 |  |
There is an alternative idea as to the translation of the latter half of verse 21 advocated
by Coneybeare, Bengel, Meyer, etc., which would make it read:
"Wast thou in slavery at the time of thy calling? Care not for it. Nay, though thou
have power to gain thy freedom, rather make use of thy condition" (Coneybeare's
translation).
There are thus two opposing views as to what Paul is here advising, both equally
admissible on the grounds of the language alone. Either Paul is recommending the slave
to accept any offer of freedom given to him, or to refuse the same. One factor which
weighs heavily with the latter view is the proximity of the Lord's coming (parousia) at
the time of I Corinthians. In the very same chapter Paul is advising the unmarried to
remain so, "for the present distress" (7: 25-29) and in view of the fact that "the time is
short" (verse 29). Should not the slave manifest the same attitude?
Even if the above be conceded as Paul's attitude during the Acts period, there is no
need to imagine that this continued to be so when the hope of the Lord's parousia was
postponed at Acts 28:
In I Timothy (a post-Acts 28: epistle) the Apostle
advises the younger widows to marry and bear children, a recommendation contrary to
the spirit of I Cor. 7: Only the recognition of a changed dispensation will account for
this. And also in the light of a changed dispensation it seems highly improbable that Paul
would recommend slavery in preference to freedom, if that freedom could be obtained
lawfully. "The independent position of the freeman would give him an obvious
advantage in doing the work of Christ, which it is difficult to imagine St. Paul enjoining
him deliberately to forego" (Lightfoot).
Turning however to the main point in I Cor. 7: 20-24, it will be observed that the
slave was to be content with his lot, untroubled by his position in society. He was to be
aware that his condition in this life meant little when seen in the light of the Lord's work
in him. He was the Lord's freeman and as such stood on an equality with all who were
the Lord's. A realization of this position would make his condition in this life tolerable.
Paul never condoned slavery; what he did was to remind those who suffered under it, of
their position in Christ. In the flesh the slave had nothing; in Christ he was rich beyond
dreams. (Compare Col. 3: 23-25).
The second passage which has a bearing upon Paul's attitude to slavery is
I Tim. 6: 1-10. The passage begins with an exhortation to slaves to "count their own
masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his (literally `the') teaching be
not blasphemed". This exhortation seems to be directed especially at slaves with
unbelieving masters in contrast to verse 2, "they that have believing masters". What
grace would be needed to obey such an exhortation when the master might well be a
tyrant, with no sympathy whatsoever towards the beliefs of his slave, yet "the name of
God and the teaching" was at stake.
Not all however held `the teaching' here referred to. There were those who would not
consent to "wholesome words" (verse 3), who apparently taught the slave to adopt quite a
contrary attitude. Why should he acquiesce to his position in his life! why remain