Philemon

Slavery & Philemon

Aristotle developed the theory that some persons were servile by their very nature. There was a tendency starting in the late Roman Republic and continuing in the empire, to restrict the absolute rights of the master over the slave. A number of pagan tourists such as Florentinus (second century) and Ulpian (third century) recognized the incompatibility of slavery with natural law. Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves because of debt were to be freed after six years (Exodus 21.2-11; Deuteronomy 15.12-19), a provision not always observed (Jeremiah 34.14-18); foreigners could be permanently in slaved (Leviticus 25.44-46), though the slave laws of the Israelites had several contradictions and exceptions, based on my analysis of the complexities of these divergent slave laws.

Christian slaves were to remain obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6.5-8; Colossians 3.22-25; 1 Timothy 6.1-2; Titus 2.9-10; 1 Peter 2.18-25), who intern were to behave towards them with fairness and respect (Ephesians 6.9; Colossians 4.1). The classic statement on the matter appears in Paul’s epistle to Philemon. The apostle returns the fugitive slave Onesimus, whom he had converted, to his master, but pled that Onesimus be received as a brother rather than a slave.

John Chrysostom (died 407 A.D.) considered slavery as arising from sin. Other church fathers likewise located slavery finding its origin in sin, among them Augustine (died 430 A.D.), who viewed it as a punishment inflicted for the transgression of Adam. Yet he vigorously protested the actions of slave traders who were kidnapping young children and others, and he used church funds to ransom them. At times even clerics were slave owners. 1

According to Keith Bradley, Roman slavery operated somewhat differently than slavery worked in North America in the Antebellum period. He said, “if Roman slaves are compared with their counterpart in the slave societies of the New World, it is certainly true that the most important means of differentiating between slave and free in the Americas, skin color, was almost completely lacking at Rome. The huge contrast between black slave and white master simply did not exist and so a contrast between (supposed) inferior black and superior white could not be drawn in the modern slavery systems, of course, as it was all too convenient for white slaveowners to justify slavery by exploiting the evil associations of blackness, since long before Africans were forcibly transported in great numbers to the New World the European consciousness had equated the color black with all forms of inferiority…

But because of race and slavery, or color and slavery, were never integrally connected in Rome, similar opportunities of reinforcing the slaves physical subjection were unavailable to Roman slave owners.”2

There have been statements made in the past that slaves were indistinguishable from Free peoples in the Roman Empire. These statements are probably not accurate. According to Bradley, evidence exists That slaves could be identified by their clothing. According to one account of slaves we read the following:

Their skins were seemed all over with the marks of old floggings, as you could easily see who the holes in their ragged shirts that shaded rather than covered their scarred backs; but some were only loincloths. They had letters branded on their foreheads, and half-shaved head and irons on their legs. Their complexions were frightfully yellow, their eyelids caked with the smoke of the baking ovens, their eyes so blurry and inflamed that they could hardly see out of them, and they wore powder like athletes in the arena, but with dirty flour, not dust. 3

What about the duration of slavery in the life of the slave?

Were slaves allowed to gain their freedom? In the Roman system of slavery manumission was on the table, and many masters used this as an incentive for slaves to work hard and to be obedient. A slave could be granted their freedom in a variety of circumstances, for example, if their master abandoned them. The status of slavery could be removed from persons as a reward for services to the State. The release from slavery in such circumstances was normally accompanied by the conferment of citizenship. The most common form of release was the process whereby the master released his slave. 4

The idea that it was common for slaves to be freed was perpetuated by Cicero (Roman statesman 106 B.C.- 43 B.C.) in one of his speeches when he made that statement that slaves were generally held as property for around six years. We read “Cicero tells us in effect that six years was a longer period than careful, hardworking slaves who had been captured in war should expect to serve.” 5 As Bradley states, this statement by Cicero hardly reflects the reality of a slave in the Roman world. He writes:

No one would seriously doubt that at any mment at Rome there were great numbers of freedmen and freedwomen in existence, or that the prospect of manumission operated as an incentive to loyalty and obedience on the part of those still in slavery. The question is, however, what proportion of all slaves could ever realistically hope to be set free, and what particular categories of slaves were likely to be emanicipated… promises of freedom might be dangled by masters before their slaves, (but) most slaves (most being involved in agriculture) were probably never set free…” 6

The ultimate irony of Cicero’s speech where he mentions the average length of service comes from his own practices as an owner of slaves. Cicero’s slave Tiro was an alumnus, that is a slave since birth, who Cicero set free at 49 years old!

King James Translation of doulos

Slavery is so disagreeable a subject that it has been almost obliterated from the English New Testament. As a matter of fact, however, Philemon might have gone to any length in punishing Onesimus, as a slave who had robbed him and run away. Thievish and runaway slaves were branded on the forehead. The testimony of slaves was regularly taken by torture at the time this was written… it was a very serious thing to send Onesimus back into the power of his master, and Paul must have taken every possible measure to protect him from harm. 7

The word doulos – δοῦλος is used 125 times in the New Testament, many times in the context of an actual slave, property owned by the master. There is a word for servant in Greek that actually means servant, but doulos isn’t the word. The word is hyperetes – ὑπηρέτης used 20 times in the New Testament. So the translators had a word in the Greek for servant, and they had a word for slave, and when they came across the 125 uses of slave in the text they used servant.

Sometimes the word doulos is used in the context of mankind being servants to God, and in my opinion, in Philemon, Paul is using the word to emphasize that we are literally slaves to Christ, meaning that we are purchased by him, that we are subject to his mastery but that we are in this relationship because we know and understand who he truly is and we acknowledge him as our supreme ruler and master. It is a fascinating look at the word doulos from my perspective. But from reading the King James Version of the Bible, I am of the opinion that the translators didn’t like the English word slave or else they would have used it when translating doulos. It would be wonderful to have been in on their conversations to see how they debated this topic. For a modern look at translators working through the complexities of the text of the Bible when translating both the Hebrew and the Greek words for slave, this video may help modern readers to see how this may have happened.

Authorship of Philemon

It is addressed to an individual and is an undisputed letter of Paul. Tradition holds that Philemon was leader of the church at Colossae… wherever Philemon was from, he appears to have been in Paul’s debt (see v. 19). We know Paul is writing this letter to Philemon from prison (v. 1). Paul refers to Onesimus as “whom I begot” – meaning that Onesimus is a convert to Christ through the work of Paul.

Why would Onesimus have gone to one of his master’s friends if he was trying to escape his master?

Recent studies of ancient Roman slave law may provide an answer to this question. 8 It was a legally recognized practice for a slave who had incurred his or her master’s wrath to flee to one of the master’s trusted associates to plea for his intervention and protection. The associate then served as a kind of official mediator, who would try to smooth out the differences that had arisen through misunderstanding or even wrongdoing. This seems to be the issue here – Onesimus has run away from Philemon, perhaps even stolen something (v. 18), and Paul is trusting Philemon’s good nature and Christian virtues in his plea to deal kindly to Onesimus.

Paul (probably) sends Onesimus with a companion Tychicus (probably to ensure that he isn’t captured by slave catchers) along with the letter to Philemon and Colossians back to Colossae (Colossians 4.7-9). Tradition seems to indicate the Onesimus was set free by Philemon, as Ignatius, an early Christian church father, writing around 110 A.D., indicates that Onesimus is bishop in Ephesus. 9 We have no way of knowing if this was the same person, though some scholars find this as a reason for the preservation of this text, since Onesimus could have become a person of influence in Ephesus in early Christianity. 10

Seeds of Liberation Planted in Christian Texts

While Paul and other New Testament writers have been castigated by enemies of Christianity for not ordering a rebellion of slaves in the Roman empire, I am of the opinion that this would have not helped to spread the news of Christ and liberation from sin and our fallen natures had this occurred. Rome would have crushed the early Christians had they gone against an institution that was part of the Empire. It was understood by many at the time that had slavery not existed, Rome could not function. Slavery just was, it literally was the worldview held by people at that time. Even Christians (some at least- like Philemon) owned slaves!

When it is realized that in the ancient world slavery was regarded as a legitimate and necessary part of their social order, it should not surprise modern readers that neither Jesus nor his followers overtly attacked the institution of Roman slavery. While this is true, it is also essential that modern readers understand that Jesus taught the worth of souls (Matthew 6.26; 10.24-31; Luke 15) and that his church recognized the brotherhood of all mankind (Galatians 3.28; Ephesians 6.5-9; Colossians 3.11). These values, once understood, would eventually transform all of Western civilization, but it would take hundreds of years. But the seeds of freedom were planted in the soil of Christianity with Christ and his little humble band of followers in the first century of the common era. This seemingly insignificant letter of Paul to a single individual helped to plant the seed of not only the worth of a slave, but the value of a human life, a life that Rome considered of no import. Paul’s delicate approach to a difficult situation is one that Christians today can all work to emulate. Let us as Latter-day Saints call out the inequities we see around us while using an approach that builds others up rather than tears down or divides.

Notes

1. Everett Ferguson, The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Routledge, New York, 1999, p. 1066.
2. Keith Bradley, Roman Slavery and Roman Law, Historical Reflections, Volume 15, No. 3 (Fall 1988), p. 476-478. Keith Bradley was professor of classics at the University of Victoria where he taught ancient history.
3. Apuleius, Metamorphoses 9.12. On historical realism in Apuleius at large, see Fergus Millar, “The World of the Golden Ass,” Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981):63-75; on the physical abuse of slaves in general, see K.R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (New York, 1987), p. 114-123; and on branding of slaves, see C.P. Jones, “Stigma: Tatooing and Branding in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” Journal of Roman Studies 77 (1987): 139-155.
4. Andrew Borkowski and Paul du Plessis, Textbook on Roman Law, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 97-98.
5. Keith Bradley, p. 484-485.
6. Ibid., 484-485.
7. Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Meaning of Ephesians, University of Chicago Press, 1932, p. 7.
8. Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 316-317.
9. Ignatius of Antioch (1919) [1900]. The Epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. Translated by James Herbert Srawley (3rd ed.). Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 39–40. … “Onesimus, whose love surpasses words, in the flesh as your bishop. I pray that you may love him with a love according to Jesus Christ, and that you may all be like him. For blessed is He Who granted unto you, worthy as you are, to possess such a bishop.”
10. Edgar Johnson Goodspeed, The Key to Ephesians, University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Further Reading

Keith Bradley, Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome, February 17, 2011.

Keith Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Finley, Moses I. Ancient Slavery Modern Ideology, London: Chatto & Windus, 1980.