It seems clear that some
non-Christians are put off the Christian faith by what they see as immoral attitudes
in the early church towards slavery.
Many seem to think that first
century Christians usually approved of the practice of owning slaves. And even those
who would accept that early Christians generally tolerated rather than approved
of slavery, are often sharply critical of their tolerance. These supposed
attitudes of first century believers put some people off the Christian faith
today.
It is also true that many
Christians themselves are troubled by this issue. For some, it leads to questioning
the authority of the Bible. And for others, it just leads to puzzlement and a
certain amount of disappointment.
So, what are we to make of
this? Is this topic an unavoidable source of embarrassment for Christians today?
Or can we come up with a reasonable defence for the attitudes of the early
church to slavery?
I believe we can do the
latter. I am convinced that when all factors are taken into account, the
attitudes of early Christians to slavery were not immoral and that they did make
sense.
The New Testament never speaks favourably about
slavery and probably sometimes criticises it
To begin with, we need to understand
clearly that the New Testament never endorses or promotes slavery in any way. It
never, ever speaks favourably about this practice, whether explicitly or
implicitly. And those who think that it does are simply mistaken.
Secondly, there are passages
that probably contain an implied criticism of slavery.
In Rev. 18:13 John refers
to greedy merchants who trade in “slaves, that is, the souls of human beings.” It
seems likely that there is a criticism of slavery here.
Similarly, in 1 Tim. 1:10
Paul uses the Greek word andrapodistes to refer to a class of sinners. This word
is usually translated as “kidnappers” in this verse, and this is a good translation.
However, the word was often used to refer to those who kidnapped people to be
sold in the slave trade, and it seems likely that this is at least part of Paul’s
meaning here.
Most of the time that the
NT speaks about slavery, there is no positive or negative evaluation given to
it. Instead, those NT writers who refer to slavery just assume that it exists
and that people need to live their lives in the context of a slave-owning
society. Some passages instruct Christian slave owners how to live out this role
in a God-fearing and kind way (e.g., Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). And other passages
teach Christian slaves how they should live (e.g., Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; 1
Pet. 2:18-20).
Attitudes of early Christians to slavery
At first sight, then, the attitude
of the early church to slavery seems to have been mainly neutral, but probably with
a bit of opposition to it as well.
However, first impressions
can sometimes be misleading, and we need to think about this more deeply. What
reasons might there be for believing that early Christians either approved or disapproved
of the practice of owning slaves?
Well, for a start, it is
true that there were probably some believers in the first century who didn’t
really stop to question the morality of slavery. All Christians should do their
best to decide which of the values of their societies do and do not please God.
In 1 Thess. 5:21 Paul tells the church in Thessalonica to “test everything,”
and we should all try to live this out. Sadly, however, many Christians today
don’t seem to do very much of this. The values of society are copied
unquestioningly in all sorts of ways. And it makes sense to think that the same
was true of some Christians in the first century.
So it seems reasonable to believe
that in the early church there were probably some Christians who didn’t stop to
think about the rights and wrongs of slavery, even though they should have done.
They may just have assumed that it was an acceptable practice without giving it
any real thought.
But for Christians who did
think and pray about things, it is difficult to believe that they would have
been in favour of slavery.
First, a great many
Christian slaves would doubtless have wished that they didn’t live in a
slave-owning society. Without slavery, they would have avoided the mistreatment
that was so common from slave owners.
Furthermore, being a
Christian involves making Jesus Christ Lord and following Him with our lives. But
for a Christian who was a slave and had a non-Christian owner, this must have
been terribly difficult to do. Instead of being free to follow Jesus where He might
lead, a slave would have been restricted by what his or her owner allowed.
For more than one reason,
then, Christian slaves must have hated the practice of slavery.
But it was surely not just
slaves who felt this way. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a Christian
pastor in the first century Greco-Roman world. Pastors should be encouraging
their flocks to live for Jesus. But there is no doubt that the directions for living
given by pastors to slaves in their churches would often have conflicted with
the orders given to them by their non-Christian owners. This must have made the
lives of pastors very difficult.
Besides, pastors who cared
for the Christians in their churches must have frequently been distressed at
the mistreatment of Christian slaves they knew and loved. Imagine how it would
have been for a pastor to meet up with a devout Christian slave in his
congregation and hear about the latest beating he had received from a cruel owner.
It must have been very upsetting and frustrating.
For at least two reasons,
then, it is surely true that many leaders in the early church would have deeply
disliked the institution of slavery. And many other Christians too, who cared
for the wellbeing of their brothers and sisters who were slaves, must have felt
the same way.
Why didn’t the early church speak out publicly
against slavery?
But if early Christians who
thought and prayed about things disapproved of the practice of owning slaves,
why is there no evidence in the NT that they tried to reform society? Why is
there not even any evidence that they spoke out publicly against this practice?
I think there is a perfectly
reasonable answer to these questions that can be summed up in one word:
persecution.
We need to understand that
throughout the first century the church was often persecuted. References to
this in the NT include Matt. 10:17-23; Mark 10:30; 13:9-13; John 15:18-21;
16:1-4; Acts 4:1-22; 5:17-41; 6:9-8:1; 9:1-2, 23-24, 29; 12:1-5; 13:45-51 14:2-6,
19-22; 16:19-24, 35-40; 17:5-9, 13-14; 18:12-17; 19:23-41; 21:27-26:32; Rom.
8:35-37; 12:14; 2 Cor. 11:23-26; 12:10; Gal. 1:13; 4:29; Phil. 1:28-30; Col.
4:18; 1 Thess. 2:14-16; 2 Tim. 2:9-10; 3:12; 4:16; Heb. 10:32-34; 13:3, 23; 1 Pet.
3:14; 4:4, 12-19; 1 John 3:13; Rev. 1:9; 2:10, 13; 6:9-11.
This is a long list, but it
is by no means exhaustive. Many other NT references could be added to it as
well. There is no doubt that just by living as Christians and sharing the good
news with others, the early church experienced a great deal of hostility.
We need to realise too what
a massive thing slavery was in the Greco-Roman world. There were literally
millions of slaves. Slavery was, in many respects, the first century equivalent
of electricity today. Huge parts of society ran on the work done by slaves.
If Christians had spoken
out publicly against slavery, we can be sure that powerful people with vested
interests in it would have taken a very dim view of what they were saying. And it
seems almost certain that the persecution they experienced would have increased
significantly. But they were simply not in a position to face this, especially
when their words would have had very little effect anyway.
And given that speaking out
publicly against slavery would have been so problematic, it should be obvious
that trying to reform society in this area would have been completely out of
the question. The early Christians had their hands full as it was.
Why does the NT so rarely criticise slavery?
But although it would have
been unwise for the early church to speak out publicly against slavery, why are
there so few places in the NT where this practice is even criticised at all?
There are a few points to
make here.
First, although getting rid
of slavery would have been a valuable goal if it was achievable, the early
church had far more important goals. The Christian message of good news is
about providing people with a way of avoiding eternal punishment in hell. It
was infinitely more important to help people avoid hell than it was to help
them get out of slavery. So it is not a surprise that the NT concentrates on what
is most important.
Second, the early
Christians were realists. They would have understood clearly that they were not
in a position to reform society in its practice of slavery. And it is therefore
not surprising that the NT authors tend to talk about other things instead.
Third, first century
Christians needed to be careful even about incidental references to things that
could have been discovered by their enemies. Even rumours that the Christians disapproved
of slavery could have led to increased persecution if the wrong people heard
them. Therefore, it would often have been better to keep quiet about things
that were not of first importance.
In view of these points, it
is really not difficult to reconcile the fact that the NT so rarely criticises
slavery with a general dislike of slavery among early Christians.
Why did Christians continue to own slaves?
But although it made sense
for early believers to keep criticisms of slavery to themselves, couldn’t they
have avoided owning slaves? Why didn’t it become standard practice for
Christian slave owners to free their slaves and avoid buying new ones?
Well, Christian slave
owners in the early church surely did free their slaves more than they would
have done if they had not been believers. Freeing slaves after they had been in
slavery for some years was a common practice of the time. And, given that many
Christians must have deeply disliked slavery, as we saw above, it seems reasonable
to think that Christian slave owners often freed slaves.
However, if Christians who
owned slaves had typically freed all their slaves, the Christians would
have become known for doing this. And, again, we can easily imagine that
powerful people with interests in slavery would have reacted strongly for fear
that the practice of not owning slaves might catch on. The persecution of Christians
would almost certainly have increased. But the Christians were being persecuted
enough as it was.
And as far as buying slaves
is concerned, if Christians didn’t buy them, then pagan owners would have. And
life for a slave with a pagan owner would typically have been far worse than
for one with a Christian owner. In fact, if Christian owners acted on the principles
in Eph. 6:9 and Col. 4:1, their slaves should not have been harshly treated at
all.
When we think things
through, then, it really would have been unwise for early Christians to collectively
renounce the practice of owning slaves. It would very probably have caused far
more problems than it solved.
Conclusion
When we take the first
century context into account, therefore, the fact that the NT so rarely criticises
slavery is not a surprise. Although a great many early Christians, including
leaders, must have hated this aspect of Greco-Roman society, they were simply
not in a position to do anything about it. And so they concentrated their
attention on other things instead.
Similarly, the fact that
some in the early church continued to own slaves is also not surprising. If the
Christians had all given up the practice of owning slaves, it would almost
certainly have led to increased persecution. But they were being persecuted quite
enough as it was.
Christians led the abolitionist movements of the
18th and 19th centuries
Those who are offended by supposed
attitudes of the early church to slavery should also bear in mind that in the 18th
and 19th centuries, it was Christians, especially evangelicals, who spearheaded
the abolitionist movements on both sides of the Atlantic. At that time, of
course, it was realistic to try to reform society. So that is exactly what Christians
did.
If you haven’t already seen
it, I thoroughly recommend the 2006 film, Amazing
Grace. This tells the story of how abolitionist William Wilberforce
succeeded in his struggles against powerful slave owners among the British
establishment. And Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian.
Slavery in a positive sense
Despite all that is bad about
slavery, there is one sense in which being a slave is a positive thing. The NT
itself often refers to Christians as slaves of God or slaves of Christ (e.g.,
in Acts 2:18; 4:29; 16:17; Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 7:22; Gal. 1:10; Eph. 6:6; Phil.
1:1; Col. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:24; Titus 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1:1; Rev.
1:1; 7:3; 22:3).
In each of these verses the
Greek word doulos is used, the standard word for “slave” in Greek of the first century.
Disappointingly, however, in
the above texts and others, it is very common for English versions to translate
as “servant” instead of “slave.”
This is wrong, for a few
reasons:
First, it seems that many
translators find the idea of Christians being slaves offensive, so they
translate doulos with something else instead.
However, translators of the
Bible should always do their best to convey what the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
texts are saying. They should never alter the meaning of a passage because they
find it offensive or because they think others might be offended by it. The
whole point of the Bible is to hear what God has to tell us. And to knowingly
mistranslate a passage is therefore to act against the purpose of biblical
revelation.
Second, “servant” in modern
English does a poor job of giving the meaning of doulos. To say that someone is
a servant suggests that they are a paid employee of a very low social status. However,
a servant of this sort is far from being a slave. For example, they can choose
to leave their place of employment and get a job elsewhere if they want. By
contrast, a doulos was regarded as the unpaid legal property of their owner and
had no legal right to leave whatsoever.
Third, I think doulos in
the above verses is actually meant to startle us slightly. We Christians are so
under the authority of God that we are His slaves! Jesus is our Lord to such an
extent that we are His slaves!
This is what these verses are
telling us about the relationship between Christians and God or between
Christians and Jesus. And Bible translators shouldn’t water this down for fear
of offending people.
Of course, God loves His
slaves deeply, so this kind of slavery involves no abuse on the part of the
slave owner. And paradoxically, to be God’s slave is to be truly free. Living
under the all-encompassing authority of God is exactly how humans are designed
to exist. So being the slaves of God and of Christ frees us to be who we are really
meant to be.
See also:
