Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SEARCH
Search Scope
Search String
Advanced >
Saved Searches >
ARTICLE TOOLS
Abstract
Recent scholarship has shown chattel slavery in the Roman Empire to have been a deeply
oppressive experience. Paul knew that reality well and used the language of slavery
metaphorically in Galatians and Romans to describe humanity's subjection to sin. However,
he also made a remarkable shift in his use of the metaphor to indicate a new form of slavery
to God which brings freedom, thereby subverting conventional ways of understanding
slavery.
In Paul's sense, slavery is an ineluctable part of human existence in which we have a choice
of being a slave to sin or a slave to God. Becoming a slave means giving up all claims to
status and relates to Christ's humble-mindedness in Philippians. The slave is also a model
of faithfulness, comparable with God's faithfulness to Israel and Christ's faithfulness to the
mission given him by his Father. Being a slave (in Paul's sense) is at the heart of the
Christian life, exemplifying the obedience of faith, for it is through this faithfulness that
we become righteous.
Philosophical discussions about slavery were by no means uncommon in the ancient world,
especially among the Stoics. As only the educated, leisured class wrote philosophy,
precisely the ones who benefitted economically from slavery, the standard approach was to
justify the economic status quo, as Aristotle did, by supposing that many people in Greek
society were by nature inferior in ability and needed to be guided as slaves by wiser
men. To keep a long history of this discussion short, it can be said that this harsh doctrine
was ameliorated in the ancient world only by the Stoics who spoke of slavery
metaphorically as well as literally, so that they could distinguish between the literal, chattel
slavery of the body and the metaphorical slavery of mind or human spirit. Slavery of the
body was not such a bad thing, they suggested, if one still had freedom of the spirit. Peter
Garnsey sums up the Stoic position under four principles:
2
Slavery as a condition of the soul is both within our control and all-important. So
we move to the paradox:
3
Only the wise or good man is free and independent; the inferior/foolish or bad man
is dependent and slavish. And finally:
4
The wise are very few, while virtually all of humanity is inferior. Most men, then,
are (moral) slaves.1
It is unlikely that many slaves were impressed by this argument, both because few would
have had the opportunity to read philosophy and also because their actual condition did not
match the theory. Garnsey calls slavery the most degrading and exploitative institution
invented by man2; it was far from being an irrelevance even if the mind of the slave was
free.
As is well known, Paul too wrote of slavery both literally and metaphorically. Literally,
because there were clearly slaves and slave-owners in Paul's churches. The Letter to
Philemon addresses one of these instances. It has traditionally been understood that
Onesimus, who had been supporting Paul in prison, was a run-away slave who had taken
Paul's message of Christian freedom literally and fled his master, but who was now being
sent back to Philemon with this letter. Whether those were the precise circumstances that
produced the letter (and that may still be the case), Philemon is being urged in this letter to
take Onesimus back as a Christian brother.3
Elsewhere, especially at the end of Romans, Paul names individuals who, many
commentators think, might well have been freed slaves. In the next generation PseudoPauline letters began a moral discussion of chattel slavery in Christian literature by giving
advice to slaves and slave-owners on how to behave, but there is nothing here to threaten
social revolution, no suggestion that slavery itself might be a bad thing:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order
to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves
into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord
you will receive your inheritance as your reward: you serve the Lord Jesus Christ.
On the principle of reciprocity, Paul added:
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a master in
heaven (Colossians 3.2224 and 3.1; see also Ephesians 6.59 which looks derivative of
Colossians).4
These passages may not be from Paul but they mesh with Paul's own advice on how to be a
good citizen:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities those authorities that exist have
been instituted by God. It [the state] is the servant of God to execute wrath on the
wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of
conscience . Pay to all what is due to them - taxes revenue respect honour .
(Rom 13.17 abbreviated)
However, Paul only gets interesting when he begins to speak of slavery metaphorically, of
being a slave to sin for example, and it is to this use that we shall turn shortly. The way in
which he developed the metaphor, as we shall see, had the potential to subvert the whole
idea of what slavery might mean, though later generations of Christians did little to adapt
the metaphor to the social reality of chattel slavery in the Roman world by actually
recommending its abolition. Paul has been criticized for tolerating slavery but no one else
in those centuries, Christian or pagan, recommended its abolition apart from Gregory of
Nyssa.5
Such was the emphasis of historical scholarship until recently. Since about 1990 we have
seen a much harsher interpretation of slavery in the Roman world, which is no longer based
on state law, which is thought to represent an idealised situation, but on sociological
evidence like inscriptions, which is more likely to reflect social realities. Bartchy claimed
that slaves would be free by the time they were thirty but other evidence suggests that
slaves should not be freed before they were thirty and, as average mortality was about thirty
years, a slave would be worn out and literally past their sell-by date by then. In fact a
slave's life expectancy would have been lower than the general average of thirty, so
probably only a limited number of slaves would have lived long enough to be
manumitted.10 A slave actually became a non-person with no legal rights, who was often
treated brutally and in practice could be killed almost with impunity. They could not marry,
hold property or give evidence in court.11 Any children born in slavery became the property
of the master.12 The penalties for running away were severe and, if involved in rebellion,
could involve crucifixion. Jane Glancy has shown how slaves, and particularly women
slaves, were the sexual chattels of their owners.13 Most slaves in the Italian peninsula seem
to have worked as unpaid labourers in the fields of the estates of their masters, who had
confiscated the land in lieu of debt payment by peasants who had been conscripted into the
army and could no longer pay the rents while they were stationed abroad. Some slaves
escaped and some succeeded in disappearing, but most stayed-put out of fear.
If foreign slavery was all but ubiquitous in Italy and Rome, it was less common in the
Middle East where the land was worked by serfs in hock to landlords, rather than slaves.
And Jews had their own laws which may have made it less likely that they would enslave
fellow Jews, though circumcised slaves in effect became members of the Jewish household
where most worked as domestic servants.14 As a Jew, Paul might not have seen slavery
wherever he went, but many of his gentile converts in his churches in Greece and Asia
Minor were likely to have been slaves or manumitted slaves. So, Paul's use of the language
of slavery to clarify aspects of his gospel came from an observation of a harsh social reality.
He also knew slavery to have been a foundational experience in the history of his own
Jewish people.
the father's appointed date has now come. We are minors who have become adult heirs, and
slaves who have been freed and adopted into the family as children. Paul merges the
metaphors when he says,
So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God (4.7)
In speaking about minors and slaves, Paul may perhaps have been thinking of the two
categories of Jews and gentiles but, if so, he has not been clear in differentiating them. At
any rate, the power of the stoicheia and the authority of the law over us have been ended.
Who exactly, then, is Paul's we, and is it the same as the I of Romans 7.725? There is
no general agreement among critics about the identity of the I of Romans 7, but as with
Galatians 4 there is an implied narrative in the text for that I. Sin, we are told, has been in
the world [from the time of Adam], but I didn't know it until it was brought to life by the
law [from the time of Moses]. The law is holy and just and good because it comes from
God (see also Rom 9.4) but it aroused all kinds of sinfulness (Paul's example is
covetousness) in me and I died. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment,
deceived me and through it killed me (7.12). But Paul also writes, I was once alive apart
from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died (v.9). At no time
was Paul himself alive apart from the law, so when he uses the first person here he cannot
be writing about himself specifically. He has in fact just sketched the history of the Jewish
people in one respect: Adam/sin to Moses/law to the present time, a time of spiritual death.
So I seems to stand for the Jewish people. At the root of the problem, however, is not the
law but sin (vv.712). From verse 14 Paul speaks about sin, which affects the whole human
race not just the Jews. He continues to speak of the law but in this passage the law could
just as well refer to a natural moral law, not the Torah specifically. Paul is not being
autobiographical here, he is writing about the history and experience of the human race but
from the standpoint of a Christ-believing Jew. Yet the experience of conflict and moral
inadequacy expressed in vv.1520 includes Paul. It sounds as though Paul knows what it is
to have coveted, even though he knows it to be wrong.
So the we of Galatians 4 and the I of Romans 7 are closely related. Both are about the
experience of the whole human race but observed from a Jewish point of view, and both are
related to the idea of slavery.
Galatians 4 continues with the identity of our slave master established as the stoicheia, who
by nature are not gods (vv.89). However, when Paul returns to the theme of slavery at
v.21, the slave master has become the law, at which point he moves into his famous
allegory which relates the slave woman, Hagar, to her and Abraham's son, Ishmael (not
actually named here), flesh, the Sinai covenant and the present-Jerusalem whose inhabitants
are children of slavery. Paul contrasts this line of descent with that of Abraham's other
son, Isaac, who is associated with Sarah, promise, the Jerusalem-above and freedom. Paul
affirms that she [Sarah] is our mother (v.26) with the emphasis on our. Paul and his
readers are children of the promise who must not submit again to the yoke of slavery
(5.1). So his readers have evidently been freed from a form of slavery which, in the context
of the historical circumstances which lay behind this letter, was a slavery to the stoicheia
and to the law, that is the Torah.
Our other central passage is Romans 67 where the metaphor shifts to a slavery to sin. As
this is contrasted with freedom, it suggests that slavery, as the opposite of freedom,
represents any kind of oppression. Paul later speaks about captivity, using the model of
imprisonment to represent oppression generally (7.23). He then develops further
associations with sin, where being a slave to sin leads to impurity, iniquity, shame and
death:
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves
of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death
you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater
iniquity
When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. So what advantage
did you then get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is
death.
the wages of sin is death. (6.16, 19, 20, 21, 23).
In order to be freed from this sin that holds us captive and from all that follows from it,
there must be a death. This death takes place in baptism; a metaphorical rather than a literal
death, of course there is no death by drowning here but still a real death to one's old life,
which opens the possibility of newness of life (6.37). Then, in the next chapter, Paul
shifts his imagery and speaks of dying to the law, which certainly implies that he and his
readers had been enslaved to the law precisely the language he had used in Galatians.
you have died to the law through the body of Christ
But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are
slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the spirit (7.4, 6).
It is in this passage at v.5 that the three forms of the oppression of humanity in Paul's
argument at last appear together: sin, law and death, with flesh also used to characterise
the state of human life before baptism.
While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in
our members to bear fruit for death (7.5).
Paul later reminds his readers that they have received a spirit of adoption to be made
children and heirs, for you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear (8.15).
And finally in his last use in this letter, he applies the metaphor of slavery to the whole of
creation. Creation has been subjected to futility in a bondage to decay and groans in
pain, waiting for the revealing of the sons [NRSV: children] of God (8.1922).
In all this Paul speaks of slavery in a purely negative sense. Slavery is oppressive in a
variety of ways and we need to escape from it. Given the nature of chattel slavery, this is
what you would expect, even if he is not speaking here of chattel slavery but the slavery to
sin with its various associations with flesh, law, impurity, iniquity and death. Slavery is bad.
Even the Stoics had accepted this; their advice was to free the mind/spirit so that physical
slavery seemed relatively unimportant, an expression of a neo-Platonic anthropology no
doubt. But in the middle of all this Paul does something remarkable. He begins to speak of
slavery in a positive way, albeit a metaphorical form of slavery. This inclination to speak
positively about slavery is all the more remarkable in the light of the fresh interpretation of
chattel slavery that has been outlined by Horsley, Callahan and Smith,15 and summarised by
Bryon,16 an interpretation that paints a bleak picture indeed with few redeeming features of
what it was like to be a slave.
Paul makes this move in Romans. In the earlier letter all the positive language is of
redemption and adoption, while slavery is there seen as being entirely negative: So you are
no longer a slave stand firm and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Gal 4.7; 5.1).
In Romans, however, an alternative type of slavery is outlined to which we should submit.
Paul now contrasts slavery to sin with slavery to obedience and to righteousness (Rom
6.16), and to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted (6.17). Paul's readers in
Rome are told that they should now present their members as slaves to righteousness for
sanctification (6.19). But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the
advantage you get is sanctification, and the end/goal (telos) is eternal life (6.22).
This shift in Paul's use of the language of slavery tends to go unremarked but its intended
effect is to make his readers think about slavery in a new kind of way.17 He subverts
traditional ways of thinking about slavery as a form of oppression. Paul implies that
everyone owes obedience to something or someone:
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves
of the one who you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to
righteousness? (6.16).
It now seems that being a slave is an ineluctable dimension of human existence. In Paul's
sense, this is equally true for slave masters as much as anyone else, even though they were
enjoying the benefits of chattel slavery. All unbelievers, all the unbaptised are slaves of sin
and are controlled by the stoicheia. In this discussion, Paul long antedates modernity, the
world of Feuerbach and Nietzsche, where all traditional gods were to be displaced and man
set free at the apex of the world, with his God-like species-being and his self-realised
bermenschlichkeit. For Paul, however and here he speaks as a Jew of his time we all
have to be obedient to someone or something. Theologically two forms of obedience are
possible, which are each determined by their objects: either sin, law, impurity and death,
which is characterized as life in the flesh; or God, righteousness, sanctification and eternal
life, characterized as life in the spirit. Since the writing of Romans, slavery can no longer
be thought of as simply being a bad thing, because what we might call theological slavery
is an unavoidable condition of human existence. Paul is telling his readers that there is a
form of slavery which is not oppressive, because it brings freedom, the freedom to do what
we truly desire (7.1424), the freedom not to be condemned (8.1). We can speak
paradoxically of a slavery of freedom.
This way of thinking about slavery metaphorical, theological, but real means that Paul
can speak positively of himself and his fellow believers as slaves of Jesus Christ (Phil 1.1,
Gal 1.10 and Rom 1.1, though English translations often soften this by speaking of
servants). So Paul has become a slave to those in the Corinthian church (2 Cor 4.5) and
Christians, who have themselves a new freedom (from sin), must through love become
slaves to one another (Gal 5.13). Paul even says that he has made himself a slave to
everyone so that he might win more of them to the gospel (1 Cor 9.19), though this
introduces a highly rhetorical passage which shows how he would not put any social or
racial barrier in the way of winning converts.
The foundation for this positive understanding of enslavement is, of course, Christological.
Paul may or may not have been the original author of the verse in Philippians 2.511 but he
certainly subscribed to its ideas; they have become his words. Christ Jesus was in the form
of God (en morph theou) but lowered/emptied himself to take the form of a slave
(morphn doulou labn), being born in human likeness. The last clause strongly suggests
that being human entails being a slave; the two go together. And in verse 8 becoming a
slave leads to humility, obedience and death, though the death, a literal death on a cross,
eventually leads to exaltation. If Christians are to live in Christ as Paul repeatedly says
they do, they identify themselves with him through baptism (Rom 6.3f.) not only as a
son/daughter of God, as a child and heir (Rom 8.1417), but also as a slave. In one sense,
then, to be a slave is simply part of what it is to be Christian so far as Paul is concerned. To
understand the practical effect of this, we must look more closely at Philippians 2 which is
about humility/humble-mindedness.
Philippians is principally about ethics, not in the sense of proposing rules for proper
behavior something Paul (and Jesus) rarely did but in outlining predispositions and
values that lead to proper behavior. We have to live worthily (Phil 1.27) and Paul is
concerned here with how we set our mind (phrosun).18 Christians are to be of one mind
(Phil 1.27 and similar phrases in 2.2 and 3.15). What sort of mindedness should this be?
Humble-mindedness (tapeinophrosun, 2.3). Let the same mind be in you, Paul writes,
that was in Christ Jesus (2.5 - and 4.2), and in the hymn that follows this is expressed as
the mindedness of a slave (2.67).19 Then in the next chapter Paul contrasts this with the
mindedness of those who are set on earthy things (hoi ta epigeia phronountes, 3.19),
enemies of the cross of Christ whose end is shame and destruction. Our citizenship,
however, which is in the heavenly places, is characterized by humble-mindedness, humility,
abandoning all claims to status, and slavery, because in slavery it is not possible to make
any claim to status at all. A slave was legally a non-person. In all this Paul is in continuity
with the teaching and example of Jesus: take the lower place at table for the first shall be
last and the last first (Mark 10.31); all who exalt themselves will be humbled and those who
humble themselves will be exalted (Luke 14.11); whoever wishes to be first among you
must be slave of all (Mark 10.43);
The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called
benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the
youngest, and the leader like one who serves (Luke 24.2426).
Jesus and Paul are both in their own ways proposing behavior designed to subvert
conventional patterns of social behavior in the Roman world and any other social world.
We have here a transvaluation of values that 1800 years later Nietzsche pushed, and with
some success, in the other direction. Both Rome and Nietzsche despised Christianity and
held it in contempt for its feeble, untermenschlich morality of compassion, forgiveness and
humility; what Nietzsche called its slave-morality. 20
Jesus certainly used the language of slavery and service to characterize the life of
discipleship, but Paul might have had a further reason for developing his idea of what it is
to be a slave.
by the effect of the overall understanding one gets from rereading Paul using faithfulness
for pistis, and especially from rereading Romans and Galatians. Space does not allow us to
cover all instances here but consider how Gal 2.16 now looks (in addition, using counted
righteous for the more usual justifieddikaioutai, and giving ean m its more natural
meaning of unless):
We [are Jews who] know that a person is not counted righteous from works of the law
unless through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and we have remained faithful to Jesus
Christ so that we might be counted righteous from the faithfulness of Christ and not from
works of the law, because [as scripture says] no one will be counted righteous from the
works of the law.
And Romans 3.212 reads as:
But now the righteousness of God has been disclosed apart from the law, but born witness
to by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus
Christ for all who are faithful.
A third text from his introduction to Romans shows how naturally faithfulness represents
Paul's thought:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who is
faithful, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed
through faithfulness to faithfulness; as it is written, The one who is righteous will live from
faithtfulness (Rom 1.16f.)
This reflects something that we can find in the Book of Psalms and Paul's use of Psalms in
his citations in Romans.24 The LXX version of the Psalms that Paul used for his quotations
(or a Greek OT that is close to the LXX) contains all the central concepts and vocabulary
that Paul needed for his doctrine of justification (or how one becomes righteous). Indeed it
can be seen that the Psalms themselves have a doctrine of righteousness. In the first place, it
is God who is righteous. He demonstrates this by forming a covenant with his elect people,
by remaining faithful to it and by vindicating them in the end, even if they are now
suffering at the hands of the nations. In the second place, the Israelites are God's righteous
ones through having entered into a covenant with God. Yet it was all too possible for them
to fall away from that covenant individually or collectively, so how were the Israelites to
remain righteous? According to the Psalms, it was through demonstrating their faithfulness
by avoiding idolatry and by keeping God's law. So they were counted righteous through
their faithfulness, and the mark of that faithfulness was faithfulness to the God of Sinai and
his law.
Paul has re-presented this doctrine in the two opening chapters of Romans, first to condemn
the gentiles for their decadent behaviour even though they do not have the law, and then to
condemn Jews for not keeping the law that God had given them. Paul has then produced a
catena of quotations mainly from the Psalms in the passage 3.1020 to show that no one,
Jew or gentile, keeps the law, so all are deserving of the wrath of God. To use Luther's
has chosen as the highest of virtues before God. Being obedient, then, is as ineluctable a
dimension of being human as is being a slave. The fundamental issue is: who shall we obey,
to whom shall we be enslaved, to whom shall we be faithful? Sin or God? And in place of
God we can speak of his emissary Jesus Christ, the prototype of obedience, faithfulness and
the slave:
Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to
be held onto, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of
death even death on a cross (Phil 2.68).
That is not Paul's last word, of course, for Jesus is then exalted and all knees bend to him
and all confess him to be Kyrios. Here we clearly see the christological grounding for the
Christian life as a life of faithfulness, obedience, slavery and humility. Humility having the
sense of not claiming status.
Once more, Paul may have got his image of the slave from the Psalms. Doulos occurs 56
times in the LXX Psalms, though English translations hide this by invariably translating it
as servant (apart from Ps 104/105.17).25 Who is the slave of the Lord in the Psalms? Five
times it is David, once Abraham, once Moses, and once Israel. Sometimes it is the Psalmist
himself but usually it refers to those (Jews) devoted to the Lord (Kyrios). This pattern
reflects the general use of slave as a metaphor in the Old Testament.
Given this rich interlocking of language and imagery in his theology, it is easy to see why
Paul did not condemn chattel slavery, especially as no one else of his generation, Christian
or pagan, ever expressed the hope of abolishing the institution of slavery.26 Nonetheless
Paul (probably) encouraged his slave-readers to grasp the opportunity of freedom if it were
offered, notwithstanding his encouragement to those in Corinth to generally maintain their
current social standing in view of the impending crisis (1 Cor 7.26).27 Yet for Paul the
obedient slave remained a model of faithfulness, in which being a slave to the Lord-of-all
leads to righteousness and life. In speaking of slavery in this positive, albeit metaphorical
way, he shifted the parameters of how the first Christians might think about slavery. On the
one hand, this may have made Christians slow to realise that chattel slavery should be
abolished but, on the other hand, it introduced a striking pattern of moral behaviour into the
practice of how one might be a Christian. Each of the baptised must become a slave, must
give up all claims to status and privilege, must offer themselves in obedience to God and in
service to each other. The Christian life should be a life of selflessness and fidelity; a life, in
Paul's sense, of slavery. This is not peculiar to Paul, it can be found in the teaching of Jesus
in the Synoptic Gospels, in Luke's Mary, the handmaid of the Lord (h doul tou kyriou),
and in John's footwashing ceremony (13.3ff.) that became ritualised in later Christian
liturgy. Obedience and fidelity have provided a moral framework for Christian marriage,
religious orders, missionary work, education and care for the sick and the poor over the
centuries. Slavery is at the heart of what it is to be a Christian.
Footnotes
26. 26 Richard Horsley, The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity, Semeia 1998, p. 59
comments that, it must be recognised that taking a stand in favour of abolishing
slavery in Greek and Roman antiquity would not have occurred to anyone. Slavery
was part and parcel of the whole political-economic-religious structure. The only
way of even imagining a society without slavery would have been to imagine a
different society.
27. 27 R. A. Horsley, Paul and Slavery: A Critical Alternative to Recent Readings,
Semeia, 1998, pp. 1827, convincingly argues for the RSV's translation of the
difficult 1 Corinthians 7.21: Were you a slave when called? If you can gain your
freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity, against the NRSV's Even if you can
gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2010.00591.x/full