What about slavery in the New testament?
 |
| Butler’s mosaic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In the New Testament
a. Systems of slavery in NT times Jewish slavery, to judge by the Talmud, remained governed as always by the tight national unity of the people. There was a sharp distinction between Jewish and Gentile slaves. The former were subject to the sabbath-year manumission, and the onus fell upon Jewish communities everywhere to ransom their nationals held in slavery to Gentiles. Thus no fundamental division into bond and free was recognized. At the same time the whole people might be thought of as the servants of Yahweh.
By contrast, Greek slavery was justified in classical theory by the assumption of a natural order of slaves. Since only the citizen class were, strictly speaking, human, slaves were merely chattels. While this idea was carried into practice only in the rare cases where common sense and humanity broke down, the fact remains that throughout classical antiquity the institution of slavery was simply taken for granted, even by those who worked for its amelioration.
There was a very great diversity at different times and places in the extent and uses of slavery. Modern sentiment is dominated by the horrors of the mass agricultural slavery in Italy and Sicily during the 2 centuries between the Punic wars and Augustus, which were dramatized by a series of heroic slave-revolts. This was a by-product of the rapid Roman conquest of the Mediterranean, the main source of the glut of slaves being war prisoners. In NT times, however, there was very little warfare, and in any case the slave ranches were a peculiarly Roman method of farming. In Egypt, for instance, there was practically no agricultural slavery, the land being worked by a free peasantry under bureaucratic supervision. In Asia Minor and Syria there were great temple estates whose tenant farmers were in a kind of serfdom. In Palestine, to judge by the parables of Jesus, slaves were employed on country estates more in administrative positions, the labour being recruited on a casual basis.
Domestic and public slavery were the most widespread forms. In the former case the slaves were purchased and employed as an index of wealth. Where only one or two were owned, they worked beside their master at the same occupations. At Athens they were indistinguishable in the streets from free men, and the familiarity of slaves towards their owners was a stock theme of comedy. At Rome the great houses employed scores of slaves for sheer luxury. Their work was highly specialized and often largely effortless. In the case of public slaves, their status conferred a good deal of independence and respect. They performed all sorts of duties in the absence of a civil service, including even police services in some cases. Professions such as medicine or education were commonly filled by slaves.
The main sources of slavery were: (1) birth, depending on the law of the particular state concerning the various degrees of servile parentage; (2) the widespread practice of exposing unwanted children, who were then available for the use of anyone who cared to rear them; (3) the sale of one’s own children into slavery; (4) Voluntary slavery as a solution to problems such as debt; (5) penal slavery; (6) kidnapping and piracy; (7) the traffic across the Roman frontiers, Not all these sources were open in one place at any one time: there was a great deal of variation in local law and sentiment. The degree of slavery also varied greatly, and is impossible to calculate. It may have reached one-third of the population in Rome and the great metropolitan cities of the east. In areas where there was a peasant economy, however, it was reduced to a small fraction of that.
Manumission could be readily arranged at any time if owners wished. In Rome it was most commonly performed by testament, and limits had to be placed on the generosity of owners to prevent the too rapid dilution of the citizen body with persons of foreign extraction. In Gk. states 2 common forms were a type of self-purchase, in which the legal incompetence of the slave was overcome by the ownership technically passing to a god, and manumission in return for a contract of services which simply meant that the slave continued in the same employment though legally free.
The condition of slavery was everywhere being steadily mitigated in NT times. Although slaves had no legal personality, owners recognized that they worked better the more their condition approximated to freedom, and the owning of property and contracting of marriages were normally allowed. Cruelty was condemned by the growing sentiment of common humanity, and in some cases legally controlled; in Egypt, for instance, the death of a slave was subject to a coroner’s inquest. While in Gk. states emancipated slaves became resident aliens of their former master’s city, at Rome they automatically became citizens on manumission. Thus the vast flow of slaves into Italy, especially during the last 2 centuries before Christ, had the effect of internationalizing the Roman republic, anticipating the government’s own policy of steadily broadening membership.
b. The NT attitude to slavery
The twelve disciples of Jesus apparently had no part in the system of slavery. They included neither slaves nor owners. The institution figures frequently in the parables, however (e.g. Mt. 21:34; 22:3), because the regal and baronial households to which it belonged afforded a nice analogy for the kingdom of God. Jesus repeatedly spoke of the relation of the disciples to himself as that of servants to their lord (e.g. Mt. 10:24; Jn. 13:16). At the same time he stressed the inadequacy of this figure. The disciples were emancipated, as it were, and admitted to higher privileges of intimacy (Jn. 15:15). Or again, to their acute embarrassment, Jesus himself adopted the servile role (Jn. 13:4–17), with the object of encouraging them to mutual service.
Outside Palestine, however, where the churches were often established on a household basis, the membership included both masters and servants. Slavery was one of the human divisions that became meaningless in the new community in Christ (1 Cor. 7:22; Gal. 3:28). This apparently led to a desire for emancipation (1 Cor. 7:20) and perhaps even to the active encouragement of it by some (1 Tim. 6:3–5). Paul was not opposed to manumission if the opportunity was offered (1 Cor. 7:21), but studiously refrained from putting pressure on owners, even where personal sentiment might have led him to do so (Phm. 8, 14). Not only was there the practical reason of not laying the churches open to criticism (1 Tim. 6:1f.), but the point of principle that all human stations are allotted by God (1 Cor. 7:20). Slaves should therefore aim to please God by their service (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22). The fraternal bond with a believing master should be an added reason for serving him well (1 Tim. 6:2). A master, on the other hand, might well let the fraternal sentiment prevail (Phm. 16), and certainly must treat his slaves with restraint (Eph. 6:9) and strict equity (Col. 4:1).
The fact that household slavery, which is the only kind referred to in the NT, was generally governed by feelings of goodwill and affection, is implied by its figurative use in the ‘household of God’ (Eph. 2:19). The apostles are regularly God’s stewards (1 Cor. 4:1; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10) and even plain servants (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1). The legal character of ‘the yoke of slavery’ (Gal. 5:1) was not forgotten, however, and the idea of manumission and adoption into the family itself was a proud conclusion to this train of thought (Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:5–7). Thus, whether in practice or by analogy, the apostles clearly branded the institution as part of the order that was passing away. In the last resort the fraternity of the sons of God would see all its members free of their bonds.
Bibliography. W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, 1908; R. H. Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, 1928; W. L. Westermann, 3, 1955 (with full bibliography); M. I. Finley (ed.), Slavery in Classical Antiquity: Views and Controversies, 1960; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1969, pp. 314, 334–337; J. Vogt, Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man, 1974; S. S. Bartchy, 37:21, 1973.
’E. A. Judge.
Related articles
a. Systems of slavery in NT times Jewish slavery, to judge by the Talmud, remained governed as always by the tight national unity of the people. There was a sharp distinction between Jewish and Gentile slaves. The former were subject to the sabbath-year manumission, and the onus fell upon Jewish communities everywhere to ransom their nationals held in slavery to Gentiles. Thus no fundamental division into bond and free was recognized. At the same time the whole people might be thought of as the servants of Yahweh.
By contrast, Greek slavery was justified in classical theory by the assumption of a natural order of slaves. Since only the citizen class were, strictly speaking, human, slaves were merely chattels. While this idea was carried into practice only in the rare cases where common sense and humanity broke down, the fact remains that throughout classical antiquity the institution of slavery was simply taken for granted, even by those who worked for its amelioration.
There was a very great diversity at different times and places in the extent and uses of slavery. Modern sentiment is dominated by the horrors of the mass agricultural slavery in Italy and Sicily during the 2 centuries between the Punic wars and Augustus, which were dramatized by a series of heroic slave-revolts. This was a by-product of the rapid Roman conquest of the Mediterranean, the main source of the glut of slaves being war prisoners. In NT times, however, there was very little warfare, and in any case the slave ranches were a peculiarly Roman method of farming. In Egypt, for instance, there was practically no agricultural slavery, the land being worked by a free peasantry under bureaucratic supervision. In Asia Minor and Syria there were great temple estates whose tenant farmers were in a kind of serfdom. In Palestine, to judge by the parables of Jesus, slaves were employed on country estates more in administrative positions, the labour being recruited on a casual basis.
Domestic and public slavery were the most widespread forms. In the former case the slaves were purchased and employed as an index of wealth. Where only one or two were owned, they worked beside their master at the same occupations. At Athens they were indistinguishable in the streets from free men, and the familiarity of slaves towards their owners was a stock theme of comedy. At Rome the great houses employed scores of slaves for sheer luxury. Their work was highly specialized and often largely effortless. In the case of public slaves, their status conferred a good deal of independence and respect. They performed all sorts of duties in the absence of a civil service, including even police services in some cases. Professions such as medicine or education were commonly filled by slaves.
The main sources of slavery were: (1) birth, depending on the law of the particular state concerning the various degrees of servile parentage; (2) the widespread practice of exposing unwanted children, who were then available for the use of anyone who cared to rear them; (3) the sale of one’s own children into slavery; (4) Voluntary slavery as a solution to problems such as debt; (5) penal slavery; (6) kidnapping and piracy; (7) the traffic across the Roman frontiers, Not all these sources were open in one place at any one time: there was a great deal of variation in local law and sentiment. The degree of slavery also varied greatly, and is impossible to calculate. It may have reached one-third of the population in Rome and the great metropolitan cities of the east. In areas where there was a peasant economy, however, it was reduced to a small fraction of that.
Manumission could be readily arranged at any time if owners wished. In Rome it was most commonly performed by testament, and limits had to be placed on the generosity of owners to prevent the too rapid dilution of the citizen body with persons of foreign extraction. In Gk. states 2 common forms were a type of self-purchase, in which the legal incompetence of the slave was overcome by the ownership technically passing to a god, and manumission in return for a contract of services which simply meant that the slave continued in the same employment though legally free.
The condition of slavery was everywhere being steadily mitigated in NT times. Although slaves had no legal personality, owners recognized that they worked better the more their condition approximated to freedom, and the owning of property and contracting of marriages were normally allowed. Cruelty was condemned by the growing sentiment of common humanity, and in some cases legally controlled; in Egypt, for instance, the death of a slave was subject to a coroner’s inquest. While in Gk. states emancipated slaves became resident aliens of their former master’s city, at Rome they automatically became citizens on manumission. Thus the vast flow of slaves into Italy, especially during the last 2 centuries before Christ, had the effect of internationalizing the Roman republic, anticipating the government’s own policy of steadily broadening membership.
b. The NT attitude to slavery
The twelve disciples of Jesus apparently had no part in the system of slavery. They included neither slaves nor owners. The institution figures frequently in the parables, however (e.g. Mt. 21:34; 22:3), because the regal and baronial households to which it belonged afforded a nice analogy for the kingdom of God. Jesus repeatedly spoke of the relation of the disciples to himself as that of servants to their lord (e.g. Mt. 10:24; Jn. 13:16). At the same time he stressed the inadequacy of this figure. The disciples were emancipated, as it were, and admitted to higher privileges of intimacy (Jn. 15:15). Or again, to their acute embarrassment, Jesus himself adopted the servile role (Jn. 13:4–17), with the object of encouraging them to mutual service.
Outside Palestine, however, where the churches were often established on a household basis, the membership included both masters and servants. Slavery was one of the human divisions that became meaningless in the new community in Christ (1 Cor. 7:22; Gal. 3:28). This apparently led to a desire for emancipation (1 Cor. 7:20) and perhaps even to the active encouragement of it by some (1 Tim. 6:3–5). Paul was not opposed to manumission if the opportunity was offered (1 Cor. 7:21), but studiously refrained from putting pressure on owners, even where personal sentiment might have led him to do so (Phm. 8, 14). Not only was there the practical reason of not laying the churches open to criticism (1 Tim. 6:1f.), but the point of principle that all human stations are allotted by God (1 Cor. 7:20). Slaves should therefore aim to please God by their service (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22). The fraternal bond with a believing master should be an added reason for serving him well (1 Tim. 6:2). A master, on the other hand, might well let the fraternal sentiment prevail (Phm. 16), and certainly must treat his slaves with restraint (Eph. 6:9) and strict equity (Col. 4:1).
The fact that household slavery, which is the only kind referred to in the NT, was generally governed by feelings of goodwill and affection, is implied by its figurative use in the ‘household of God’ (Eph. 2:19). The apostles are regularly God’s stewards (1 Cor. 4:1; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10) and even plain servants (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1). The legal character of ‘the yoke of slavery’ (Gal. 5:1) was not forgotten, however, and the idea of manumission and adoption into the family itself was a proud conclusion to this train of thought (Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:5–7). Thus, whether in practice or by analogy, the apostles clearly branded the institution as part of the order that was passing away. In the last resort the fraternity of the sons of God would see all its members free of their bonds.
Bibliography. W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, 1908; R. H. Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, 1928; W. L. Westermann, 3, 1955 (with full bibliography); M. I. Finley (ed.), Slavery in Classical Antiquity: Views and Controversies, 1960; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1969, pp. 314, 334–337; J. Vogt, Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man, 1974; S. S. Bartchy, 37:21, 1973.
’E. A. Judge.
Related articles
