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 is dealing with Paul’s metaphor of a slave, but some of the information provides an excellent entry point into the difficulties of dealing with 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, 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 deals with a shift from the work of Bartchy in 1973 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 one’s self 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 “employee” rather than property. There are a number of problems with using legal, as Byron points out in his conclusion. The main 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 always enforced them.
Even in America, we know that simply having a law does not guarantee everyone obeys the law, nor does the law tell us anything about society’s attitude toward the law. 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 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 for slavery dating to the first century which 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 these writings reflect public sentiment. In fact, one might argue there are very few times in history where 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 context of their system of thought. For example, the oft-cited view of Seneca that masters ought to not 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 the 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 which 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 accurately describe the life of a real slave, 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 be learned from the sociological approaches to slavery as described by Byron. These studies seem to turn the accepted view of slavery one normally encounters in a commentary on Philemon around in a completely 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 has died. This was no mere economic decision (selling yourself into seven years of slavery to pay off a debt, for example.) The slave, at the social level, was no longer a person but rather he has become property and is no longer his own. This “dying to self” and giving up personal ownership to a master is an appealing element when looking at Paul’s use of the metaphor, but it may be more influenced by American / western values of individuality and freedom rather than that of the Greco-Roman world. Was “freedom” more important than slavery? Perhaps not, sometimes it my have been better to be a slave to a powerful person than a freedman.
How does this “background” effect 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.
“Bartchy’s view was that slavery in the first century was ‘decidedly benign,’ while Patterson argues that slavery was equivalent to a ‘death experience’” (P. Long) P. Long also says that because Barthcy’s view is more preferred to Patterson’s, our understanding of slavery in the New Testament is not what it should be, which I can see does not accurately fit to the “point of Paul’s metaphor of slavery.” Most descriptions I have heard for the tone of slavery in this era are fairly positive. It is a common assumption that slavery back then was a lot better than how we think of the old American slavery. While we think of American slavery as horrible and discriminatory, we tend to think of first century slavery as a way to merely work off debts and such. This was not always the case though. While there may have been slaves back then who were in fact treated very well, there was most certainly many slaves who were beaten, raped, and just generally treated poorly.
I don’t know the full background story of Onesimus and Philemon, but I know that it is assumed that Onesiums stole some money or something of value, and then ran away. After which he met Paul, got saved, and repented of his theft, and Paul sent him to return to his master to settle things. I think Paul in this letter is urging Philemon to realize that we are all slave to sin – the reason why we need grace and forgiveness, and the reason Philemon is to therefore give grace and forgiveness to his repentant slave.
(P.S. – I just love how Paul gets kind of sassy in verse 19. It’s like he’s saying “If Onesimus really owes you that much, then because I love him, I will take care of it. But ya know, if you really want to get technical about debts, and who owes whom, then I would love to take this time to remind you that you pretty much owe me a lot more than he owes you, so… yeah. Might as well just drop it, eh?”)
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/
Slavery was an accepted part of society in the first century. Although some slaves were treated well and given important positions in the household, others were beaten and subject to every whim of their master (TTP, 216). Sometimes a slave of a wealthy master was better off than a poor freedman (Long, 152). However, they were considered property and had few rights (Long, 152). In Paul’s letter to Philemon dealing with the slave Onesimus, there is little information given about the situation. We do not know what Onesimus’ responsibilities were or what Philemon was like as a master.
I think the background information on slavery in the Roman world is interesting but it is not super helpful since there seems to be no consensus on what it was like. Interpreting Philemon is made more difficult because historians cannot agree on major elements of slavery. However, it does challenge our preconceived ideas of slavery in the first century and causes us to rethink how we view Onesimus.
I found this blog really interesting seeing that slavery is still practiced in some countries today. This form of slavery is what people, like you mentioned, would call employed. I many third world countries big factories and corporations rather lean to the middle when it comes to paying their employees. Looking at it like this, far left would be paying their workers accordingly and right would be ‘slavery’. major corporations with factories in third world countries would rather pay their workers more toward the right-wing; still not being called slavery. There are many different forms of slavery and during the Greco Roman time era slavery could be seen as, treating their ‘property’ as animals, objects and as property. There was a different view on slavery for some slave owners and that would be as employees. From discussion in class about Philemon and Onesimus, Philemon the slave owner might have viewed Onesimus as an employee rather than ‘property’. Onesimus, even though may not have been treated poorly still ran away from his owner, Philemon. If a slave were to run away from his master would have been easily put to death was not, because of Paul. Paul makes a plea for Onesimus, after being sought out by Onesimus, to Philemon requesting that he from then on be seen as a brother in Christ. What is amusing to me is that Paul boldly pulls out the ‘I owe you’ card’ he thinks he has on Philemon in Philemon 1:19, “I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back”, in reference to any monetary amount that Onesimus might have owed Philemon, “not to mention that you owe me your very self”. Philemon must have had a change in heart seeing that he too was in evil before Paul met him and forgave Onesimus. Who than might have been freed seeing that the name Onesimus is mentioned in Colossians 4:9 “He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is happening here.” Philemon was influenced by Paul, who was a good friend, and must’ve freed Onesimus, which was not uncommon to free slaves, but to a slave that ran away was rare.
It is certainly difficult to determine what the actual Roman culture concerning slaves was during this period and how they were usually treated. However, it would seem likely that slaves would be treated differently depending on factors such as region, master, and position of the slave. For example, I would imagine that a farmhand slave, a household slave, and a gladiator could all be treated differently. Regardless, though, I think that it is clear that slaves would have been on the lower or lowest rungs of society, especially compared to their masters. It is amazing then, that Paul calls Philemon to accept Onesimus as a “beloved brother” upon his return rather than a slave (v. 16). I am no expert in the Roman societal structure, but I think that it is safe to say that welcoming a much-loved brother who just got back from a journey would be significantly different than that of a slave (and potentially a runaway slave at that). Furthermore, this would have likely been seen as scandalous to the honor crazed Romans that a master would be treating a slave as an equal. But Paul does not even stop at Philemon with this command. In Galatians 3:28, Paul explains how both slaves and free (including masters of slaves) are equal in Christ. This concept is contrary to virtually every cultures’ mindset that incorporated slaves, but it is of vital importance to our faith in Christ nonetheless.
Slavery has been an issue from the time of ancient Israel up to the end of the 19th century. In the times of Philemon Phil Long mentions in his blog post that according to John Byron, a surveyor of Paul’s explanations and metaphors throughout his letters in the New Testament, that the views of slavery in the NT times had softened in seeing them less as slaves to their masters and more as employees for a job. The blog post also mentions that there are multiple debates back and forth on the severity of slavery – “Bartchy’s view was that slavery in the first century was “decidedly benign,” while Patterson argues that slavery was equivalent to a “death experience.” I think this debate originates when looking at things with different perspectives. We see this in our country today with the issue of systemic racism. Now I am not advocating for either side, but both perspectives argue different severities of the situation. One side may see systemic racism as more of an issue of cultural background rather than racism, and on the other of the argument they see racism as a severe problem. This argument also enforces the importance of accurate sources. Sources and their accuracy can determine the outcome of these arguments and better give an understanding of how severe or non-severe slavery was in the book of Philemon.
As you read through the book of Philemon it is important to understand what slavery meant back in those days. As P. Long mentioned in his weekly video from this week, the relationship between the slave and the master back in Paul’s time was drastically different from how we see slavery demonstrated in our history books. In the blog post, it refers to the article by John Byron to further explain Paul’s metaphor on slavery. Byron’s article brings surfaces the point that slaves in first century Rome are possibly bettering their life as a slave rather than selling oneself to slavery in order to pay debts. Slaves in the first century were treated more as an employee rather than property. This could be seen as a softened attitude toward the slaves, but there was still a number of legal problems that came with having slaves. Another problem was that even if laws were in place, it did not mean people were going to obey those laws. For example, being required to wear a mask in the store in the midst of a pandemic is something easy to get away with if the employees of the store are over the pandemic as well.
It has been shown that there has been a shift in attitudes that people have toward slavery. However, people have taken this shift out of context. Some people have viewed this as just having stoic ethic of self-control. There are a ton of different perspectives on the lives of slaves, which makes it difficult to understand what it was truly like for the life of a slave, especially a slave in the first century.
I find the statement “sometimes it may have been better to be a slave to a powerful person than a freedman” to be interesting. The United States puts such an emphasis on freedom that it is hard for my mind to comprehend choosing to be a slave over being free. However, knowing the background of being a slave in the first century, a slave seemed to be treated more like a brother rather than an object. I think this is important context to keep in mind when trying to understand the relationship between Philemon and his slave Onesimus.
Kellum Bridgeforth
Professor Long
Pauline Lit
11-1-21
Blog Post #9
PT2
I really enjoyed this blog post about slavery because the way slavery was being performed is completely different in the first century compared to the American and western slavery in the 1600s. One thing that stood out to me the most from this blog post was a point made by Barchy stating that “made the slave into something more like “employee” rather than property” (P.Long). This is important because in this weeks video P.Long says that some people would actually willingly sell their self into slavery in order to either pay off debt or even live better life depending if one was a slave for a more powerful person. This oddly enough brings me to society today, for if one has a job they are essentially slaves to that occupation. I say this because yes without a job we are free from the responsibilities and the long work filled hours, however the people that work were not forced to apply and they willfully set aside their freedom in order to become “employees” and work to live a more comfortable life; just as the “slaves” in Paul’s day did. As we look at the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus we can speculate that Philemon may have been treating Onesimus unfairly or “non-Christlike” (TTP). In reference to the Blog post Barchy states that there were actual laws to help protect slaves however, Bartchy may cite “laws protecting slaves, but there is no real evidence that society accepted those laws or that authorities always enforced them” (P.Long). Thus, I believe that Philemon and Onesimus’s relationship was not very brotherly; resulting in Onesimus to escape and flee to Rome in sea
It seems that scholars have differing perspectives of what slavery was actually like in the Greco-Roman world. Drawing conclusions from studying legal writings or the writings of philosophers is likely inaccurate because these often do not reflect public sentiment (Long). According to Byron being a slave was not a lot anyone would choose but rather very unpleasant. To be a slave would be like being someone’s property. Despite the negative aspects of slavery, it may have elevated one’s status depending on who their master was and often slaves and masters did have positive relationships (Long, weekly video. In Philemon Paul does not condemn ancient slavery and does not seem like his main concern is whether Onesimus remains a slave or is freed (TTP p.219). It is clear in Philemon that Paul was concerned with the relationship between a believing master and his slave especially in the case that his slave becomes a believer. The Pauline gospel asserts that believing slaves should be considered brothers and that masters are called to “sacrificial Christlike service” (TTP p.220). Paul’s picture of his relationship with Onesimus was a model of how the gospel could change someone who was formerly useless to Philemon because he ran away to someone useful and valuable to them both (ESVSB p.2355).
As Pat McGillicuddy pointed out in his commentary on the blog, it is important to ask whether or not the slave was forced into his situation or not. If, for the purpose of the blog, Onesimus was forced into the situation it would be very different to look at if instead he willingly went into slavery with the hopes of looking for a better outcome for his life.
As it was stated, there is no way to really know how slavery was percieved in Roman culture, were slaves in fact seen more as “employees” or were they seen as property like many of us now think when we hear the word ‘slave’. It seems to be whether you look at slavery in the times of western culture or the time of the Roman world, slavery and how it was percieved and how the slaves were treated ultimately fell on the slave owners shoulders and attitudes. Did Philemon treat his slaves with kindness? According to Philemon and another blog post (Why Did Paul Write to Philemon) it would appear that perhaps he did not. In the end we cannot know how slavery was seen in the Roman culture because Byron notes, “there is no evidence these writings reflect public sentiment…” (Byron, 2004).
Slavery in the First Century has several differences in the way we would typically view slavery based on our U.S. History books. Although we cannot be one hundred percent clear that it was exactly like this or that back in the Bible times, as Long says, we have some good ideas. Byron says that slaves would probably actually be given a better life as a slave than if they were free. The reason being, where would they go, they would have any money, own any property and be destine to beg on a street corner. So the alternative of being a slave is not really that bad, although you have to work long hard days, you still get a place to sleep, food and maybe even some free time.
Furthermore, Longenecker says that “slaves were not infrequently freed from the shackles of slavery” (p. 216), meaning that there is a chance of new life! Unlike the slavery we read about in history books where your race and the family that you were born into determines whether or not you’re a slave, here you actually have a chance for a better life if you obey your master for a certain number of years. This is not to say that you are without punishment if you miss behave. Slavery could still be brutal and degrading especially if you disobey your master. There were some “unimaginable punishments depending on how strict or cruel of a master you served” (p. 216). In conclusion, if Philemon really was a believer, he probably treated his slaves quite well, although not without punishments, and in the end he was able to forgive Onesimus for his wrong doing and obtain a new knowledge of how to treat slaves.
Slavery in Biblical times was normal and looked different from today’s slavery. Today’s slavery is mostly based on abuse people taking advantage of others. This could be lower paying wages, sexual and loss of freedom. In the Roman-Greco world freedom was less important, usually slaves were well taken care of. Becoming a slave in the first century was an economic decision for survive and not based on being considered “free”. In the first century people would become slaves to pay off debts and when they did not have a wealthy family. People would take care of their slaves. Paul was asking Onesimus to come back to Philemon because Philemon was a believer who helped many others. Philemon 1:6-7 states, “Because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the safe of Christ.” Scholars are not entirely sure why Onesimus ran away, but many believed it was because of an augment between Philemon and Onesimus. Paul pleaded on the behalf of Philemon. John Bryon compared slavery of today with slavery of the first century. Slavery in the first century was different from today’s standard. He also believed slaves were treated more as an employee compared to a slave, (Long, 2019). Slaves were more a in live employee instead of the view slaves are considered today. Slaves are considered less in todays standards but in the first century most were well taken care of. It is important to look at how the Bible views slavery vs how we look at it now. Both are very different when compared together today.
Slavery has always been an issue. It started early on in ancient Israel and it has lasted a lot longer than many people ever thought. I remember Professor Long talking about slavery in his video for the week and he mentioned something about how the relationship with the slave and his “owner” are a lot more different than what we think it was. As a takeaway from the other blog post, it is seen that Philemon and Onesimus did not have a good relationship. It was seen that Onesimus was not treated “godly” by Philemon. This may have been why Onesimus fled to find Paul. It is crazy to think about the people who would give themselves to slavery to pay off debts and to even life a better lifestyle. I know that Long touches on that subject in his video for this week as well. So as many have stated in their blog posts, but originally from McGillicuddy, it all depends on if the “slave” volunteered to be in that position or if they were put into that position without say. If they volunteered to be a slave to pay off debts then that is not so bad or looked down upon. If they were forced then it would be a terrible situation. Professor Long states “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.” (Long, 2019) The life of a slave in a novel would not be very intriguing to read upon. Long also talks about how even though we have laws, it does not mean that everyone is following them. For example, Roman law would have become less obedient to the people as many practiced slavery. It is a sad subject to talk about, but it is important to have knowledge upon slavery in the ancient days and to understand the views society has on it now. They are many different views on slavery especially in today’s society.
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 talking about a topic like slavery it can be a touchy subject as it should be because of all the horrific incidents and things that happens to the African Americans during the 19th century. It is interesting to hear and read about how slavery could have actually been used to help others, rather than make life worse for them because as Americans and the world we live it today we have grown so far from it and think the worst of it because of what happened in the past. In the blog, John Byron mentions that slavery in the first century was “decidedly benign” as it was seen as a way to buy a better life for oneself or be able to turn over a new leaf. It was interesting to hear that in the first century, slaves sometimes saw their masters or owners in more of a parental manner, that they took care and looked after them rather just treating them poorly for no apparent reason. Although we cannot be certain of what and how slavery was truly like philosophers do notice a change a shift in societal norms towards slavery (Long). They were seen as useful tools and masters had respect for them rather than in American, where they did not have any respect for them but rather saw them as objects just getting the work done. Bartchy, for example, said that those who were in slavery in the first century were seen as employees rather than what we define slaves as modern-day Americans. And seeing how Philemon was a follower of Jesus, I would assume that he treated his slaves with the “brotherly love” that Paul writes to him about. As well as, accept Onesimus for the actions of his past self and embrace him with open arms as believers and brothers in Christ.
Slavery is such an interesting topic. As the article mentioned the slaves might as well be dead. Being put into slavery is terrible. Being human beings, and being treated in that way must be very hard. God formed us and created us we are to honor Gof ourselves and others. When people are in slavery like this it isnt honoring at all. We treat those people like they are animals like they don’t matter, and don’t have feelings. It is hard for people to see that when everyone is doing it, and it is acceptable. I’m glad that people finally stood up against it. Just because people have different skin colors doens’t mean they aren’t as important. People are still very important, and matter. God says that we are all made in his image. That means that we matter and we should treat each other that way.
I think that it is really hard to imagine a type of slavery different from the one we are most familiar with. When I hear the word ‘slave’ or ‘slavery’ I automatically associate it with that of American history. As professor Long said, it is hard to know for sure what type of slavery was practiced back then because everything can be so loosely interpreted. An example that was used was the speed limit on a Michigan highway, it says it is 70 mph, but people never go that speed (Long). How accurate is our interpretation of the Bible when referencing slavery? “Did one choose to become a slave or were they forced to become a slave?” is the question that Professor McGillicuddy proposed. It is very important to recognize that Biblical slavery and American history slavery are very different. According to the blog post, many people that were slaves chose to live that life and many times were seen as ‘employees’ (Long). I think of it as a more human way of treating people that are considered slaves. We can, in a way, understand what it is to be an ‘employee’ in slavery. A modern world application that comes to mind is when a person gets a huge loan out for a new car but now has to find a job to pay off the loan. That person will have to sacrifice their time, expenses, family, friends, entertainment, etc. just to pay off that loan. They become slaves to their jobs until the loan is paid off. Also, if they want the loan paid off sooner then they will work for someone or somewhere with a higher position. Another example is homeless people, people who have nothing to lose and will submit themselves to a job, any job, to try and live a better life. May times employers, depending on the job, will allow them to shower, sleep, and provide them food. I think I view Philemon as a just slave owner that lost his way and had power run to his head causing Onesimus to flee. Since there are so many interpretations as to why Onesimus met with Paul in Rome, I could not have a clear view of Philemon and how he was as a master.
This blog post was very interesting to me because slavery was very different then than it was in the Western culture. For the Romans slaves were seen as employees and could improve their life rather than slaves in the western culture being seen as property. It is interesting that you say people would be willing to sell themselves into slavery because it has the chance to improve their life. When we are thinking of slavery it was a terrible thing (which it is) but for the Romans it was the complete opposite. It is still very hard to know how slavery actually was but with slaves running away such as Onesimus did, it may have been how the master was treating. Maybe Philemon was not treating his slaves the correct way, but other masters were treating them better. If Philemon was a true believer we can assume that he would have treated his slaves with some respect but have punishments for them as any slave owner would, but it can come down to his ability to forgive his slaves for a possible wrong doing.
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/
The question of “is freedom more important than slavery?” is a tricky one to answer. I believe that the freedom that someone receives in Christ is the most important thing that anyone can receive. The reason for that is because life here on earth is temporary and our eternal life is for the rest of eternity. This may sound harsh because one’s life on earth can be extremely hard but if they have the everlasting life in Christ it is worth it. If this has to do with someone’s life on earth, it is usually better to be a free person then be a slave. Even though some slaves were trying to get a better life for them or their children, there is a good chance that it was not worth it. As PLong said in class, that even some of the best household slaves would get sexually assaulted. There are most definitely circumstances where it is better to be a slave, but I would bet that more often than not the life of a slave would be extremely difficult.
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 in the first century Greco-Roman world was pretty straight forward in my opinion. All slaves and their families in this time were property of their owners. Each owner had ruling over the slave, they were able to rent them out, sell them at any time, and even kill them. These people were considered property under Roman law and had no legal rights to themselves. As I said above the owner had decision making power the slaves were subjected government decision making and unlike the Roman citizens these slaves were also subjected to capital punishment. Slaves in Rome were very different than the slaves we’ve seen in the western world, back then slavery wasn’t based upon race. Slaves included multiple people groups and involved anyone that wasn’t a Roman citizen. The work that was done by these people groups was essential labor and they worked in many different areas of the city. So this makes me question why one would even consider whether or not slaves had a choice in the matter of it being normal labor. I do think that the vision we have on the Philemon and Onesimus’ situation is very different now understanding what slavery actually looked like then; in a sense it makes me justify the action of Onesimus running away. But in the end it makes the reconciled relationship that Paul pushes for between the two just that more powerful.
When I read through Philemon it helps us understand what slavery meant and what it was like in back in those days. I agree with John Byron that slavery was not good. I do not get why they think slavery was good which it was not. I do not where to begin, there is a lot to say about slavery. I was reading Pat McGillicuddy comments asking if one choose to become a slave or were they forced to become slave? I was thinking both. Back in the days there are people that were forced to become including families that had to be separated or a family member will put their own family member into slavery by trading him or her for money. I remember Joseph was a favorite son to his parents until his jealous brothers sold him into slavery. Later on, Joseph became Potiphar’s personal servant. In my opinion it is not fair to have someone in their own family member to sold them into slavery or the person being forced into slavery. Even now there are people who are sold into slavery or choose to become a slave which is called human trafficking. It is not only human trafficking, but there is also sex trafficking, labor exploitation which the list goes on. Women would put themselves to be prostitute to make money whether they are doing it on their own or is forced. There are children that are young that may not know what they are doing. Children that lives in poor poverty will try to find something help their family to make ends meet. Slavery is not good and even to this day.
ever since i was a kid, i have always known that slavery was different back in biblical times rather than what our history books have said about it. slavery back then was a way to repay debt, a better life for someone who grew up in a poor environment, depending on the master they were treated fairly, etc. some examples in the bible are the Joseph, the Israelites in Egypt, Jacob (to marry Rebekah), Tamar (disguised as a prostitute). each one of them were doing something to serve the master or repay what they owe to someone. as time goes on, each country has their view on what slavery is suppose to be like based on color of skin. the Ottomans thought that slaves are white (Irish) people, Americans thought that slaves are black people, so one and so forth. the point is that as time goes on, we as sinful people change what context means to a word. slavery back then was not always bad for people. now, it has become something awful and gross like sex trafficking is modern day slavery and child labor is modern day slavery. i am not saying that we should bring back the old ways of slavery, but we should be mindful to not put our view of slavery twist what it was like back then.
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.
Slavery in Biblical times was normal and looked different from today’s slavery. Today’s slavery is mostly based on abuse people taking advantage of others. Byron’s article brings surfaces the point that slaves in first century Rome are possibly bettering their life as a slave rather than selling oneself to slavery in order to pay debts. Some people volunteered themselves to become slaves just to make money. Another thing that was interesting was that Philemon and Onesimus did not have a good relationship. So This could have been the reason why he fled to find Paul. Although we cannot be certain of what and how slavery was truly like, philosophers do notice a change/ a shift in societal norms towards slavery (Long). It’s an evident change because everyone in today’s age is about equality and standing up for rights and I feel as if slavery is brought more into the light and people not only are being educated but is understanding where slavery comes from.
Slavery has been practiced throughout history with varying methods and levels of brutality, and though slavery in the early Roman empire was not nearly as brutal as other versions of slavery from other times and places, it was still a generally negative practice. As was mentioned in the blog post, slaves were no longer seen as nor treated as humans by the general public. This makes Paul’s mentions of slavery in the bible especially interesting. For one, he emphasizes in Galatians and Philemon that there is no difference between the slave and the free man in God’s eyes. All people are treated fairly and judged the same by God, even if they are (in the eyes of the culture surrounding Paul) not even or barely human. Paul also demonstrates in the letter to Philemon that he sees slaves as humans and believes they deserve the love of man and of God. He does this by requesting that Philemon treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul himself and by using fictive kinship language to refer to Onesimus. Paul goes against how the wider culture felt about slaves and advocates – through his example and his explicit teachings – for the humane (and human) treatment of slaves, a major step toward social progress in his day. Paul also refers to himself and fellow believers as slaves to Christ, a metaphor which also becomes more interesting with context of slaves being dehumanized. Paul’s theology clearly (and rightly) elevates Christ above all else, and so to call himself a slave to Christ entails not only following Christ’s orders, but also the lowering of his own status down to the lowest it could be. Elevating Christ doesn’t mean that we can puff ourselves up to whatever level we desire so long as we put Christ slightly above ourselves, but rather elevating Christ means that we also lower our own status.
Looking at Philemon and the freedom of Onesimus that is shown brings up the thought of if “freedom” is more important than slavery in biblical times. Slavery was more common in this time and location so culturally speaking this was a norm. Although one’s life may have been better as a slave and to have a purpose. I don’t think any form of having an earthly master one has to follow would be a better option in any case. Although this idea of slavery may be different compared to a western present worldview that one may have (slavery in America) there still would be that lack of freedom one wouldn’t get to have. In this time it may have seemed better to be a slave and have that security in the future but there was no way of getting out. The story of Onesimus can be looked at differently when understanding the idea of slavery in this time period because it isn’t the same picture one gets when thinking in that present day Western world mindset. Slavery was not tortuous in the way we think so for Onesimus, his life may not have been awful in the way we first may imagine it which changes the overall outcome of how we perceive his life.
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.
Before looking into the book of Philemon, it is crucial to establish a clear understanding of the context of slavery in the first century. This post will provide a summary of key insights from John Byron’s research on slavery, shedding light on the complexities surrounding this issue. Byron’s work challenges some commonly held beliefs about slavery in the ancient world, and it offers valuable perspectives for examining Paul’s use of slavery metaphors in the New Testament. John Byron’s exploration of slavery in the New Testament takes us on a journey through changing scholarly views over the years. It begins with a pivotal shift in focus from Bruce W. Winter’s 1973 work, which leaned on Greco-Roman and Jewish legal texts to understand slavery, to more recent sociological studies by Patterson and others.
Winter’s perspective viewed first-century slavery as “decidedly benign.” In contrast, Patterson argues that it was similar to a “death experience” for slaves. Interestingly, Winter’s ideas have exerted more influence on New Testament commentaries, potentially changing our interpretation of Paul’s use of slavery metaphors. Byron’s article challenges the conventional belief that individuals would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery to escape debt or for a potentially better life. One of the primary hurdles in understanding ancient slavery is the scarcity and reliability of sources. Bartchy, following Winter’s approach, referenced legal texts to argue that attitudes toward slaves softened in the first century, transforming them into something to “employees” rather than mere property. However, Byron raises valid concerns about using legal texts as sources for understanding the social reality of slavery in the first century.
The argument between Bartchy’s perspective of “decidedly benign” first-century slavery and Patterson’s claim that it was a “death experience” highlights the difficulty of comprehending this historical institution. The sources in the blog post, provide considerable obstacles in reconstructing first-century slave treatment and sentiments. It is impossible to overestimate the significance of historical and cultural background. Looking at freedom through the lens of modern Western ideals, where individuality and freedom are greatly valued, may result in a biased understanding of the Greco-Roman perspective. It is critical to remember that at that time period, freedom may not have been universally prized above slavery. Slavery may give stability and rewards in some cases, particularly when serving a powerful master. All of these factors influence how we approach the Epistle to Philemon. Understanding the complexities of first-century slavery, as well as cultural views toward it, is critical for understanding Paul’s message in the epistle. It encourages us to look further into the historical and cultural context in order to understand the full significance of Philemon’s connection with Onesimus and the text’s underlying themes of reconciliation and forgiveness.
The most interesting thing here is how you discussed the law and how they are not always followed exactly. It is difficult to know who all follows it exactly and what the attitude towards the law is. With any given law people are going to try and find a loophole around it. But at the end of the day the law is the law, and it can be enforced, sometimes more loosely than other times. Certain laws in Rome regarding slavery were not strictly followed, and when some laws are not enforced there is less motivation for them to be followed. If they feel as though they had no chance at being caught for breaking laws, then why would they follow them in first place. This is similar with life today. As Christians we have standards to live by, but there are certain things that we are not inclined to live by because we have not seen or faced any of the immediate consequences. We feel as though we can get away with giving into our fleshly desires or doing things our own way, but that is not at all the case. Hebrews 4:13 says that nothing can be hidden form God’s sight. Not only are we not able to hide anything from Him, but one day we will be judged and face the consequences for our fleshly desires.
When we hear the word ‘’slave’’, what comes to our mind is, a person who has no authority over themself as doing everything the owner says and has to do whether they like it or not, which is no freedom for them, nor a chance to be free. A good example is American and Slave (african). The American bought a person from Africa purposely to make them a slave like a wild animal.
But it is interesting how the Roman Empire handled slavery. John Byron said: ‘’slavery in Rome was not based on race or ethnicity; anyone could become a slave and nearly any slave could become free’’. This makes more sense that why Onesimus hid in the City of Rome after he committed crime and ran from his master. Maybe he could defend his right according to Roman laws. But the main point of view is, slaves are not just ruled by someone without our permission. The true meaning of slave is translated as serving a master. Which means, when you serve, you get paid or rewarded or you do to get some time you need. according to what Paul said to Philemon to accept not as slave again but as brother (Philemon 1:15-17). This mean, to work together hand to hand instead.
This blog post was very interesting because of how different slavery was back then in the first century compared to our American and western slavery. The slavery we all know of and have been taught about from our history books was based on race. We know that this form of slavery was brutal, torturous and you were seen as property. So to see this different form of slavery is interesting. From what we know about slavery, it can be hard to see how it could be meant as a way to help others and better your life. John Byron described slavery in the first century as “decidedly benign” since it was seen as a way to begin a better life. As Long points out they saw their masters more as parental guidance rather than someone who is forcing them to do work. Since they would feed them and take care of them rather than punishing them for no reason. Although we cannot be sure of what exactly and how exactly slavery was actually like, philosophers do notice a change in societal norms towards slavery (Long). Slaves were seen as a helpful hand and the masters respected that, and the slavery we know, they were seen as objects just there to get the work done. It is important to think about how slavery was seen in Biblical times and how we see slavery now as both are very different when compared together nowadays.
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.
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 life of a slave is debated among some who study slavery in the Greco-Roman world. The story of Philemon is interesting as it is somewhat vague, leaving modern day readers questioning the story of Onesimus. Ultimately, Philemon presents another example of Paul’s heart for Christians and his advocacy for those that do not have influence. Paul’s boldness is admirable in the story, and I feel that Paul was advocating for Onesimus since the slave ran away, looking for a better life outside of slavery. I question if Onesimus was a mistreated slave, or maybe he was not treated as family, so he did not have much emotional connection to his family. Otherwise, he would likely not have run away. I can understand then that this view on slavery puts me in a different thinking of John Byron, who challenges this viewpoint. I am looking to explore his studies more, as I find his arguments interesting. I can see how philosopher’s writings could be countercultural in the sense that their philosophies were likely a call for society to be different than their actions, such as more peaceful, more aware, and in the argument that Byron proposes, exercising more self-control as to not have better ethics. It is difficult to view slavery from this perspective, as well as to the extent that slavery was equivalent to death and took away every sense of freedom. This viewpoint makes the story more compelling in the sense that Onesimus could have been living a life of mistreatment from Philemon, who could have been a good man, but not treating his slaves according to the way the Christian values hold to. This makes the letter rather grim, and I hope this is not the case.
The book of Philemon is centered heavily around the topic of slavery which is interesting because this topic is not discussed much throughout the New Testament. Something I found interesting is how it seems that slaves during the New Testament times were viewed as more of an employee rather than property whereas in the Old Testament, a slave was really only viewed as being someone’s property to do their work for them. It is argued that there may not have been a law set into place to protect slaves or that if there was, it may not have been followed. I could see this being plausible as there are laws set in place today that are not necessarily enforced. What I found most interesting from this blog post is that there are many Roman novels that mention slavery, but they do not allude to what a slave’s social status would have been in society during that time. Slavery seemed to be a pretty big deal in Rome, so it is weird that there was not much discussion of where slaves fell on the social ladder. Having this background knowledge makes me view the book of Philemon differently. In Philemon, there is a slave named Onesimus, who flees and later returns to beg his master for forgiveness. The fact that Onesimus fled tells me that he probably was not treated the best as a slave and that is why he decided to escape and track down Paul.
On the topic of Roman slavery, I remember you mentioning in class that it was often more desirable to be a slave under a rich person. This is not a very understood topic when in reference to Western thought. Maybe the only analogy I can think of is a homeless man committing a minor crime just so he can have three meals and a bed. This was entirely different in the Roman world. John Byron’s views, as outlined in this post, make the commentary on Philemon entirely different. There is a sense that Onesimus was being treated poorly and therefore fled to beg Paul to fix it. This goes along with Byron’s views that slaves were not even counted as real humans. And there is no arguing that Philemon was poor and therefore did not treat his slaves well because he hosted the church in his house. This does give a different view on the reason for Onesimus fleeing. However, it does make the redemption narrative as discussed in the previous post all the more powerful. I am thankful that we can be slaves of Christ and be treated a million times better than those who reject this metaphor.
This is such an interesting take on slavery in the first century. I never really thought about how the law might not really reflect what was happening in society. Just because there is a law doesn’t mean everyone followed it… I get what you’re saying about philosophers and novels not really giving us the full picture. The whole idea of slavery being like a “death experience” is a pretty bold thing to say. It’s crazy to me to think about how that might change the way we see Paul’s metaphor in Philemon. Onesimus giving up his own thing and becoming a slave, that’s way more intense if it’s like giving up your whole self. When talkig about freedom, it’s cool to think about how our Western values might be playing into how we see things. Maybe being a slave wasn’t always as bad as we think? But that might be a stretch lol. It’s making me look at Philemon and Onesimus in a different light for sure. I was looking at what others think of all of this and it is pretty interesting.
While slavery in 1st-Century Rome may not have been as bad as it was in America in some places, it is still slavery. We have talked on this in class, and while there may have been some freedom in some cases, it was still slavery. However, and this includes me, is that as Westerners, and as Americans, we tend to think of slavery, and think of the South or the American Civil War, and the aftereffects of this. We live in a fallen world, this is true, but sometimes we tend to think of slavery in the past as what happened in America, when this was not the case. Slavery is terrible and it should be stopped, yes. It is a sin. But instead of thinking of what slavery was like ‘in our town’ we should consider the different historical and socio-cultural historical events that were happening then. There are something’s that maybe we should look at from a Western point of view, but there are many different ideas and event’s that we should not, and instead think on what it may have been like ‘in their town’, and then make our answers and thoughts based on that, in places that we read.
Drawing parallels to the modern day, we see reflections of the challenges faced in the 16th century. The debate over legal texts and their impact on societal attitudes echoes in the struggle to address contemporary forms of exploitation, where international laws often fall short in implementation.
Caution against relying solely on literary sources applies to both eras. Modern portrayals of human trafficking may oversimplify, just as historical novels and satires may not accurately depict the lives of slaves. The sociological aspects of slavery, such as the concept of “dying to self,” invite us to consider the psychological toll of modern exploitation, mirroring the loss of agency experienced by historical slaves.The question of “freedom” versus slavery in the Greco-Roman world resonates with modern debates. While strides have been made, the transition from enslavement to freedom remains complex.
I find it interesting that the slave in a social level was not even considered a person anymore. These slaves were considered as porperty. The background of knowing this makes us look at Philemon and his slave, Onesimus in a very different way. Instead of Onesimus being cosidered a person, he is considered Philemon’s property. Slavery is not something that is around anymore, however, when there was slavery, the world ran on greed and power. Even though the world still runs on greed and power to this day, people are given their free will and are able to live a life that they choose. It is very sad to hear about people being enslaved because of how God sees each and every one of us. We were created in His image and instead of abiding to this and attempting to live through Him in this way, we instead used to enslave people because we had power over them. If any other country decided they had power over another country they could enslave them and that is completely against what God put us on the earth to do.
This is a very interesting and informing take on slavery in the Roman world. The point on slavery in America influencing the way we view slavery in the Bible times. One thing to remember that like the post said was that people literally sold themselves in to slavery and they knew the risks of doing so. And like the post also said that in Rome there were some laws in place for the care for slaves, now were they always in forced we don’t know but we do know that they were are times. God himself gave His people rules to follow if they had slaves, the slaves had to be cared for and the masters had to pay the slaves if they were harmed by them causing lasting issues, they also had to be let go after seven years and any debt that the former slaves owed had to be cancelled. The reason why we as Americans had hard time in slavery in the Bible is because of slavery that was practices in the country to the Africans. The biggest difference in the slavery practices is the in the bible the slaves had to be cared for, mostly put themselves in the position and God commanded His people to only keep slaves for seven years. While the slavery we are most filmilar with is where the slaves didn’t have a choice, they weren’t cared for and often beaten for the smallest things, they were slaves their wholes and often family lines were taken and split. Now I am not condoning slavery at all, I’m just trying to make sense of a horrible thing and why it could be seen as acceptable in Paul’s day and why he didn’t directly ask for Onesimus’s freedom.