(9 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...Here are a few more comments about the short letter of Paul to Philemon, whose major themes and emphases I discussed yesterday. It may indeed seem a rather peripheral letter – it’s a private letter about a slave returning to his master, not about Paul’s great theological views or highly informative discussions of his life. But even so, this brief one-pager can provide us with some important insights into Paul’s view of his apostolic ministry, and even more about the role of social justice in his ministry (specifically: does he condone slavery?).
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Philemon and the Morality of Slavery
July 3, 2025
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
25 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You have mentioned that since Paul was not from the higher society that the way he may have received his education was by being a slave himself. If he received shelter, clothing, food and an education by being a slave and then was set free at a certain age (maybe the age that he was considered to be a man vs a boy?), then maybe he did not in his mind think that slavery was all bad?
Yes, that’s a pet theory of mine that I’ve never pursued at length. But I think the most likely reason Paul never opposed the institution of slavery was that it was not seen as a moral problem my anyone at all at the time.
Right. People in the future are going to be horrified that modern people continued to eat meat.
Ah, that’s one that we can predict, and I wouldn’t be surprised. But I bet there are things that will appear that *will* surprise us!
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I’m currently taking your course on The Genius of Mark and had a question about Judas’s role in the betrayal of Jesus. I was wondering what your view is on the plausibility of the idea that Judas might have betrayed Jesus after finally “getting” that Jesus was going to die, and so took it upon himself to, in a way, help Jesus personally bring that about (to put it crudely).
I understand this is speculative since Mark never explicitly gives a reason for Judas’s betrayal. But do you think it’s plausible that Mark may have had this in mind, or is it more likely that Mark is merely trying to show that Judas simply became disillusioned with the idea of Jesus actually being the messiah upon hearing all Jesus’ talk about him having to die?
That’s the explanation found in the GNostic Gospel of Judas, more or less! There are lots of options one could think of for his motivatoin; my view is that there is simply no way to know for sure…. The problem for me is that I don’t think Jesus was planning to die at all. He was expecting the kingdom to come and to be appointed its ruler.
An off-topic question please, Dr Ehrman. A religious magazine to which I subscribe has been discussing the Marriage at Cana. Although, drawing various theological lessons from it, the contributors very much seem to see it as an historical event. As the Cana miracle only appears in John, I assumed that it was a theologically driven ‘event’ as opposed to something that actually happened. Is that correct? Many thanks
Yes, the entire scenario of the tale seems implausible, but it certainly fits well wiht John’s own theological agenda.
This is one of the best explanation or examination of early Christianity and slavery I’ve ever read. It’s well thought out and balanced.
My only question is, if the Bible is God inspired, shouldn’t the evils of slavery been addressed sooner by Paul, or the other writers of the New Testament?
Depends what God’s views are, as the inspirer of the text. In the Hebrew Bible slavery is clearly not just permitted but structured by law. (When is it OK to sell your daughter into sex slavery? See Exodus 21).
It’s very easy to talk about how terrible slavery is, and not do anything about it, when we are benefitting from it. How many people nowadays make sure they don’t use products made from slave labor? How many of the people enjoy their iphones?
And their tee shirts.
Don’t forget about Spartacus and the slave rebellions. They sure didn’t like being slaves.
Right! Most slaves hated being slaves. But that doesn’t mean they opposed the institution of slavery, oddly enough. The problem was that *they* were slaves.
“My sense is that slavery was so much a common feature of ancient civilizations that it simply appears to be never (almost never?) questioned.”
I think this is exactly right. Ancient societies (ALL ancient societies that I know of) operated on the basis of slavery. It wasn’t questioned because society was, quite literally, unthinkable without it. No-one wanted to be a slave, but no-one (that I know of) ever suggested that slavery itself should be abolished. That would have seemed almost as strange as suggesting that sickness should be abolished– slavery was just a given of “how the world is.” Slaves who managed to become free through manumission, or through buying their freedom, often owned their own slaves in turn.
It’s noteworthy that when Jesus himself had a chance to denounce slavery, he didn’t. In Luke 6.6-7, a Roman centurion asks Jesus to heal his slave. (Translations almost always say “servant”, but the man is a slave.) This would be a golden opportunity for Jesus to say “I will heal him, but you and everyone else must stop owning slaves.” But — he doesn’t. Not a word about the evils of slavery; only praise for the centurion’s faith.
Ah, I was trying to think of a decent analogy and came up empty; sickness is a good one.
I’ve often had a thought experiment (and occasionally a conversation starter) to think about what, in 50 or 100 years hence, we will look back on and find appalling about current practice. Treatment of women and LGBT+ persons, I hope. What about our current level of ignorance about understanding and treating addiction and other behavioral health issues? Dismay at the devastating consequences of our current dithering about climate change? Embarrassment about our current inability to regard healthcare and nutrition as universal human rights? What else should we see now that will be blindingly evident in the future?
Yup, me too. I’d say all those are predictable and if I were a betting man (outside the Superbowl), I’d lay money on them. But I wonder also what’s *not* something that we can see coming…. !disabledupes{c4aafc47776566c220741a58424c1902}disabledupes
If Paul asked Christian slave-owners to set their slaves free, would the slaves have been better off? As slaves they received food and a bed to sleep. When made free, what would the slave’s chances have been in the first century to find another employer giving more than just food and a bed in exchange for his labor?
Probably depends on (a) what “better off” means (would you be better off to be a slave earning twice what you do now?) and (b) specific circumstances (slave in the salt mines or the galleys vs. slave serving as a steward in a rich household? night and day!)
Your question about finding another employer gets to the heart of what it means to say that abolition was unimaginable. There wasn’t really any system of widespread employment of free people in menial jobs; those jobs were done by slaves. Freeing the slaves would require imagining a system that was not based on slavery.
A possible analogy is how hard we find it to imagine getting rid of capitalism, completely and entirely. Even when we clearly see all the negatives of capitalism, most of us find it nearly impossible to conceptualize some entirely different system that doesn’t revolve around ownership of property, profit, etc. And many (most?) of us would not respond well to being told that capitalism is inherently immoral, inexcusable, and that we MUST outlaw it, no matter what the consequences. Yet it’s quite possible that two or three hundred years from now, people will look back with horror on our calm acceptance that instances of poverty, homelessness, etc., are regrettable but unavoidable downsides of the system we are all embedded in — very much as we are horrified by earlier generations’ acceptance of the suffering caused by slavery.
Moral values have changed in my lifetime. In my youth it was common to hear the proverb “spare the rod and spoil the child”, and it was considered good parenting in some circles to administer severe corporal punishment which today is rightly considered to be child abuse. Some today among evangelicals are advocating a return to those good old days. So today some try to minimize the brutality of slavery by finding some “good” in it such as it providing for a more orderly society, food shelter and protection from a good master. Sadly, like child abuse, slavery is condoned or at the least tolerated in both testaments.
I wrote a lengthy paper in divinity school explaining why, in my view, Rhoda was not enslaved but was, rather, a freedwoman. First, the NSRV describes her as a “maid,” not as a “slave.” Secondly, Luke gives her a name. This is highly unusual in the New Testament. In fact, in only two other instances (Paul’s letter to Philemon and in John 18:10) are slaves given names; the anonymity of the vast majority of enslaved characters in the NT (and the Hebrew Bible as well) reflects the “social death” of slavery as described by Orlando Patterson, by which the enslaved are deprived of all human agency. Finally, Rhoda acts in an impertinent manner highly inconsistent with the conduct expected of an enslaved person; for one, she doesn’t open the gate as would be expected of a slave and, two, she stands her ground, rhetorically, when the others insist that she is out of her mind. It is likely that the passage is fictional, but it reflects, perhaps, the reality that, at least in some quarters of the early Jesus Movement, manumission went hand-in-hand with conversion to the faith.
What do you make of Exodus 21:20-21? Does it mean that if after a few days the slave dies there is no punishment? The wording is a bit vague. It could mean if the slave gets better in a few days there is no punishment or if the slave survives a few days then dies there is no punishment. Either way the life of a slave was not easy.
I’d say it’s ambiguous. It’s not clear if the slave dies, on say, the third day from the wounds there’s no penalty because it doesn’t count as killing him, or if it’s saying that if he dies then there’s no way to know it’s because of the attack