Johnny Scholar

This weekend I will begin a study of 1 Peter in Sunday School. I am looking forward to starting things off with the three major arguments against Petrine authorship (which are all reasonable and quite compelling). Since I am indeed employed by the church, I must also follow up with the Christian refutation of these arguments, which, although they are not as impressive, they do show that none of the opposition’s arguments are decisive.

But that is not what I want to talk about at present. I am having difficulty with the issue of slavery in the Bible, particularly in 1 Peter. At first glance it seems that the author indirectly endorses slavery in his epistle. If this is the case, I am not sure how to teach the material without betraying my own beliefs against such atrocity. After further reflection, I am not convinced that this is the case.

Set forth is an argument that shows how Christianity does not endorse slavery, nor condone the harsh practices common to the ancient world. Please review this and discuss with me the faults you may (and most likely will) find in my thinking.

Slavery was a reality in the ancient world. Peter and Paul’s letters merely reflect the nature of this institution (i.e., cruelty, fairness, justice, injustice, etc.). I see little evidence (particularly in regard to the New Testament) that proves that the Bible authors endorse slavery.

Paul himself encouraged slaves to seek freedom whenever possible. 1 Corinthians 7:20-21 says, “Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you-- although if you can gain your freedom, do so.�

The purpose of Paul’s letter to Titus is that he forgive and show mercy to one of his slaves.

But because Paul and others do not condemn slavery, does it necessarily follow that they endorse it? This would be an argument built on silence.

The church was instructed to treat their slaves with respect. Colossians 4:1 says, “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.�

According to Christian doctrine, slaves and masters are spiritually equal. (Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.� ) Regardless of whether or not the idea of “spirit� has any real meaning, the doctrine is set forth nonetheless.

It can be further argued (which I don’t necessary agree with) that other biblical teaching (i.e., defense of the poor, dignity of life, etc.) has led to the demise of slavery altogether in the West. There is, in my opinion, too much evidence to the contrary. I would argue instead that Biblical Christianity has done much harm, especially when it comes to civil matters.

The bottom line, however, is that I don’t see enough evidence to prove that the author of 1 Peter endorsed slavery as a just and right institution.

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.
20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

PoodleLovinPessimist

But...

How is this not an explicit endorsement of slavery?

The concept that "Slavery was a reality in the ancient world. Peter and Paul’s letters merely reflect the nature of this institution," is utterly unconvincing. The Bible is not a political platform for a party attempting incremental change; it's supposedly a statement of the universal principles of an omnipotent God.

To be blunt, it's this sort of intellectual... equivocation... that leads me to hold the opinion of Christianity as not only false but also ridiculous.

MortalWombat

So was paganism and extramarital sex, yet the epistle writers had no problem condemning those acts.

Chili

Isn't "buy now-pay later" a form of slavery?

Are not all religious obligations a form of slavery?

Are not all idols a form of slavery . . . including and especially the idea of eternal rewards after we die?

Looking at it this way there has never been more slavery in the history of mankind as there is today in our modern world.

I personally think that slavery is good and that slavery is very good but only if the master is worthy and not luring us with empty promises of good things to come after we die.

Jedi Mind Trick

Very good point.

Also, the NT endorses the OT and the OT definitely encouraged slavery.

blt to go

Can't add much to what was said. The NT has no problems recognizing events and actions that take place in society and commanding against their use.

Paul even goes to the nitpick that women should not wear gold or pearls. Should cover their head when they pray and that Men should not have long hair.

Paul has no problem with limiting the institution of marriage, as to who can or can't get divorced (which was also occuring) eating meat sacrificed to idols, who can drink wine, how much, and so on.

The NT recognizes that slavery exists, and says NOTHING about eliminating it. At the least this is an endorsement that as an institution it is acceptable. It may not necessarily be mandating slavery, but Paul doesn't mandate marriage either. Says you can take it or leave it. Does that mean there is no endorsement for marriage?

However, not to derail much, I am wondering how you will handled the word, "likewise" in Chapter 3 vs. 1. (some versions say "in the same way.")

It is talking about wives being submissive to their husbands, "in the same way." The "same way" as what? The previous verses? Chapter 2 is talking about slaves being submissive to their masters to the point of being beaten.

Is the author stating in Chapter 3 that a wife should take a beating from her husband?

Curious what they (or you) would say.

andrewcriddle

If you mean in Aristotle's sense (Some people are meant to be slaves some people are meant to be masters the only problem is that the people who end up being slaves and masters are not always the people who should be slaves and masters), then it is most unlikely that the author of 1 Peter endorsed slavery in this way.

a/ The NT evidence is against this

b/ Hardly anyone except Aristotle seems to have thought this way anyway.

The general position in the ancient world about slavery was that it was in one sense unpleasant and unjust but there was little realistic alternative.

(Modern examples of things regarded like thiis might be unemployment and nuclear weapons.)

The author of 1 Peter and other NT writers did not positively approve of slavery as something that would be part of an ideal society, but saw it as something that had to be accepted in the imperfect society they lived in and not as something that should be repudiated whatever the cost.

On the practical level they were probably right that abolishing slavery was not a realistic option for the Roman Empire of their day.

Whether or not slavery is so great a moral evil that it should have been condemned whatever the practicalities is of course another matter.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Semeia special issue on Slavery

Semeia, a publication of the SBL, is a scholarly publication. Johnny, this issue may contain information you need.

Vorkosigan

Johnny Scholar

It is not explicit because Peter (or whoever the hell wrote it) dealt with a range of life situations, not just slavery. The author was encouraging the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor to be encouraged during their trials (specifically trials as a result of following the teachings of
Christ). The epistle was not meant to be a commentary on the ethics of slavery at all.

How is 1 Peter 2:18 possibly an explicit endorsement of slavery?

Gullwind

There is also a slippery slope regarding the defense that slavery was commonplace at the time which is why it is not condemned. The implication there is that the culture defines what is moral and what is not.

There are lots of things today that are commonplace, but that most Christians would certainly not want to be considered moral.

Frankly, the slavery issue has become one of the strongest reasons I have for not believing in Christianity any longer.