximus’s life was not a fun one in slavery. However, because he was the favorite slave to his master (probably because of the money and fame he brought to his master along with being cool much like the mater’s young self) the master treated him with special respects such as holding conversations with him, making sure he was well taken care of, etc. This is different than the modern thought on slavery, as many think that masters thought slaves were less than human and should be treated terribly, tortured, starved, etc. However, slaves in Rome were thought of more as an investment. Just like a work horse, you wanted to take care of it so you could get as many years out of your investment as possible. This does not mean that slaves were treated like family, just more that they were taken care of in the aspect of food, living on the master’s property, and other small things like this.
If it were not true, they wouldn’t let them put it in a movie.
I think that if someone were a captured soldier, then slavery was a painful slow death. But if someone were able to obtain slavery from a reasonably wealthy and socially prominent person, then perhaps slavery was more or less comfortable and could have been an upward movement socially. I think this would be the case for someone who was a skilled scribe or teacher. The vast majority were likely in a middle category between the heavy yoke of slavery a captured soldier might experience and the more or less light yoke a slave- turned-tutor might have had.
/edit – John Byron’s comments just above mine say the same sort of thing.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Of course he ran away. Of course slavery is always brutal. Certain slaves had it worse than others but servitude is always forced. If he did not run away why would he have to be brought back. If God can’t bring glory to himself without slavery then we don’t need that kind of God. This continues to justify the torture rape and murder of millions of people.
Hello Samuel. that “slavery is always brutal” is certainly true from the modern perspective. But as is often observed in studies on Philemon, not all slavery in the Roman world was brutal. I really think many slaves preferred slavery to freedom since it provided them some protection and social status. Better to be a slave of a prominent citizen than a freeperson barely making out a living. This is hard to take from a modern perspective especially when all slavery is brutal, and at least in America, all infringement of personal freedom is resisted. Romans did not share the modern American view of the world (or opinion of human rights!)
Having said that, Scot McKnight does warn readers of Philemon NOT to make this background an excuse to avoid addressing modern human slavery. This is in the intro to his new book on Philemon, here is my review of that book:
https://readingacts.com/2017/10/31/book-review-scot-mcknight-philemon-nicnt/
I have been watching the comments on this thread the last few days and thought I would jump in. I think it’s hard to make the case that slaver in antiquity was much different than what was practiced in the New World. The only clear difference is that slavery in the Greco-Roman world was not based on race. I don’t know that it’s accurate to suggest that slaves in the first century were treated as employees. While some slaves were treated well, they were the exception. We should remember that, from the perspective of the enslaved, being a slave was never a good thing. The master had absolute power over your life and could at anytime sell you or punish you.
When reading through Philemon, it is important to note the cultural importance and meaning of slaves. We as Americans tend to think of slaves as what America looked like before the civil war and the mistreatment of the people. The slaves in the cultural time of Philemon may not have the same picture. Long refers to Bartchy saying, “for example, uses legal texts to show that there was a softening of attitudes toward slaves in the first century which made the slave into something more like “employee” rather than property” (Long, 2019). Long also added in his lecture that the slaves were probably made to be better off than what we may think. Slavery was “less like the horrors of American slavery” (Long). They were most likely fed with needs taken care of and better opportunity for education. The people may have not been necessarily fighting to get out of their slavery, and most were comfortable in that situation. The relationship was more of paternal loving relationship with the slave and their master (Long). This is something that I did not first think of when I read Philemon. This shows how it is important to understand the context and culture of passages in the Bible.
Greetings! I am really enjoying watching and reading the interaction with this blog post. Many thanks to Dr. Long for posting it again. I would like to make one clarification. Some readers have interpreted my comments about slavery being “decidedly benign” in the first century as representing my opinion. In fact, I am characterizing what some, like Bartchy, have suggested. In truth, I see many similarities between slaver in the New Testament and that which was practiced in the New World. Both systems were abusive, exploitive and fostered a system in which one human being was able to legally control another. While it is true that slaves were often fed, cared for and sometimes educated, we should keep in mind that these actions for not a result of the owner’s altruism to enslaved peoples but rather a way of caring for his investment. Feeding a slave was a way to make sure the slave was able to work the next day. For instance, we have ancient documents that speak about the management of slaves. In these owners are told to encourage romantic contact between slaves and to even allow children to be born. The reason for this allowance was that a slave with a family we less likely to flee and any children born to a slave were the property of the owner.
Thanks for sharing on this thread. Always good to hear from you when I am teaching Philemon.
I regularly recommend students read your Week in the Life of a Slave, I thought it was a clear presentation of how some early Christians dealt with slavery in the Roman world.
https://readingacts.com/2019/12/11/book-review-john-byron-a-week-in-the-life-of-a-slave/
Thanks! It makes me miss the classroom!
I can send you a big pile of papers to grade, that might make you not miss the classroom so much…!
Slavery can be a very touchy topic in the church. Obviously, the church believes that modern-day slavery is wrong and should not be practiced, however, there are many mentions of slaves throughout the Bible, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, as well as many mentions of people owning slaves, even those who feared the Lord, or were called Christians. So how do we reconcile the use of slaves in the Bible? How do we explain to new Christians what was going on and what has changed? Some people argue that slavery in the ancient world was different. Generally, arguments about ancient slavery fall into one of two extremes, both of which are mentioned in the blog. The first extreme is that slavery was worse and it would have been better to die than to be a slave. The opposite extreme is that slavery then was much more like employers and employees. Slaves could get paid, they were well taken care of, they still had many freedoms, etc. Commonly, people choose to accept the theory that slavery was much less harsh in ancient Rome than modern-day slavery was. I think they do this in part because then it is easier to justify Biblical characters holding slaves. There are, however, some flaws with this viewpoint. Byron explains that though the main argument supporting this theory cites Roman Law, the Roman Law is from much later than the New Testament. In addition, the law does not always reflect popular opinion nor does everyone agree with it and support it. I think today of laws protecting abortion or gay rights. Many do not agree with those laws and there is much controversy over them. A historian looking back, who had nothing but the laws might draw incorrect conclusions about how society views abortion and gay rights. It is interesting to note how, in the next section of the blog, where the influence of Philosophers is discussed, that Philosophers tend to write advice or instruction that fits their own agenda. They could be compared to politicians. As a whole, no politician represents the viewpoints of the country, and they often fight for laws or make advertisements that fit their agenda. It is interesting to read an argument that completely counters what is generally said about the slavery relationship in the New Testament. To say that slavery was a death experience brings up many more questions of what do we do with slaves in the Bible, and specifically Philemon and Onesimus? It could be that slavery was very much a death experience and that is why Onesimus feared returning to Philemon so much. Jesus was very counter-cultural, he did not follow many of the societal ‘rules’ that were in place, so perhaps the Christian view of slavery was very counter-cultural as well, and took many years to change.
The background of slavery in the book of Philemon plays a significant role in its understanding. If the reader looked at slavery through the way the west views slavery, it would not make much sense. Why would a slave, in the way that we view one, find the friend of their master from which they ran away and ask for a reconciliation? The understanding of slavery in this context is important in understanding the letter’s purpose and importance. Onesimus came to Paul to make things right between him and his master. That is an unusual request, wouldn’t he just want to be free? Clearly this was a different slave master relationship than the understanding of the west. Slavery was usually to pay off a debt, once you became a slave you were now your master’s property. This would mean that you have completely died to self, and you are now at the mercy of your master. In the blog you give insight into the theme this follows regarding Paul’s metaphors of dying to self. Paul refers to himself as a slave to Christ, as Christians we are called be slaves to our Lord. We must die to self and be at the mercy of our Lord. Throughout Philemon there is this theme of the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus and their need for reconciliation. This relationship gives us an insightful view into slavery in the first century and the importance of reconciliation.
When we look at what is stated above about slavery and how it connects to Philemon and Onesimus we can see that slavery had a different meaning back then. When we often think of slavery we think about it as bad (which it is) in the sense of mistreatment and abuse, but this could have been different in the Bible times. It would seem as stated above that in today’s American and Western culture freedom and individualism is more important today whereas it might not have been as important back then. It also appears that being a slave then wasn’t as bad and harsh as we think of slaves today. Then it was a way to be taken care of because you had a powerful owner and you could also pay a debt back. Though we cannot know for sure how slavery was done back then, it does appear to have changed over time and what would have been considered to be a social norm then is definitely not a norm nowadays.
The statement in the blog “slavery was equivalent to a ‘death experience’” is a point I found interesting. Slavery has been around for decades. Slavery allows the people in charge to have more power over others. The slaves aren’t counted as people, but more are “employees” or “property.” The public has different opinions and feelings on slavery. The blog mentions that the writings of a philosopher are rarely completely accurate in history. It also does not accurately represent the views of society as a whole. Throughout history, slavery has appeared, but the stories can have details mixed up. People can alter stories the way they would like to avoid the full truth being released. Not having the full story or false information will lead people to believe liars and others who are not at fault. Writers and authors of books and novels will not fully capture the real life of a slave since it would not be interesting to read. They will change or add things to make it more interesting. This leads people to believe this was a slave’s real life rather than what the truth is. People hearing the truth leads to conversations, people researching, or denying it fully. “If one was forced into slavery, it was as if one had died” (Long, 2019). You are forced to give up who you are to please another person by doing their dirty work. As a slave, you lose your freedom to a powerful person.
This post highlights the complexities of understanding slavery in the first century, especially as we prepare to read Philemon. John Byron’s work is a helpful reminder that we can’t just take legal texts at face value when trying to reconstruct how slavery actually functioned. The contrast between Bartchy’s “benign” view and Patterson’s “death experience” perspective shows how much our interpretation of Pual’s metaphors depends on the source we trust. This is seen in our culture today, lots of people’s views are determined by whatever news outlet they watch or believe even when it’s not always what is right. Byron’s point about the reliability of Roman law really stood out to me, just because a law existed doesn’t mean it reflected everyday life or social attitudes, something we can easily see in our own context. This makes me think about traffic laws, the rule may exist but how people actually behave or even how it’s enforced can vary widely. I think that understanding that complexity helps me appreciate the depth of Paul’s messages and why the text needs to be read carefully in light of first-century society rather than modern assumptions about slavery.
I would agree that we either tend to view the situation of slavery in Philemon through the lens of American slavery or through the lens of a nuanced, “not so bad” slavery. First century Roman slavery and American slavery does not seem comparable and both are horrible. The conditions of American slavery were most likely “worse” due to intensive labor, lashings, and living situations, however, the details are not important in its comparison. First century slavery was equally as wrong, since it viewed a human being as either a property/tool or a worthless employee without rights. Paul’s letter to Philemon does not address the ethics of slavery, however, but the importance of love in the Body of Christ (Longenecker, pg. 217, 2014).
Paul’s intentions are much more profound than a simple pointing of the finger at Philemon for owning a slave. Paul instead addresses how Philemon is dealing with Onesimus and advocates for a restoration in their relationship (Longenecker, pg. 218). Regardless of the conflict that drove Onesimus to Paul, he protects the slave by instructing Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive his own appearance (v. 17). Paul encourages Philemon to view Onesimus not as a slave, but as a brother in Christ (v. 16). Now, this is not a call for freedom, but for an equality in Christ. The role of husband/wife, rich/poor, slave/free within the church does not change, such as the modern church (minus slavery). However, the way Christians treat each other, according to the love that Christ undeservedly gave us, is the mark of a true Christian.
Reading this post really got me thinking about how easy it is for modern readers to misunderstand what Paul is doing in Philemon. We tend to read slavery through the lens of our own 21st-century Western lens, but in the first-century Greco-Roman world, slavery was a completely different experience than what we think slavery is. As Byron points out, it was less like an “employment arrangement” and more like a total social death. That really should change how we think about Paul’s metaphor. When he talks about “slaves” or “dying to self,” he’s not just using a spiritual image; he’s referencing a social culture that was intense. Byron’s point is that laws protecting slaves weren’t necessarily enforced. Even today, having a law doesn’t guarantee people follow it, so just imagine first-century slavery based solely on law texts or philosophical ideals seems almost absurd. I think it is so interesting the difference between what slavery meant in reality and how we might be tempted to romanticize it when reading Paul’s letters. In some cases, being a slave to a powerful master could even be safer or more beneficial than being a freeman, which challenges our assumptions about what “freedom” really meant in that Roman/Colossae culture. In their context, submitting to Christ as a master who actually cares for the person, rather than a master who treats you as property. I think having that kind of perspective gives the letter a much richer emotional and spiritual depth than how we could ever view it.
After reading this post, it does show how important it is to understand the first century slavery and how it differs from what we mostly associate slavery with. Its interesting how Bartchy says that the slavery in the first century was considered “Benign”. Its a term you don’t hear often and when you think of slavery a harmless. I also like the point about how in America we don’t always follow every law and how you said that many times Roman philosophers and writers didn’t actually hold information on what slavery was like during that time, more so that it was a role that some members of society were dealt. Its quite interesting that after reading what a few of the other studies had to say that the view of slavery can be fixed into a more acceptable and appropriate way.
When reading about being a slave in philemon it’s hard not to think of our more modern sense of slavery because of what happened in America in the 17th and 18th century. We have our own built up idea of what all slavery looked like throughout all time. But slavery in Roman times was different. Slavery still was a complete social death as you were an unpaid laborer but you could also be higher up on the social hierarchy if you were a slave to a powerful master. I think this point ties into verses that talk about being a slave to God rather than to evil. Just like in Roman slavery, you are completely devoted to one thing, your master. So as Christians we need to die to our flesh and become servants of Jesus Christ. Serving evil will get you what you serve, an evil, sinful, sad life. Just like how serving a powerful master gave you higher status in life we as Christians serve the most upright God. While it may not improve our social hierarchy at all times it definitely get us closer to God which is the end goal all along.