King’s College London

Faculty of Arts & Humanities

Coversheet for submission of coursework
(Undergraduate & Taught Postgraduate)
 Complete all sections of this form and ensure it is the first page of the document you submit.
[Note: either copy and paste this page into the front of your work, or write your work on
subsequent pages of this form]
 DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON YOUR WORK.
 Pages should be clearly numbered.
 Failure to attach the coversheet as required may result in your work not being accepted for
assessment.

Candidate no. X 0 6 7 3 8

Module Title: Paul in Context

Module Code:
5AAT2020
(e.g. 5AABC123 )

Essay no:
1
(e.g. 1 or 2)

Essay Title: Did Paul Condone Slavery?

(may be abbreviated)

Assignment tutor/group: Joan Taylor

Deadline: 28/11/2016

Date Submitted: 25/11/2016

Word Count: 2619

DECLARATION BY STUDENT
This assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondary literature are indicated by the
use of inverted commas around ALL such quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the
author concerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this piece of work is indicated in
the bibliography placed at the end, and dependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the
appropriate point in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used other than those stated.
I understand what is meant by plagiarism and have signed at enrolment the declaration
concerning the avoidance of plagiarism.
I understand that plagiarism is a serious examinations offence that may result in
disciplinary action being taken.

Your assignment may be used as an exemplar of good practice for other students to refer
to in the future. If selected, your assignment will be uploaded to the King’s E-Learning and
Teaching Service (KEATS). The assignment will be anonymous and not include feedback
comments or the specific grade awarded. Your participation is entirely optional and will not
affect your grade.
x
If you DO wish your assignment to be used in this way then please put an X in the box
Did Paul condone slavery? Explore this question with special reference to the Letter to
Philemon.

Condone:
1) Accept (behaviour that is considered morally wrong or offensive)

2) Approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance

Oxford Dictionary Online

‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and
female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.’
Galatians 3 v 28

The greatly contested issue of the appropriateness of slavery in the time of the early

Christians can be well analysed alongside the letters of Paul. His letters provide particular

insight because of their personal nature, rooted consistently in the individual circumstances

of the churches and areas to which he writes. Paul’s insight is helpful, because it deals

intimately with social issues. Regardless of this insight, whether or not early Christians

condoned slavery is still not entirely clear. A reading of Paul’s letters will undoubtedly

inform one’s decision on the matter, but not necessary clarify with much degree of

certainty.

For these reasons, it is wise to address a number of possibilities. Three main possible

options present themselves. First and second are the two most obvious: either Paul does

condone slavery or he does not. But the option which seems most accurately to reflect

Paul’s feelings towards slavery is that he believes it to be obsolete in the light of the unifying

redemption now available through the work of Jesus Christ. I intend to argue that Paul’s

views of slavery are simply not black-and-white. Whilst considering the options of a
definitive ‘yes/no’ answer, I hope to suggest the insufficiency of these outcomes – despite

the necessity of such an investigation. By delving into Paul’s letter to Philemon, and cross

examining examples within other Pauline letters, I aim to demonstrate that, greater than a

moral identification with the issue of slavery, is Paul’s desire that Christians should consider

their identity firmly rooted in Christ and in the spiritual and heavenly freedom he offers,

rather than in their earthly position or status.

Some clues within Paul’s writing hint towards the possibility that he may indeed

condone slavery. Firstly, Paul does not explicitly explain that he does not condone slavery;

secondly, the early Christians do not express a need for the abolition of slavery. These

headings will inform the discussion considering the option that Paul may have condoned

slavery.

If Paul’s letters had plainly explained his views on the tautological rightness or

wrongness of slavery, the debate would not thrive as it does. For a letter focusing centrally

on the issue of a runaway slave, the letter to Philemon gives surprisingly little help on the

matter. Arthur A. Rupprecht is amongst scholars who note that Paul’s letter to Philemon

does not include any open statement suggesting that Onesimus should be set free by his

master,1 as is Peter T. O’Brien.2 Their observations are, of course, not uncommon, but

Lightfoot’s expression goes perhaps one step further, highlighting the frustration: ‘he [Paul]

tells him [the slave owner] to do very much more than emancipate his slave’ 3 – but he still

does not ask for Onesimus to be made free. Lightfoot points out the highly sentimentalised

request of Paul – the question remains: if Paul desires so much for the young slave, why not

1
Arthur A. Rupprecht, ‘Philemon’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (The
Zondervan Corporation, 1978), 454
2
Peter T. O-Brien, ‘Colossians, Philemon’, in Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 44, ed. D. A. Hubbard and G. W.
Barker, (Word Books, 1982), 269
3
J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Macmillan and co. London, 1892), 322
his physical freedom? Of course, Paul’s reluctance to denounce slavery could well suggest

he does not believe it is wrong – after all, he never says that it is. Demetrius K. Williams

makes an interesting point which might clarify Paul’s omission of such a political standpoint,

stating that one ‘consideration is that while the treatment of slaves was morally called into

question, the institution of slavery was not’.4 His point is well worth considering, given that

any reading into the situation will be unavoidably shaded with one’s contemporary

view/understanding of slavery. Herbert M. Carson echoes a similar refrain: ‘we never find

any statement that slavery is intrinsically wrong’ 5, whilst pointing out how difficult it is to

understand why explicit condemnation of slavery is omitted.

It is important, alongside this discussion, to assess what can be recorded of the

opinions that other prominent proponents of the Christian faith had to say about the issue

of slavery – because, undoubtedly, such a tightly-knit network of early Christians was

circulating concepts and ideas rapidly. Rupprecht asserts that no New Testament writers call

for the abolition of slavery.6 Indeed, this does appear to be the case – Peter goes as far as to

suggest that suffering oppression as a slave can be commendable, writing in 1 Peter 2. 18-

19, ‘Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference…For it is a credit to you

if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly.’ Regardless of whether or

not he is making a direct connection between unjust suffering and slavery, it is clear that

Peter is not, in this instance, calling for an outlawing against the practice of slavery –

otherwise he would not offer advice for behaviour within its context.

4
Demetrius K. Williams, ‘”No Longer as a Slave”: Reading the Interpretation History of Paul’s Epistle to
Philemon’ in Onesimus our Brother, Reading Religion, Race, and Culture in Philemon, ed. M.V. Johnson, J.A.
Noel, D.K. Williams, (Fortress Press Minneapolis, 2012), 33
5
Herbert M. Carson, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 21
6
Arthur A. Rupprecht, ‘Philemon’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (The
Zondervan Corporation, 1978), 457
 Definitive assertion becomes difficult when the discussion moves towards the

possibility that Paul does not condone slavery, and that he believes it to be wrong.

Nevertheless, there are aspects within Paul’s writing which suggest this could be the case. It

seems that to denounce slavery would have some personal and some public implications; it

must be assessed what Paul actually says to his specific readers (personal), and it must be

assessed what the implications of a ban on slavery would mean for the wider Christian

society, and how this would be received (public).

Two direct quotes from Paul’s letter to Philemon offer the impression that Paul may

not wish for the slave in question, Onesimus, to return to slavery. Firstly, in verse 17, Paul

pleads for Onesimus, asking ‘if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would

welcome me’. Although one could interpret this as Paul requesting the sort of welcome he

would be due if he were a runaway slave, given the reminder of Paul’s role as a ‘partner’ it

seems more likely that he is referring to his current state. Consequently, it seems plausible

that it is Paul’s request for Onesimus to be welcomed as a free man (as Paul would be if he

were free to visit from prison as he implied he should soon be). There is, however, a

statement of Paul’s within the letter which seems to more likely indicate he could be firmly

anti-slavery. In verses 13 and 14, Paul writes ‘I wanted to keep him with me… but I preferred

to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary…’. It

seems that, for Paul to desire to keep Onesimus with him, he must have believed that it

would be legitimate to completely free him from his slave status. Although he asks for the

slave-owner’s consent, Paul would not bother asking unless he believed it were a

reasonable option for Onesimus not to return as a slave to his master: he has at least some

disregard for the traditional slave system/structure. More serious and poignant remarks are

made elsewhere by Paul: in the letter of 1 Timothy, a list is produced of those who are
‘lawless and disobedient’, ‘godless’, ‘sinful’ and ‘profane’; and among the list are those who

murder, lie, fornicate and those who trade slaves – ‘and whatever else is contrary to the

sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God’ (verses 9-11).

Paul’s stark rebuke of those who trade slaves – those who make slavery possible – is

undisputable. He points this out as contrary to morality and to Christian doctrine.

So, by what Paul directly says, it can be seen that he may well believe slavery to be

wrong. But it is also important to consider the wider implications of what Paul says in this

and other letters to the Christian churches. Also, a broader knowledge of the temperaments

and ideals of early Christians is helpful. The early churches emphasised instruction on good

Christian ethics, including the dignity of humanity and the importance of the body (1

Corinthians 6.19). Lightfoot asserted that this clear ethic of man’s intrinsic worth is

completely contrary to the concept that a man could own another’s body as property

‘however tenderly the property may be used’.7 The letter to Philemon undoubtedly grapples

with the notion of good and humane treatment. Rupprecht has pointed out its uniqueness

within Paul’s writings for its being so personally addressed.8 Indeed, this is Paul’s only letter

to have quite so personal a plea, and to refer so explicitly to one particular concern within

the life of the specific church, and not addressing numerous issues or being overly

concerned by theological discussion9 – although it is undoubtedly implied in his plea for the

slave-owner’s Christ-like response (verse 16, 20). For the congregation of which Philemon

was a part, this would have been an extremely powerful example of practical love and of

Jesus-like reconciliation.10

7
J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Macmillan and co. London, 1892), 11
8
Arthur A. Rupprecht, ‘Philemon’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (The
Zondervan Corporation, 1978), 456
9
D. G. Horrell, ‘Paul the Letter-Writer’, in An Introduction to the Study of Paul, (Bloomsbury, 2015), 66
10
Arthur A. Rupprecht, ‘Philemon’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (The
Zondervan Corporation, 1978), 454-5
 Unfortunately, after considering both the option that Paul might have condoned

slavery, and that he might not have, one does not move much closer to a satisfactory

conclusion. And so it is perhaps more useful to consider why it is that Paul doesn’t give a

concrete answer – why is his attitude towards the rightness or wrongness of slavery so

ambiguous and difficult to decipher? A worthwhile assumption to make is that Paul simply is

not concerned by the issue. The earlier referenced comment of Lightfoot’s, denoting that

the concept of selling a person is simply incompatible with a Christian ethic 11 may well never

have significantly crossed Paul’s mind.

O’Brien, whilst determining what it is exactly that Paul does say about slaves, infers

that God is impartial in his dealings with slaves and masters, and that, if believers of Christ,

both are his ‘bond-servants’.12 In the book of Romans the apostle claims that God shows no

partiality – that it is sin which separates all from God’s glorious standards (Romans 2 verses

11-12). So if, for God, one’s earthly status is not important, Paul might believe it should

neither be the case for His followers. All, however, are responsible for serving Christ – this

servanthood is not restricting, according to Paul, but liberating (Galatians 5 verse 1). Whilst

servanthood to Christ is something worthy of active rejoice, earthly slavery is something

which Paul considers to be of little concern; whether or not a person was ‘called’ as a slave,

they belong to Christ now (1 Corinthians 7 verse 21-22). Paul uses the term ‘slavery’ to apply

to bondage elsewhere. The word ‘slave’ may well be better characterised as an adjective

than as a noun; the early Christian writers seem to emphasise its reference as ‘belonging to’

or ‘owned by’. These are not inherently negative things, for they are just adjectives. For

Paul, it is not of concern whether one is a slave, but to what or whom.

11
J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Macmillan and co. London, 1892), 322
12
Peter T. O’Brien, ‘Colossians, Philemon’, in World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 44, ed. D. A. Hubbard and G. W.
Barker, (Word Books, 1982), 269
 It is vital to analyse these attitudes, therefore, alongside the letter to Philemon.

Taking the external reference of Galatians 3 verse 28 – ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek,

there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in

Christ Jesus’ – and laying it alongside this letter can be difficult. However, since in the

Galatians extract, Paul does say there is no longer slave and in Philemon he does not specify

either way, the most probable conclusion would be to assume that Paul no longer considers

the notion of slavery one of importance. Ruprrecht uses this comparison to argue,

emphasising the importance of the concept of ‘oneness’, that Paul’s intention was one of

cohesion and that the problem of Philemon and his estranged slave was a true and ‘living

example’ of the combatting of this social hiccup of a problem. 13 The nature of Onesimus’

status has changed dramatically: as a Christian, Onesimus is now a ‘brother’, and this is what

is meant by the being ‘one in Christ Jesus’ mentioned in Galatians. The change is of infinite

value, completely nullifying the pain/seriousness of being an earthy slave. As Rupprecht

puts it, “slave” is temporal and demeaning, but “brother” references an ‘eternal relationship

in the Lord’.14 The relationship between Onesimus and Christ is not the only one

transformed; whilst Onesimus’ earthly relationship with his master will last only a lifetime,

his spiritual relationship with him shall last an eternity. Ultimately, Paul’s plea on behalf of

Onesimus’ is so extravagant because it is not one which asks the slave owner to comply with

law or social regulations, it is one which implores him to consider his conscience before

Christ, and to act in a way that demonstrates his personal Christian love and faith. It is not,

as Edward Lohse puts it, about virtue.15

13
Arthur A. Rupprecht, ‘Philemon’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (The
Zondervan Corporation, 1978), 457
14
Ibid., 461
15
Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon,
(Fortress Press, 1971), 197
 There is not enough evidence to answer conclusively whether or not Paul did

condone slavery, and so the question is, and will continue to be, treated speculatively. It has

been seen that Paul is concerned primarily with spiritual identity; he encourages the church

in Colossae to set their minds on heavenly and not earthly things (Colossians 3 verse 2). And

so, for Paul, whose mind is striving for the consideration of heavenly things, the earthly

issue of slavery isn’t overly problematic. Certainly, Paul calls not only for a fair treatment of

slaves, but a good one – although, this appears not dissimilar to the treatment he asks of

any of the ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ in Christ. So long as enquirers are intent on answering

definitively the question of whether or not Paul condoned slavery, it seems they will

struggle to find satisfaction. Paul – the arguable master of contentment (Philippians 4 verse

11) – was content with simply adopting a ‘Christian approach’ to the issue of slavery.

Perhaps it would be most beneficial for scholarly insight if we were able to adopt a similar

contentment and could accept that for Paul, there really is ‘neither slave nor free’.

Bibliography
CARSON, H.M.
The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and
Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960)

HORRELL, D.G.
‘Paul the Letter-Writer’, in An Introduction to the Study of Paul, (Bloomsbury, 2015)

LIGHTFOOT, J.B.
Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Macmillan and co. London,
1892)

LOHSE, E.
 Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon, (Fortress Press, 1971)

O’BRIEN, P.T.
‘Colossians, Philemon’, in Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 44, ed. D. A. Hubbard and
G. W. Barker, (Word Books, 1982)

RUPPRECHT, A.A.
‘Philemon’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein,
(The Zondervan Corporation, 1978)

WILLIAMS, D. K.
‘”No Longer as a Slave”: Reading the Interpretation History of Paul’s Epistle to
Philemon’ in Onesimus our Brother, Reading Religion, Race, and Culture in Philemon,
ed. M.V. Johnson, J.A. Noel, D.K. Williams, (Fortress Press Minneapolis, 2012)