Chris Weimer

CF is christianforums.com - I got both positive and negative responses, but so far no moderation.

spin

Much of the discussion here seems superfluous to the subject.

First, whereas "Paul" in Ephesians and Colossians accepts the notion of slaves and masters, because masters should be nice to their slaves as well, "Peter" doesn't give the masters' side of the coin. Perhaps Christianity hadn't made it up that far in the social structure at the time of 1 Peter as compared to the time of Ephesians and Colossians or perhaps 1 Peter was already shaping the reality by omitting statements about masters and referring only to household servants (see following). And of course the writers of Ephesians and Colossians endorsed slavery: it was after all the status quo for the epoch, just as Southern xians endorsed slavery when it was the status quo in the south. Masters are to be nice to their slaves, not, note, masters give up your slaves.

Second, 1 Peter talks not of "slaves" (douloi) per se, but "household servants/slaves" (oiketai), ie not the type that ends up in the fields or in the mines. The poor often sold themselves into slavery during Roman times to take up posts in households, not in the fields or mines, the other alternative being the hack and thrust of soldiery, though this naturally did exclude women.

Let's assume that 1 Peter reflects a status quo in which many xians were servants in households. It doesn't mean that the epistle supports slavery, though it does accept its reality in the lives of the servants who were xians.


spin

cognac

For comparison, it's interesting to see how the early Christian writers (post NT) dealt with the issue. The NT seems to "accept" slavery and this attitude continues up until the time when Christianity became the official religion. If you read the guys who wrote after that, the attitude changes. Once Christianity gained official power, the writings turn from acceptance of slavery to an actual justification for its existence.

Angrillori

Bingo.

It's GOD talking about these "objective" truths and morals that are universal, for all time, and all humanity.

GOD had one book to lay out his objective system of truth and morality for the future of the human race, and in it he endorses slavery.

?

PoodleLovinPessimist

The only way the bible works is if it's 100% the Word of God. If there some parts of it that are not the Word of God, then we must have some way of picking out the good bits and discarding the bad bits. But if we have to have some extra-biblical method of doing so, whatever method we've chosen to apply to the bible can be applied directly to the world; there is no longer a need for the bible to determine what's true.

French Prometheus

I think any discussion about slavery and the NT is incomplete if we leave out Jesus' own words on the topic. We can discuss Pauline or Petrine theologies but Christians are supposed to be Jesus' followers after all.

Luke 12
47 That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. [...]

That sounds pretty much like endorsement to me.

NB : The word "servant" is misleading. The Greek word is doulos which means slave (even in modern Greek). It never refers to a free man who works as a servant.

Chili

. . . including the endorsement of indulgences. When much is given much will be required suggests that a sacrifice is necessary and with the abolishment of slavery indulgences became a good alternative (more convenient as well).

I think Jesus was talking about religious slavery in this parable.

French Prometheus

Well, as usual Chili, your interpretation is...exotic (for lack of a better word).

Atheist_Mama

You can justify it however you want, your argument is nothing new. I have heard the excuse "it was an accepted practice back then." The point is that 1. If your god was a fair, just and all knowing god he would not condone letting one person OWN another person and he would KNOW that it is wrong. 2. The bible says that all men are equal but these passages condoning slavery contradict that.

chapka

Presumably their personal economic wellbeing was dependent on their not giving all of their possessions away to the poor, but Jesus didn't seem concerned about that.

I think one of the most damning passages is one you quoted:

"But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?"

Here a good slave's unjust beating is compared to the "justified" beating a slave receives for not being obedient to their master. In this view, a slave with an unreasonable master, who does their job well but is beaten anyway, is building up treasure in heaven. But a slave who tries to run away just gets what they deserve; there's no merit in that.

That's an endorsement of the system, in my mind. Jesus is talking about unjust suffering being good for the soul. But to him, a slave's suffering isn't unjust if the slave has done something "wrong," like trying to escape slavery or displeasing his or her master.

It seems from your OP that you're teaching in a fundamentalist context. I think the solution you're searching for is the right one; it just doesn't fit comfortably in a fundamentalist worldview. Yes, slavery was part of the culture of the time, and just because people writing at the time were part of that society, we shouldn't discount everything they said. The Founding Fathers wrote about equality and liberty; the fact that they only meant for land-owning white males doesn't change the fact that it's a good idea; it only means that it's a bad idea not to try to improve the ideas they left us.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that this is only a problem if you assume that the Bible records the exact words of Jesus and that Jesus was speaking universal truths. But if you do assume that, then I don't think there's any way around it: Jesus did not oppose slavery or see it as morally wrong.