PAUL: 1
Corinthians 7:21-22.
20 Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. 21 Were
you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can
gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than
ever.[c] 22 For
whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging
to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ.
S. Scott Bartchy outlines[1]
the varying interpretations of this text, using two ‘readings’ of the text:
scholars, translations and theologians[2]
who favor “take freedom” and those who favor “use [or stay in] slavery.” For
those who accepted the first category “take freedom,” we have Origen of
Alexandria,[3] Ephraem and
Syrus,[4]
Jerome,[5]
the opponents of Chrysostom,[6]
Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, C. Hodge, Lightfoot, C.H. Dodd, the RSV, C.F.D. Moule,
NEB and TEV. Modern commentators include Gordon D. Fee,[7]
Philip Payne,[8] Robert A. J.
Gagnon[9]
and Alan F. Johnson.[10]
For those who prefer the “use [stay
in] slavery” opinion, we have Chrysostom,[11]
Ambrosiaster, Cyril of Alexandria, Pelagius, John of Damascus, Sedulius Scotus,[12]
Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bengal, Jonathan Edwards, Von Harnack,
Goodspeed, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kummel, Kasemann and Barrett.
So, the question comes to this: did
Paul call for slaves to attain freedom, or to stay as a slave? The bigger
historical question is could a slave refuse manumission (freedom)? Most plausibly,
he/she couldn’t. Reasons for manumission are complex,[13]
but usually derived from the generosity or personal interest of the owner.
Social “generosity” included egoism and narcissism,[14]
but one doubts that a freed slave would care much for the reasons of
manumission. In regards to the slave’s options regarding their freedom, “Under
both Greek and Roman law, a person in slavery could seek to bring nearer the
day of his manumission by working hard and by conducting himself in a manner
which pleased his owner.”[15]
Financially, one could buy their manumission, as a slave once bragged “he paid
50,000 sesterces for his freedom.”[16]
Most probably, since slaves were within the poverty line, hard labor and the
good nature of their owner was their most likely method of freedom. The nature
of Mark 10:45 “ransom for many” evocates the language not only of liberation
from slavery (physical) but also that this is something that the Messiah sought
to fulfill. To fulfill this, to some early Christians, was to be “in Christ.”
In short, it is historically
implausible that a slave (still beneath his or her master) could refuse his
manumission from the owner that still owns him. Since there is no evidence for
this, the nature of “but if you are actually able to be free, take advantage of
the opportunity” (CEB) is clear: do not be bothered if you are ‘called into
Christ’ when you are in slavery. But since you cannot remain a slave when
manumitted, ‘do not become [or stay] as a slave to people.’ Paul’s awareness of
the historical nature of manumission (as well as his Judaism) supports the
reading of “take freedom” since a slave simply didn’t have any alternative.
Bartchy notes that “as a first
century Jew from Tarsus who had spent much time in Jerusalem, Paul was
well-acquainted with the enslavement of both Jews and Gentiles…”[17]
Paul was most likely not unsurprised by the institution of slavery, but was
aware of the tension displayed in Galatians 3:28 as well as the fundamental
equality for every human being.[18]
Since the shift of the eschatological age, Paul was clearly not comfortable
with slavery. As Gagnon suggests, “…1 Cor. 7:21 should be read as Paul’s
attempts to support freedom from slavery as at least penultimate good.”[19]
Slavery was a given in the ancient world, and it must be said that Paul wasn’t
on a campaign to end the institution. However, since manumission was not an
isolated occurrence in the first century, many slaves ‘in Christ’ could attain
their freedom and be brought out of slavery [both physical and spiritual] to
serve Christ; and Paul most certainly wouldn’t prevent them from fulfilling
their “status of being the Lord’s free person” (CEB).
[2] The list apparently surprised Gordon D. Fee who calls
the findings “impressive!” 1 Corinthians, 316 n41. In the following list, Bartchy’s opinion is of course the
former reading.
[3] Who twisted the text to mean, “Go free from marriage.”
[4] Both who took it to mean, “go free to preach.” While
arguably as convincing as Origen’s reading, this does display some hope that
slaves could indeed be ‘preachers.’
[5] He read it as free “from marriage.”
[6] Unnamed as Chrysostom doesn’t give them (and us) the
benefit of any recognition.
[11] Who argues against the unnamed opponents in n359.
[12] Who took it as “stay in marriage,” a reading that
suggests matrimony was anything but a picnic in those days.
[13] As opposed to Civil War slavery, the system wasn’t
entirely predicated upon the skin color of the slave.
[14] “An owner usually based good treatment of slaves on
the desire to gain a reputation for generosity rather than on insight into a
slave’s inherent equality as a human being.” S. Scott Bartchy, “Slaves and
Slavery in the Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, 176.
[16] Marleen B. Flory, “Family and Familia’: A Study of
Social Relations in Slavery” Ph.D dissertation 1975, Yale. 112.
[18] Paul’s consistent use of ‘slave language’ to describe
himself and others attests to this point. We were once “slaves of sin” (Rom
6:16-20); Paul has “made himself a slave to all…” (1 Cor. 9:19); “slaves for
Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 11:20); “no longer a slave, but a child, and if a child
then also an heir, through God” (Gal. 4:7); “become slaves to one another” (Gal
5:13) and ultimately, Paul says this of Christ who “took the form of a slave”
(Phil 2:7).
[19] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual
Practice, 444. While he disagrees
with some of Bartchy’s translational work, he supports the overall thesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment