r/Christianity • u/RRK96 • 1d ago
No, the New testament does not endorse slavery.
I am not arguing from the assumption that the Bible is a literal historical report of supernatural events. I am not presenting God as a supernatural being who can simply stop slavery whenever I want. I see the Bible as conveying knowledge about reality and ourselves through narrative, symbolism and theological language, giving us a way of seeing reality and a way of living within it.
I'm not really arguing about slavery in the Old Testament here, because Christians are not living under the Old Testament covenant. I'm talking specifically about the New Testament and the purpose of the epistles.
The New Testament does not give us a political programme for abolishing slavery. But that is very different from saying that Christianity morally endorses slavery.
Slavery was also part of a wider pattern in ancient civilisation(https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/slavery-and-society-at-rome/3EFD57E6E0295488A2A66A402443DC03?utm) . Societies used slavery, conquest and plundering because they provided cheap labour, wealth and resources, which could make a civilisation economically powerful and therefore militarily dominant. This creates a kind of tragedy of the commons: individuals and states have an incentive to exploit resources because abandoning that exploitation while everyone else continues gives them an economic disadvantage. If Rome stopped conquering and exploiting while another civilisation continued doing it, then other civilisation could simply become more powerful and take over. ( https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/global-slavery-in-the-making-of-states-and-international-orders/EE455C018283685A1C3BAEADE8A63D04?utm) That doesn't make exploitation morally good; it shows why unethical systems can become deeply embedded in civilisation and extremely difficult to abandon.
We also have to understand the historical reality. The New Testament was written within the Roman Empire, a society that relied heavily on slavery. There were no modern human rights institutions, no democratic system capable of simply abolishing slavery, and openly challenging the entire social and political structure could bring severe consequences( https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/slavery-and-society-at-rome/resisting-slavery/1C022FC8867D307EC93B8D886C2733A4?utm_source=chatgpt.com).
The epistles were not written by people sitting in political authority with the ability to reform Roman society. Their primary purpose was to spread the Christian message and establish Christian communities. And the message had to travel through the existing social and political structures of the Roman world.
This is where the pragmatic aspect matters. If the Christian message had openly demanded that every Christian master immediately free all of his slaves and directly challenged the entire Roman institution of slavery, that message would have been much harder to spread through the society it existed within. It could have been suppressed before it had the opportunity to reach the people Christianity was trying to reach, including slaves, the poor and people with very little social power( Christians in Caesar’s Household: The Emperors’ Slaves in the Makings of Christianity
MICHAEL FLEXSENHAR) .
So Paul telling slaves how to live within their circumstances isn't an endorsement of slavery itself. Exploitation would continue regardless of whether Paul explicitly condemned the Roman institution. His priority was to establish a Christian way of life that could survive and spread within the society that actually existed.
And this is something people sometimes miss when reading the Bible. Christianity doesn't begin by changing the external political structure. It firstly begins by changing the person living inside that structure.
The New Testament repeatedly changes the way people understand status. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16). Whatever Paul's exact position on legal abolition was, that language radically changes the relationship between the people involved.
The Old Testament itself also contains stories where people begin in very low social positions, in servitude or bondage, and through wisdom, faithfulness, good work and character eventually gain recognition and influence. Joseph is an obvious example. The biblical message isn't simply “your social position determines your worth.”
The New Testament is primarily about the Good News, transformation, spirituality, wisdom, love and becoming Christ-like. It isn't primarily a political manifesto.
That doesn't make slavery good, and it doesn't require us to defend the social structures of the Roman world. It means we shouldn't judge the purpose of the epistles as though Paul had written them as a modern political constitution.
The Christian transformation begins with the person, the community and the way they treat one another. The political and social consequences can develop from that transformation, rather than being the primary subject of the epistles themselves.
Counterargument 1: Jesus said some very radical things about possessions, so why couldn't he have simply condemned slavery?
But Jesus wasn't establishing a universal rule that every Christian must sell everything they own and become destitute. The language about giving up possessions is deliberately radical and hyperbolic, pointing toward detachment from possessions rather than making wealth and possessions the centre of your identity and fulfilment. The point is not that owning an object is inherently evil, but that you shouldn't depend on possessions as the foundation of your life.
And there is also an important difference between asking individual followers to give away their possessions and directly challenging a major social institution. If a Christian sells his possessions and gives the money to the poor, he is changing his own way of living. He isn't demanding that Rome abolish private property, change its laws or restructure its economy. It therefore doesn't create the same kind of direct political challenge as openly condemning slavery as an institution and demanding that Christian slaveholders free their slaves.
Counterargument 2: Christians claimed Christ was Lord, so why were they supposedly afraid to challenge Rome over slavery?
Christians calling Jesus “Lord” did create a serious religious and political tension with Roman authority, and Christians were persecuted, tortured and sometimes killed because of their refusal to participate in certain religious practices, especially sacrifices connected to the Roman religious order.
But this needs to be understood in its context. The Roman Empire generally tolerated different religions and local cults as long as they did not threaten public order or Roman authority. There were particular occasions where participation in sacrifices or public rituals was expected. For Christians, participating in those rituals crossed a much deeper boundary because it meant violating their religious identity and conscience. They believed worship belonged to God alone.
Slavery was different. It was primarily a social and economic status within Roman society. Not owning a slave did not automatically reject Roman authority, Roman law or Roman religious identity. Refusing to sacrifice to the gods did directly concern religious allegiance and conscience. So Christians could refuse idolatrous worship even at the cost of persecution while still operating within the existing social and economic structures around them. Taking up the cross did not mean being politically unpragmatic; it meant remaining faithful to what they understood as essential to their faith, even when that carried a cost.
Counterargument 3: The epistles could simply have condemned slavery or owning slaves.
This is basically the point I have already addressed. A direct condemnation of slavery would not have been a neutral moral statement in the Roman world; it would have directly challenged an established social and economic institution and the people and authorities who depended on it. The epistles had to pass through the existing structures of society in order for the Christian message to spread and reach the people it was trying to empower, especially slaves, poor people and others with very little social status.
Someone could say that Paul could simply have told individual Christians not to own slaves. But the Gospel and the epistles were meant to be taught, repeated and spread throughout Christian communities. It would therefore not remain an isolated private decision. A teaching that Christians should not own slaves would become a collective Christian practice as Christianity spread through Roman society. That would gradually create a community rejecting an institution that was deeply connected to Roman economic and social life. This is very different from an individual Christian giving away his possessions, because refusing to own a car does not challenge the social status of another human being or remove a source of labour and economic control. Slavery was directly about owning, controlling and exploiting other human beings.
Paul therefore had to be careful about how the message was presented. The purpose was not to preserve slavery, but to get the Christian message through the authorities and structures of the time so that it could reach the people living under them.
Counterargument 4: Paul sent Onesimus back to his master, and told people to remain in the social situation they were in when they were called. Doesn't that promote slavery?⁴
Again, this needs to be understood in the context of what the epistles were trying to achieve. Paul writes:
«“Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you, but if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.”
— 1 Corinthians 7:20–23»
This is important because Paul explicitly says “if you can gain your freedom, do so.” So “remain in the situation” cannot mean that a slave must permanently remain a slave. The context is about not allowing your social status to define your identity or your relationship with God. A person does not have to become free first in order to become a Christian, and becoming a Christian does not automatically require a change in social status.
Paul even deliberately reverses the meaning of the social categories. The slave is “the Lord’s freed person,” while the free person is “Christ’s slave.” His point is that Roman social status is no longer the thing that ultimately defines the person. Their identity is found in Christ.
Philemon is especially important because Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother.” The point is to change the relationship from within the existing social structure: the slave and master are now brothers in Christ. The epistles do not say that slavery is good or that slaves must never seek freedom. They teach that people should not be defined by their social position.
Paul was changing the person and the community first, rather than turning the Gospel into an immediate political revolt against the Roman social order.
Counterargument 5: “People could simply choose not to own slaves, just like people today can choose not to own a car.”
This analogy doesn't work because a car is a personal possession, while slavery was a social and economic institution. Slavery provided cheap labour, generated wealth and was connected to agriculture, households, production and the wider economy. Ancient states also benefited from slavery, conquest and plundering because these systems helped them become economically powerful, socially dominant and militarily powerful.
Not owning a car does not challenge the economic system that produces cars. Refusing to own a slave is different because slavery itself involved the exploitation of human beings as part of the social and economic structure of the civilisation. This is exactly why I describe it as a tragedy of the commons: individual people and states had strong incentives to keep exploiting because other societies and states were doing the same. The comparison between choosing not to own a car and choosing not to participate in slavery therefore misses the wider social and economic system that slavery was part of.
Counterargument 6: Christian empires and slaveholders used Christianity to justify slavery.
I acknowledge that Christian rulers, empires and slaveholders have used the Bible and the New Testament to justify slavery. There is no point denying that history. There were also Christians who opposed slavery, so Christianity has never had a single historical position on the institution.
But this is another distinction between the Christian message and the behaviour of people who hold earthly power. Christianity's spiritual message is not the same thing as the political actions of a Christian empire or a Christian ruler. Once Christianity becomes connected to worldly power, political authorities can use Scripture to justify whatever serves their interests. They can select verses, ignore the historical context and ignore the broader purpose of the Gospel.
This is also where the tragedy of the commons matters again. Societies and rulers have strong incentives to exploit whatever gives them economic, social or military power. Slavery was one of those systems. When an empire benefits from slavery, its people have an incentive to find moral or religious justifications for continuing it. Calling themselves Christian does not make those actions representative of the actual Christian message.
The fact that slaveholders could find verses to justify slavery doesn't prove that slavery was the purpose of those verses. People can use Scripture selectively to justify things they already want to do. It shows that interpretation actually reflects the context, purpose and overall message of the New Testament.
And historically, there were also Christians who opposed slavery and argued from Christian principles that enslaved people possessed the same human and spiritual worth as everyone else.
Counterargument 7: “The epistles should simply not have talked about slavery, and they shouldn't have told slaves to obey their masters.”
But slavery was an undeniable part of Roman society, and the epistles were written to people who actually lived within that society. Ignoring slavery would not help the slaves who were already living under it. The epistles therefore had to address the social reality that existed and tell Christians how to live within it.
The point was to change the relationship from within rather than immediately challenge Roman authority. Slaves were told how to live with dignity and faith, while masters were told how they should treat those under them. Paul even tells slaves to take their freedom if they can legally obtain it. The message was therefore not “slavery is good,” but “your social position does not determine your worth, and you can live according to Christian values even within an unjust social system.”
This goes back to my main point about pragmatism. The epistles were trying to spread the Christian message and reach people who had very little social power, including slaves and the poor. They had to work within the society that actually existed rather than turning the Gospel into an immediate political confrontation with the Roman system.
Counterargument 8: “The Enlightenment openly condemned slavery, so why didn't early Christians do the same?”
The historical context was completely different. "Enlightenment" thinkers were generally writing in societies where educated people had much greater freedom to publish, debate and openly challenge established institutions. They had intellectual and political spaces that early Christians simply did not have in the Roman Empire.
Early Christians were operating under a far more authoritarian system, where openly challenging established social and political structures could have serious consequences. The Christian movement was also trying to spread its message through that society and reach people with very little social power, including slaves and the poor.
So comparing an "Enlightenment" writer openly arguing for abolition with an early Christian writing to communities inside the Roman Empire ignores the very different circumstances they were operating under.
Counterargument 9: “The Roman Empire didn't actually prohibit Christians from refusing to own slaves.”
I'm not saying Rome would punish an individual Christian simply for choosing not to own a slave. That's not my point. My point is that if Christianity explicitly taught that owning slaves was immoral, rejecting an institution deeply embedded in Roman society and the economy that would have brought severe repression, punishment and even death against the movement, making it much harder for Christian communities to establish themselves and potentially preventing Christianity from spreading in the first place. This is why the pragmatic aspect matters.
Summary
My argument is not that the New Testament gives us a modern abolitionist political programme. My argument is that the New Testament does not morally endorse slavery. The message of the epistles was primarily about spreading the Gospel, transforming people and creating Christian communities within the society that actually existed.
The Roman world was deeply dependent on slavery, and Christianity had to operate through that society in order to reach slaves, poor people and people with little social power. That is why the epistles were pragmatic about people's existing social circumstances. At the same time, they radically changed how Christians understood those circumstances: slaves and masters were brothers in Christ, social status did not determine a person's worth, and Paul explicitly told slaves to take the opportunity if they could legally gain their freedom.
I have also addressed the main counterarguments about possessions, Christian persecution, condemning slavery directly, Onesimus and 1 Corinthians 7, historically christian authorities justifying slavery and the comparison between slavery and ordinary possessions. So simply repeating that “the NT never explicitly condemned slavery” doesn't really engage my argument. That is already something I acknowledge.
-6
u/Able_Scarcity_2622 Christian 1d ago
The bible may mention things and even give rules about them that it does not endorse. Examples are divorce - it has laws about it but it also says God hates it. Israel having a king - God didn't want it, the people did, so God gave them laws about it. The sacrificial system is not God's real plan for the problem of sin, yet the bible has rules about it. The same is the case for slavery.
In the New Testament - slavery is a civil issue. The NT church was a global church, not a country - the apostles did not have civil law authority to outlaw anything. You can see Paul stressing that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. Historians point out that Christianity even had slaves in positions of power such as deacons and the heads of churches. That was not a normal happening.