Introduction
In modern times, Christianity has increasingly been characterised as immoral and
oppressive. Among the grounds presented for these claims are that Christianity has
endorsed slavery or, at least, failed to prevent it. Generally when people make this
accusation they have in mind the transatlantic slave trade that saw an estimated 15
million people being enslaved in Africa and transported to the Americas by European
nations over a period of 400 years from 1500 to 1900.[1] The brutal conditions into
which many of these people were forced – relentless labour, severing of families,
sexual exploitation and abysmal living conditions – are well documented.[2]
It is vital, then, that we engage seriously with the question: does the Bible condone
slavery?
In another Christianity in Society article, Andy Witherall approached this challenge
with the Old Testament in view. The challenge facing him was why the Old
Testament Law, which Christians believe God gave to Israel through Moses, seems
to permit slavery in some circumstances. A key point in Andy’s response is the fact
that these laws refer to an arrangement quite different from our conceptions of
slavery.
My task in this article is to consider what the New Testament has to say on the
matter. The challenge here is different than when we address the Old Testament.
The Law of Moses reflects God’s intentions for Israel as an independent nation. The
Christians who wrote and received the New Testament, by contrast, were not able to
form a Christian nation.[3] Nor could they decide whether slavery would exist in their
contexts within the Roman Empire or what form it would take. With this in mind, the
question when reading the New Testament is whether or not its writers, who claimed
to have authority from Christ, endorsed the Roman system. This is not merely a
historical question. An estimated 50 million people are trapped in forms of slavery
across the world today.[4] The writings of the New Testament are directly applicable to
Christians today in a way that Old Testament laws are not always. Our understanding of its teachings must shape how Christians respond to the evils of modern day slavery.
In the Roman Empire, the treatment of slaves could be just as brutal as in the
transatlantic slave trade, albeit without the racist element. Slavery has been
widespread across civilisations throughout history, but historian Damian Pargas
describes ancient Rome as one of, “very few societies” – the others being ancient
Greece and the plantation regions of the Americas from the sixteenth to the
nineteenth centuries – that, “became so economically, politically, and culturally
dependent upon slavery”, as to warrant being called, “slave societies”.[5] Somewhere
between 10 to 20 percent of the population of the Roman Empire are thought to have
been slaves, and Roman law regarded them as the property of their masters and
afforded them no legal rights.[6] Noel Lenski describes Roman slavery as,
“fundamentally a system of domination and natal alienation, equipped with guardrails
and safety valves, but never far from raw aggression”.[7]
There were, undoubtedly, some relatively benevolent slave owners in the Roman
Empire, but a character in a satire by Roman writer Juvenal expresses the attitude
of many. A wife asks her husband to crucify a slave who has displeased her. He wants
to give a slave she has asked to be crucified a fair trial. She responds, “You fool, is a
slave human? Even though he’s done nothing: I wish it, so I command it, let my will
be sufficient reason”.[8]
Christian perspectives on slavery have varied through the centuries after the age of
the apostles. One of the earliest Christian leaders to take a clear position against
slavery was Gregory of Nyssa. In the fourth century, he wrote that anyone who
bought slaves was, “condemning to slavery human beings whose nature is free and
characterised by free will” and “fighting against the divine decree”.[9] Few Christian
voices, however, were so clearly opposed to slavery in the early centuries of the
Church. Even Gregory’s comments were more clearly opposed to slave trading than
to the institution of slavery. It seems that most Christian leaders accepted the
institution and found theological justifications for doing so.
In the early fifth century, Augustine of Hippo, the most influential theologian of early
Christendom, wrote that, “the condition of slavery is the result of sin”.[10] Like Gregory,
he recognised that slavery was not part of God’s original intention in creation, but
that enslavement, “does not happen save by the judgement of God”. Taking the
prayer of Daniel when he was in captivity, in which he confesses the sins of the
Israelites as the cause of their exile (Daniel Chapter 9), as his pretext, Augustine
argued that enslavement was a judgement from God on the sins of the enslaved
people. Eventually, when “God be all in all”, slavery along with “all unrighteousness”
will “pass away”. Until then, slaves should serve their masters “heartily and with
good-will”. In doing so, “they may themselves make their slavery in some sort free”,
since freedom from the slavery to sin was possible for both slave and free.
The leading medieval Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, also argued that
slavery, “results from the curse of sin”, and, “was imposed in punishment of sin”.[11] He
said there is “Nothing is so repugnant to human nature as slavery” and that “slavery
is more abhorrent to our nature than is death”. [12] Nevertheless, he followed the
arguments of pre-Christian Greek philosopher Aristotle that slavery is the natural
condition of some people and can be a mutually beneficial arrangement for master
and slave. Aquinas said that, “the fact that this particular man should be a slave
rather than another man, is based […] on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to
this man to be ruled by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former”. [13]
Slavery did effectively disappear in Christianised Europe by the early fifteenth
century, but not as a result of a concerted abolitionist movement or decrees from the
institutional Church. Rather, its demise was primarily because it was no longer
economically beneficial, with anti-slavery ideas grounded in Christianity having only
a secondary impact. [14] The form slavery took in Christianised Europe, however, was
more akin to the Old Testament pattern of indentured servitude and less like the
Roman Empire’s pattern of absolute ownership. Christians were not permitted to
hold other Christians as slaves and when Muslims were taken as slaves by
crusaders, they aimed to convert them to Christianity and were expected to act
towards them, “as a pater familias taking care of all members of the household
including slaves”. [15] Laws were passed by both the Church and rulers under its
influence, generally based on the Old Testament Law, to protect slaves against
mistreatment, but accounts show these were not always effective. [16] Few people in
Medieval Europe remained slaves until death and freeing slaves was seen as, “a
pious act of Christian charity”. [17]
Despite these differences from Roman slavery, most Christian leaders over the
centuries appear to have supported slavery in some form. Christian minister Kevin
Giles admits that, prior to the late nineteenth century, “Most theologians […] held that
the Bible sanctioned slavery”. [18] Augustine and Aquinas are typical in their views,
which can be summarised as follows:
● slavery was not part of God’s original intention for humankind in creation;
● slavery only exists because of sin, either as a judgment on the sin of the
enslaved person (Augustine’s view) or, more generally, because human
beings have fallen into sin and, so, engage in conflicts that lead to captives
being taken or otherwise find themselves in the circumstance of slavery;
● slavery is not necessarily immoral in itself so long as the slave owner treats
the slave well;
● slavery will not exist in the fullness of the new creation after Christ returns and
slave owners who mistreat their slaves will face God’s judgement; and
● slaves can attain a greater freedom – from sin – through faith in Jesus Christ.
Such arguments were to prove influential in the southern states of the USA before
the American Civil War.
The leadership given to the abolitionist movement in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries by evangelical Christians, both in Britain and the USA, is well
documented. Historian William Mulligan writes that campaigners against slavery,
“tended to come from evangelical groups, such as the Clapham Sect, and dissenting
religious denominations, such as Quakers and Baptists”. [19] John Wesley, founder of
Methodism, argued that “slave-holding is utterly inconsistent with mercy”, and called
on slave owners to, “Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child of man,
to every partaker of human nature”. [20] British politician, William Wilberforce, whose
efforts would eventually lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and its empire, was
inspired by his evangelical faith to conclude that the slave trade was, “founded in
iniquity”, and must be abolished. [21] He was encouraged to stick to this path by John
Newton, author of the hymn Amazing Grace. In America, meanwhile, Quakers were
among the first to oppose slavery.
Despite these powerful voices against slavery from among evangelical Protestants,
many Christians with similar theological convictions in the southern states of the
USA defended the institution of slavery along the lines outlined above. Believing that
God would hold to account slave owners who mistreated their slaves, they “were
opposed to gross cruelty to slaves and to the sexual exploitation of the women”. [22]
Some argued that slavery would not be a permanent feature of society, as the
enslaved people would eventually develop to a point when they could be trusted with
freedom. In the meantime, slavery to their more developed masters could actually
help them towards this goal. The racist attitudes that underlay such thinking are
evident.
The depth with which these convictions were held is evident in the fact that, when
the Civil War broke out, “many of the southern clergy took up arms against the
Yankee because they believed the truth of Scripture was at stake”. [23] These
proponents of slavery did not see this as a disputable matter. They shared
testimonies like that of Matthew Ewart, who wrote that he became convinced that
slavery was legitimate by, “searching scriptures”. [24] Kentucky Baptist minister, William
Buck, wrote that he was, “confident that there are countless thousands of slaveholders in this country who hold slaves in fear of God”. [25] Presbyterian Charles Hodge, meanwhile, claimed that, “If the present course of the abolitionists is right, then the course of Christ and the apostles were wrong.” [26]
Was Hodge correct in suggesting that abolitionism is contrary to the course set by
Jesus and the apostles? To answer this question, we must consider what the New
Testament says about slavery.
The word translated ‘slave’ (Greek, doulos) appears 127 times in the Greek New
Testament. In some of these instances it is translated ‘servant’ in English versions.
These references can be divided into three kinds. The first group is where it refers in
the narratives of the Gospels, including in several of Jesus’ parables, or Acts to a
person who was a slave. In the second group, it is as a metaphor for a spiritual
reality. The third group are those references in the epistles that establish principles
and commands for slaves and slave owners.
Considering the first group of references, in narratives, most are purely descriptive
and do not help us towards a Christian view of slavery. One reference in the book of
Acts, however, is worth mentioning. When Paul and Silas were in Philippi, they
encountered, “a slave girl who had a spirit of divination”, whose owners were
profiting from her as a fortune teller (Acts 16:16). She began to declare that the
apostles were serving the Most High God. After days of this, Paul, in frustration,
commanded the spirit to leave her and she was delivered. Her owners, in anger,
seized Paul and Silas and took them to the magistrates. Far from having the power
or influence to effect a social revolution, the apostles faced opposition from those
who profited from the Roman slave society and those who covered it in a veneer of
justice. Their concern, like their Lord, was primarily spiritual. Their message was of
salvation from sin and their goal was the conversion of sinners and their inclusion in
church communities.
The narrative references to slaves in Revelation are also worthy of note. In the
visions of coming judgements and hardships, it is emphasised several times that
slaves and free people will be affected alike (Revelation 6:15; 13:16; 19:18). The
New Testament points to a future when the social distinctions which divide people
today will be immaterial as all will face the consequences of God’s judgement.
The second group of occurences of the word doulos, in which it is a metaphor for a
spiritual reality, are found in the teaching of Jesus, in the book of Acts and in the
epistles. Jesus twice used slavery as a metaphor:
● for servant leadership, describing the humble position a disciple who “would
be first” must take (Matthew 20:27 and Mark 10:44); and
● for sin’s possessing and controlling power over people, from which only
Jesus can release them (John 8:34-36).
Whilst Jesus did not make any direct comment on slavery, then, he clearly believed it
was bad for people to be oppressed and that he had come to liberate them, with his
primary concern being freedom from sin. He then calls his followers to use this
freedom to serve others. Jesus did not preach an abolitionist message, but his vision
for human life is incompatible with slavery. He opposed people lording it over others
in any way (Matthew 20:25).
The apostle Paul extended Jesus’ use of slavery as a metaphor for sin (Romans
6:16ff.; Titus 3:3). This usage clearly implies a negative view of slavery. The same
can be said of Hebrews, where it serves as a metaphor for the fear of death
(Hebrews 2:15). Paul continues, however, to explain that all people are slaves to
something, “either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to
righteousness” (Romans 6:16). Christians, whose ownership has been transferred
from sin to God, should not return to their old master to serve it. Rather, they should
give themselves to God’s service. In this vein, early Christians often described
themselves as ‘slaves’ to God in Christ. In Acts, the early Christians described
themselves as slaves of God (Acts 4:29) and the writers of several New Testament
books describe themselves as slaves of Jesus Christ in their opening introductions. [27]
This understanding of belonging to God for his service flowed into the service of
others, so that the apostle Paul could call himself the doulos of all (1 Corinthians
9:19) and as “your servants (doulous) for Jesus’ sake” (2 Corinthians 4:5). In this he
was following the example of Jesus, who took, “the very nature of a servant (doulou)”
(Philippians 2:7)
In thinking of Christians as the slaves of God, however, we must not wrongly think of
this as a negative condition. The Holy Spirit is not, “the spirit of slavery”, who would
cause us, “to fall back into fear”, but the “Spirit of adoption”, who enables us to cry to
God as Father (Romans 8:15). Those who preached a false gospel, leading people
back to observance of Old Testament laws that no longer apply to Christians, were
leading them back into slavery (Galatians 2:4). Compared to the freedom as sons of
God that Christians enjoy, the Old Covenant was like slavery (Galatians 4), and
Christians should not, “submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1), by going
back to the laws Christ freed them from. The apostle Peter, similarly, uses slavery as
a picture of the way false teachings entrap people (2 Peter 2:19).
The third group of references, which say something directly to slaves and slave
owners, are all found in the letters of the apostle Paul. By reading them together, we
can establish the following:
● Slaves who become Christians should gain their freedom if they can (1
Corinthians 7:21). This would surely mean that (at least if the slave was a
Christian) a Christian slave owner would be obligated to grant freedom to a
slave who asked for it. Consistent with Jesus’ teaching against one person
lording it over another, the apostle Paul establishes the principle that no
person should be enslaved against his or her will.
● No Christian should willingly become a slave (1 Corinthians 7:23).
● Christian slaves who cannot gain their freedom should not think of themselves
as inferior to free Christians (1 Corinthians 7:21-22) because both slaves and
free have the same Spirit and are members of one body (2 Corinthians
12:13).
● As far as relationship to God in Christ is concerned, “there is neither slave nor
free” (Galatians 3:28; also Colossians 3:11). A Christian slave and a Christian
free person are equal in standing before God.
● Slaves should obey their masters sincerely as they would obey Christ and
Christian slaves and free people alike will be rewarded by the Lord for the
good they do (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25).
● Christian masters must do good to their slaves, treating them “justly and
fairly”, and must never even threaten to harm them because Christ, who is the
Master of both slave and slave owner, will hold them to account (Ephesians
6:9; Colossians 4:1). The most radical statement to slave owners is Paul’s
command, after his commands to slaves to serve their masters, that they
should, “do the same to them” (Ephesians 6:9). This makes the relationship
between slave and master reciprocal – they should serve and submit to one
another. [28] They would certainly retain distinct roles, much as senior and junior
people in a company would today, but both would serve as God would have
them and that would include serving one another in appropriate ways. If
followed fully, this would make the question of legal ownership immaterial and
the two would, effectively, become partners in the business of the household.
● One reason that slaves should honour their masters and be submissive,
faithful servants is that their behaviour will either cause the name of God and
the gospel to be reviled (1 Timothy 6:1) or will commend it to them (Titus 2:9-
10).
● The Christian master, Philemon, is told by Paul to receive Onesimus, who had
run away from him but was now returning as a Christian, “no longer as a slave
but more than a slave, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 16). Some have
interpreted this to mean that Paul expected Philemon to free Onesimus. At the
very least, it must mean a relationship similar to that described above when I
comment on Ephesians 6:9.
● Slave traders are among those whose actions are inconsistent with sound
doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10).
These teachings clearly have implications for how slaves lived and related to their
masters, but, if followed, they would also have consequences for the institution of
slavery as Christianity grew in influence:
1. slave trading, which is incompatible with Christianity, would decrease and,
eventually, cease, so there would be no new slaves;
2. Christian slaves would gain their freedom whenever they could;
3. Christian slave owners would grant freedom to their slaves if they asked for it;
4. Christians would not voluntarily make themselves slaves to a person.
These four measures would inevitably lead to an end to the institution of slavery over
time as indeed did happen in Europe.
We might still wonder, however, why there is no call in the New Testament for
Christian slave owners to free their slaves. Why must they wait for the slaves to seek
their freedom? To answer this question, we must understand the vulnerability of a
freed slave in a society whose economy was built on slavery. To be sent away by a
master could leave the former slave vulnerable and without certainty of employment
or income. To remain in the master’s household gave security. If the master was kind
and generous, even treating the slave as a family member rather than a possession,
the slave may well not want to leave. The formal legal situation of ownership was
immaterial to the slave’s life.
In the meantime, the relationship between a Christian slave owner and his slaves
was radically transformed. If the slave was a Christian, there was to be mutual love
and service in the household and equality in the church. If the slave was not a
Christian, there must be no mistreatment but kindness and fairness. Where a
Christian slave has a non-Christian master, the slave should serve well in the hope
the master may become a Christian. All slaves and masters alike will be held
accountable by God.
At the same time, the New Testament places the greatest priority on the salvation of
souls, whether of slaves or slave owners. All people are slaves to sin and death
without Christ and all will face the judgement of God. All can also find freedom from
sin and a welcome into the family of God through faith in Christ. He has paid the
ransom price through his death to liberate us and give us eternal life. This is not a
‘pie in the sky when you die’ message that would cause Christians to accept the evils
of this age. This eternal hope does bring great consolation to those who suffer in this
world, but it also motivates them to give themselves fully to God as his slaves and to
gladly become like slaves to others for his sake. By doing so, many Christians, including those who campaigned relentlessly against the transatlantic slave trade,
have made a lasting positive difference in this world.
To this consideration of New Testament references to slavery, we might add that the
idea of one person having permanent ownership of another or exercising control
over another to the point where that person has no freedom is inconsistent with the
whole sweep of Scripture. It cannot be squared with the principle that every human
being is created in God’s image. It makes no sense for one fallen, sinful human
being to have mastery over another fallen, sinful human being. It does not fit with
Christ’s call to servant leadership and the fact that he alone is Lord. It conflicts with
the freedom of conscience and accountability to God of individuals that the New
Testament describes. It is inconceivable that one person might be a slave to another
in the new creation, either as it is imperfectly realised now in the church or in its
future fullness. Slavery, if it means one person having control over another, is
incompatible with the gospel at every point.
If my analysis is correct, we may wonder why so many Christians in history did not
call for abolition or condemn slavery outright, especially when slaves were being
treated so abominably. It seems there was a lack of careful attention to the full
testimony of the New Testament. The reciprocal love and service expected between
Christian slave owners and slaves seems to have been played down, while the
commands to slaves to submit and obey were elevated. Without the controls of the
other principles, these could serve as a basis for severe abuses. Those Christian
theologians and pastors who defended the institution of slavery may not have
approved of this, but they were wilfully ignorant of the extent of mistreatment. The
problem was not simply that some slaveowners mistreated their slaves. The whole
institution was corrupt and evil. The Christians who campaigned for abolition were
absolutely right.
Why, though, were some Christians blind to this fact? Historian John Daly suggests it
was because those who claimed a biblical justification for slavery in the American
south were, in fact, influenced by self-interest. Slavery, and the institutions that
upheld it, were to their advantage both economically and because it maintained their
powerful position. Daly writes that: [29]
Southern morality was an amalgam of Protestant traditions and blunt materialism,
because evangelical ministers tended to sacralize the American institutions under
which their denominations expanded. It is no surprise, therefore, that southern
evangelicals reached seemingly self-interested conclusions on what they deemed
wholly religious grounds.
This is surely a challenge to every Christian in every age. What commands of
Scripture might we neglect because they challenge our self-interest? What
distortions of our interpretation are we blind to?
In conclusion, I maintain that the New Testament contains the seeds of the end of
slavery and revolutionises relationships between slaves and slave owners in the
meantime. The New Testament is not opposed to arrangements in which one person
is under the direction of another, as in modern employment or arrangements that
were called ‘slavery’ at times in Christianity, but it is opposed to one person lording it
over others and treating them as means to their own gain without concern for their
wellbeing. It forbids slave trading and insists that people should not be bound in a
state of servitude against their will. The kind of slavery that existed in the southern
USA before the Civil War was utterly incompatible with Christian faith. Christians
should never have tolerated it or defended it. The same can be said for modern
slavery resulting from human trafficking. Christians should speak and campaign
strongly against it and do whatever they can to abolish it and to care for and share
the gospel with its victims.
REFERENCES
[1] See the UN summary here: https://www.un.org/en/observances/decade-people-african-descent/slavetrade#:~:text=For%20over%20400%20years%2C%20more,darkest%20chapters%20in%20human%20history
[2] For an introduction to the conditions of slaves in the Americas see:
[3] Christians reach different conclusions about the degree to which Christians can and should ever seek to order a nation after Christian principles and the degree to which countries in which Christianity is predominant can be said to be ‘Christian nations’. My point here is uncontested, however. The idea of a ‘Christian nation’ or Christianised society could not have been conceived of by the earliest Christians, who were a small minority in the Roman Empire.
[4] This figure is cited by Anti-Slavery International – https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
[5] Pargas, Damian A. (2023) ‘Introduction: Historicizing and Spatializing Global Slavery’ in D.A. Pargas and J. Schiel (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History, Cham: Palgrave McMillan, p.1
[6] British Museum, ‘Slavery in ancient Rome’,https://www.britishmuseum.org/exhibitions/nero-man-behind-myth/slavery-ancient-rome
[7] Lenski, Noel (2023) ‘Slavery in the Roman Empire’ in D.A. Pargas and J. Schiel (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History, Cham: Palgrave McMillan, p.101
[8] Juvenal, Satire VI, 219
[9] Gregory of Nyssa, In Ecclesiasten Homiliae, Homily IV” trans. Andrew Maguire –
[10] Augustine, The City of God, XIX.15, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120119.htm
[11] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q.189, a.6
[12] Aquinas, An Apology for the Religious Orders, ed. by John Procter, II-X and II-XIV,
[13] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q.57, a.3
[14] Burnard Trevor (2022) ‘A Global History of Slavery in the Medieval Millennium’, Slavery & Abolition, 43(4), pp.819-826. In this review of the Cambridge, Burnard quotes David Wyatt as describing a “powerful ideology antithetical to warrior slave raiding and trading in relation to Christian victims”, that emerged in northern Europe and the British Isles by the twelfth century.
[15] Schiel, Juliane (2023) ‘Slavery in the Western Mediterranean’ in D.A. Pargas and J. Schiel (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History, Cham: Palgrave McMillan, p.182
[16] Pijper, Frederick (1909) ‘The Christian Church and Slavery in the Middle Ages’, The American Historical Review, 14(4), pp.675-695
[17] Schiel, p.187-188
[18] Giles, Kevin (1994) ‘The Biblical Argument for Slavery: Can the Bible Mislead? A Case Study in Hermeneutics’, Evangelical Quarterly, 66(1), p.5. Gilkes adds that, “This view is clearly expressed by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and many others”.
[19] Mulligan, William (2023) ‘Injection: the Global Spread of Abolitionism' in D.A. Pargas and J. Schiel (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History, Cham: Palgrave McMillan, p.555
[20] Wesley, John (1774) Thoughts Upon Slavery, IV.4 and V.6,
[21] Wilberforce’s 1789 speech
[22] Daly, p.13
[23] Daly, p.13
[24] Quoted in Daly, p.67
[25] Quoted in Daly, p.71
[26] Charles Hodge (1860) ‘The Bible Argument on Slavery’ in E.N. Elliott (ed.) Cotton is King and pro-Slavery Arguments. Augusta: Pritchard, Abbott & Loomis.
[27] Romans 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1:1; Revelation 1:1
[28] Some commentators play down Paul’s phrase “do the same to them” in Galatians 6:9, arguing that it refers only to the masters having the same attitudes of sincerity and goodwill that Paul expects of the slaves. I see no reason in the text to restrict it this way.
[29] Daly, John Patrick (2002) When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War, Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, p.6
Comments