The aim of this study is to examine John Chrysostom’s views on slavery, specifically in his homilies on the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. Roman slaveholding is approached as a complex habitus, and Chrysostom’s negotiation with and reimagination of this habitus is examined. The method of enquiry used is a cultural-historical analysis, and the theories of Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu are extensively utilized. Moreover, based on the work of Jennifer Glancy, slavery is approached as a corporeal discourse – one focused on the slave as a body. The discursive formation of the slave-body is further deconstructed into four related corporeal discourses – namely the domesticity, heteronomy, carcerality and commodification of the slavebody. The study commences by revisiting and re-reading Hellenistic, early Roman, Judaistic, and early Christian sources on slaveholding from a cultural-historical perspective in order to reconstruct the main discursivities of the habitus of Roman slaveholding. Then, the first question asked is how Chrysostom understands the domesticity of the slave-body. Based on his exegesis of the haustafeln, it is concluded that Chrysostom negotiates and reimagines the discourse in three ways: a) he proposes a shift from strategic to tactical slaveholding; b) he formulates his theology, especially hamartiology and eschatology, on the Stoic-Philonic metaphor of domestic slavery; and, c) he advises that domestic slaves be reformed by being taught Christian virtue and trades. Secondly, Chrysostom accepts the heteronomy of all bodies, and hence uses slavery as a basis for his ethics. The body is either ruled by God or sin/passions, and the problem of institutional slavery is downplayed. Thirdly, Chrysostom affirms that slaves should remain in their carceral state and stay obedient to their masters, while masters ought to treat slaves justly since they are also slaves of God. Finally, Chrysostom sees slaves as both economic and symbolic capital, and the shift to tactical slaveholding supports his more general vision of promoting a popular asceticism in the city. Chrysostom does not simply accept, ameliorate or reject slaveholding – we rather see sophisticated discourses of negotiation and reimagination of slaveholding to fit in with his wider programme of social and ascetic reform among Christian households.