This is a fascinating look into the early church. We *don't* really think about how the enslaved would have heard the gospel, despite early Christianity being called a religion of women and slaves. I look forward to reading more!
The early church might not have had quite as high of a proportion of the enslaved as is commonly believed—opponents of Christianity used the religion of women and slaves line as a way to try to discredit it—but the glimpses we get from the early literature tells us that there were always a considerable number.
In the very early second century, we even have a reference to two enslaved female deacons!
Caitlin, as a Christian and a survivor of rape, domestic abuse, sexual harassment and unwanted touching from men in churches, and spiritual abuse (misapplication of scripture) by both clergy and fellow Christians, I have thought a LOT about how the enslaved would have heard the gospel.
And I find it disconcerting that you say “we don’t really think about it.” Your statement indicates that you, for one, have ignored the existence of people like me. It made me feel invisible, and it hurt me. You seem to your identity yourself with all Christians (“we”) — making me feel that I don’t belong to the “we” of Christendom.
Oh, Barbara, what a painful series of experiences. Your life has given you a lens that enables you to see things in the text that many of us haven’t seen. Even in #ChurchToo circles, I haven’t observed much on NT slavery. So I’m so glad you’re speaking out on these things that the church needs to see.
I do wonder if it might be helpful to reframe the word “we,” here. No one can claim to speak for all Christians. We can only comment on the corners of the Church we’ve observed, and I took that to be Caitlin’s meaning.
I’ve put some links in my reply to Caitlin which you might like to check out.
I often get disturbed by people’s use of pronouns. We, I, You, They … unless the speaker makes it super clear what the pronoun refers to, the meaning can be unclear to the listener.
And our culture has normalised the use of ‘we’ when the speaker really means ‘I’. It’s to do with how people are often a bit afraid of talking about their own feelings.
I apologize greatly. I was not attempting to speak for all Christians, and was mostly commenting on my own ignorance. I know a lot of people don't take historical context into account when reading scripture. Too many translations use 'servant' instead of 'slave' and too few people know enough about slavery (both ancient and modern) to understand the sexual abuse that permeates slavery. As a classicist I knew about it intellectually, but as someone who has thankfully not experienced sexual abuse directly it sometimes takes a story and a blunt explanation to allow for a fuller understanding of something not personally experienced. When I said 'we don't really think about it', I meant 'think' to mean more 'comprehend' than 'acknowledge'. I, and many others, absolutely know that sexual abuse has happened beyond records of history, and unfortunately continues to happen, but it is difficult to *understand*. And I know, unless it happens to me (as is always a risk, I am well aware), I won't understand to the extent that someone who experienced sexual abuse has.
I was trying to praise Catherine for her ability to get at the heart of the matter and allow those who have no direct experience to try and better understand the views of others in a deeper way, and to find at least sympathy if not empathy for the hurts undergone by so many millions of people. I did not mean to hurt anyone with my words, but I did and I am sorry for it.
Thank you Caitlin for your lovely reply to my comment! I really appreciate your explanation. 🥰
If you are interested in understanding more about the lived experience of those who are systematically enslaved and abused by sexual predators, you might like to look at my blog. It focuses on domestic abuse in a Christian context, and the target women’s experience has many parallels to the slavery which was endemic in the first century Roman Empire.
I appreciate your depth of study on Paul. I assume you’ve read widely on him and his letters. Have you read the biography on Paul by NT Wright? Or the book on trauma and Paul by Scot McKnight? I read Wright’s book a while ago and found it a blessing. My wife just bought me the one by McKnight this week and I haven’t gotten far into it yet.
Thank you for this thoughtful piece, Catherine. I really appreciate the care you bring to the historical context and the way you center the lived experience of enslaved women in Corinth. Your reconstruction of Prima’s perspective is compassionate and helps modern readers see the text through eyes we often overlook.
As I read your argument, I also found myself thinking about Paul’s other slavery references across his letters: 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 6, Colossians 3, Philemon, and the slavery metaphors in Romans 6. Taken together, they paint a complex picture: Paul gives enslaved believers profound spiritual dignity, yet he also accommodates the social institution of slavery and often frames obedience within it. That broader pattern doesn’t diminish the pastoral possibilities you’re drawing out here, but it does shape how I understand the limits and tensions within Paul’s own framework.
Many members and clergy of the Roman church in antiquity kept personal slaves, as did numerous religious institutions. The fact that the Council of Elvira had to forbid clergy from sexual relations with enslaved women at the turn of the 4th century demonstrates that such misconduct was already an ongoing problem within the Hellenized church. Canon law only prohibits what is actually happening, and Elvira’s canons reveal a pattern of sexual exploitation that the early church was attempting—unsuccessfully—to curb. It is also striking that the synod issues no parallel prohibition for laymen, even though Roman law granted masters unrestricted sexual access to enslaved women. That silence reflects the broader social assumption that such exploitation was normative, and it underscores how deeply the early church accommodated the sexual dynamics of slavery even as it attempted to regulate clerical scandal.
I’m grateful for the way your work opens space for these conversations. It’s helping many of us think more carefully about how ancient texts functioned for different members of the early church, and how we can read them responsibly today.
Thanks for the fresh perspective! I look forward to the next part.
Thank you!
Well this was a wonderful if not sobering read 😅 wow, well done!
Thanks for the detail about female slaves being naked at the slave market. What fear they would have felt!
Yes—it was just horror upon horror.
Sexual abusers violate sacred space.
Say it louder. Thank you!
This is a fascinating look into the early church. We *don't* really think about how the enslaved would have heard the gospel, despite early Christianity being called a religion of women and slaves. I look forward to reading more!
Thank you!
The early church might not have had quite as high of a proportion of the enslaved as is commonly believed—opponents of Christianity used the religion of women and slaves line as a way to try to discredit it—but the glimpses we get from the early literature tells us that there were always a considerable number.
In the very early second century, we even have a reference to two enslaved female deacons!
Caitlin, as a Christian and a survivor of rape, domestic abuse, sexual harassment and unwanted touching from men in churches, and spiritual abuse (misapplication of scripture) by both clergy and fellow Christians, I have thought a LOT about how the enslaved would have heard the gospel.
And I find it disconcerting that you say “we don’t really think about it.” Your statement indicates that you, for one, have ignored the existence of people like me. It made me feel invisible, and it hurt me. You seem to your identity yourself with all Christians (“we”) — making me feel that I don’t belong to the “we” of Christendom.
Oh, Barbara, what a painful series of experiences. Your life has given you a lens that enables you to see things in the text that many of us haven’t seen. Even in #ChurchToo circles, I haven’t observed much on NT slavery. So I’m so glad you’re speaking out on these things that the church needs to see.
I do wonder if it might be helpful to reframe the word “we,” here. No one can claim to speak for all Christians. We can only comment on the corners of the Church we’ve observed, and I took that to be Caitlin’s meaning.
Thanks Catherine!
I’ve put some links in my reply to Caitlin which you might like to check out.
I often get disturbed by people’s use of pronouns. We, I, You, They … unless the speaker makes it super clear what the pronoun refers to, the meaning can be unclear to the listener.
And our culture has normalised the use of ‘we’ when the speaker really means ‘I’. It’s to do with how people are often a bit afraid of talking about their own feelings.
I apologize greatly. I was not attempting to speak for all Christians, and was mostly commenting on my own ignorance. I know a lot of people don't take historical context into account when reading scripture. Too many translations use 'servant' instead of 'slave' and too few people know enough about slavery (both ancient and modern) to understand the sexual abuse that permeates slavery. As a classicist I knew about it intellectually, but as someone who has thankfully not experienced sexual abuse directly it sometimes takes a story and a blunt explanation to allow for a fuller understanding of something not personally experienced. When I said 'we don't really think about it', I meant 'think' to mean more 'comprehend' than 'acknowledge'. I, and many others, absolutely know that sexual abuse has happened beyond records of history, and unfortunately continues to happen, but it is difficult to *understand*. And I know, unless it happens to me (as is always a risk, I am well aware), I won't understand to the extent that someone who experienced sexual abuse has.
I was trying to praise Catherine for her ability to get at the heart of the matter and allow those who have no direct experience to try and better understand the views of others in a deeper way, and to find at least sympathy if not empathy for the hurts undergone by so many millions of people. I did not mean to hurt anyone with my words, but I did and I am sorry for it.
Thank you Caitlin for your lovely reply to my comment! I really appreciate your explanation. 🥰
If you are interested in understanding more about the lived experience of those who are systematically enslaved and abused by sexual predators, you might like to look at my blog. It focuses on domestic abuse in a Christian context, and the target women’s experience has many parallels to the slavery which was endemic in the first century Roman Empire.
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/faq/what-about-sexual-abuse-in-marriage/
Thank you for the resources! I definitely want to expand my understanding, especially so I don't make so many missteps and hurt people!
I appreciate your depth of study on Paul. I assume you’ve read widely on him and his letters. Have you read the biography on Paul by NT Wright? Or the book on trauma and Paul by Scot McKnight? I read Wright’s book a while ago and found it a blessing. My wife just bought me the one by McKnight this week and I haven’t gotten far into it yet.
I haven’t read either of those yet! Very much looking forward to getting into McKnight’s new book—he was actually one of my seminary professors!
So cool! My graduate work was at a small school with no one famous teaching 😂
There are pros and cons! When a professor isn’t famous, they usually have more time for their students.
Thank you for this thoughtful piece, Catherine. I really appreciate the care you bring to the historical context and the way you center the lived experience of enslaved women in Corinth. Your reconstruction of Prima’s perspective is compassionate and helps modern readers see the text through eyes we often overlook.
As I read your argument, I also found myself thinking about Paul’s other slavery references across his letters: 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 6, Colossians 3, Philemon, and the slavery metaphors in Romans 6. Taken together, they paint a complex picture: Paul gives enslaved believers profound spiritual dignity, yet he also accommodates the social institution of slavery and often frames obedience within it. That broader pattern doesn’t diminish the pastoral possibilities you’re drawing out here, but it does shape how I understand the limits and tensions within Paul’s own framework.
Many members and clergy of the Roman church in antiquity kept personal slaves, as did numerous religious institutions. The fact that the Council of Elvira had to forbid clergy from sexual relations with enslaved women at the turn of the 4th century demonstrates that such misconduct was already an ongoing problem within the Hellenized church. Canon law only prohibits what is actually happening, and Elvira’s canons reveal a pattern of sexual exploitation that the early church was attempting—unsuccessfully—to curb. It is also striking that the synod issues no parallel prohibition for laymen, even though Roman law granted masters unrestricted sexual access to enslaved women. That silence reflects the broader social assumption that such exploitation was normative, and it underscores how deeply the early church accommodated the sexual dynamics of slavery even as it attempted to regulate clerical scandal.
I’m grateful for the way your work opens space for these conversations. It’s helping many of us think more carefully about how ancient texts functioned for different members of the early church, and how we can read them responsibly today.