Well, you did make this claim. I did challenge you on it. It seems like you tried to respond with the quote from Luke to which I expressed my befuddlement.
The point of the Luke passage was that someone assumed that Jesus would take his side to handle an "unfair" situation.
Jesus flatly refused. This refusal does not mean Jeus "supported" an unfair disproportion of wealth. Jesus perceived that pure coveteousness was at the root of the man's seemingly legitimate complaint.
Our attempts to "recruit" the Son of God over to our side can betray in us that same attitude. Wives can do it, not to speak of husbands. Slaves can do it, not to speak of slave masters.
And now here we are and as far as I can tell, the challenge still stands. This remains a claim you have made with little conclusive support. I desire to be shown wrong. Please show me where in the gospel Jesus supports a social ordering of man to women and master to slave.
Here is my objection to your assumption. The word "support" you use as if it is God's endorsement of various imperfect and sometimes evil systems.
Did Jesus "support" leper colonies because not every leper went away healed ?
Did Jesus "support" cheating in collecting taxes because not every tax collecter like Matthew (Levi) became His disciple ?
We have Paul giving instructions to people who, when they believed in Christ, were in the Roman system of bondservant / master relationship. I don't read those instructions of Paul as Paul's endorsement or support of the social systems for their own sakes.
No. I have never asked for laws or the introduction of politics. You keep building things into my position that I have never said such as the idea of social revolution. That is not necessary. Paul doesn't have to speak out about how the Roman government allows slavery. All he has to do is either argue that Christians themselves should make their OWN CHOICE not to own slaves, or simply say nothing about the institution of slavery and let his previous exhortations override the issue of slavery.
We have in the New Testament a few words of Paul's exhortations to slaves and masters. We also have an epistle dedicated to how he handled a situation. That is a runaway slave of a Christian brother. And the slave becomes a Christian. He ends up in prison with Paul.
Why he is released I don't know. I am not even sure if it was mandatory that the law return him to his master. However, Paul is sending him back with a letter TO his master, the epistle of Philemon.
If you cannot honestly see in that letter that Paul skillfully touches the conscience of that slave master that his runaway slave is to be received as a :
1.) Beloved Christian brother
2.) A co-worker of Paul himself in his Gospel work.
3.) A servant of the very Christ Philemon loves
4.) As Paul's own heart, Paul's child
5.) Co-equal in status with Philemon's own physical son as a believer.
6.) A person who OWES Philemon exactly NOTHING, because any loss is to be charged to Paul's account.
If you cannot see these things, I don't know how I can help you.
No, I have no example of Paul commanding Philemon to immediately release all of his servants. That I cannot find.
But the point which he made in Colossians, Ephesians, and Galatians is made again. If Philemon wants the normal Christian church life experience he has to realize that there
"CANNOT BE" social oppression of master against his slave.
Let me put it this way. The two matters are mutually exclusive. If you want males oppressing females then you have to give up the normal church. If you want the normal church then you have to give up male oppression of females.
You may have an abnormal and degraded kind of church. But you cannot have the blessedness of the prevailing church.
"There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ." (Galatians 3:28)
The two are mutually exclusive. We cannot have the church life and have social oppression of any kind. We have to have oneness in Christ.
This should not be taken to mean that because there cannot be male and female then I can go boldly into the women's bathroom because in the church "there cannot be male and female".
Peter tells the Christian husbands to dwell with their wives with knowledge. This implies to me that he should recognize the essential differences in the male and female physical, psychological makeup.
Likewise, if you want slave with and underclass status to master in the church then you cannot have the normal church. That will be a degraded thing, an abnormal thing, a corrupted thing. That is because in the
"one new man" -
"there cannot be slave or nor free man" .
I think the letter of Philemon demonstrates Paul carrying out this kind of ministry towards the church.
Instead, Paul goes out of his way to mention Christian slave masters in their position of continuing to own slaves after their conversion.
If Philemon was so incensed against the runaway slave Omisemus, do you honestly think his attitude remained the same after that letter? And that knowing that Paul was soon himself possibly to visit the church meeting in his house ?
I believe that Philemon got a real education. Now I do not know exactly what happened when Onesimus returned. I am willing to research the possibilities. But Paul says the he has confidence that Philemon would do above and beyond what Paul was requesting of him.
It really is that simple, this has nothing to do with overall social progress, being a revolutionary, or trying to change overall attitudes about slavery or women's rights.
It is not? That is not your beef with Paul? It seems that you wish he stood on his authority as an apostle and commanded not only Philemon but everyone else who was a master, to declare an Emancipation Proclamation.
Maybe Abe Lincoln is your man.
This characterization of my position is your own fabrication.
Yes. Thats fine. But what examples he chose ARE telling of what the power of his message is. He chose entrenchment of the subordination of women and the entrenchment of the insitution of slavery. It shows that this message is shrouded by the primitive culture of his time which makes it FAR less likely that this is an enduring moral axiom. Worse, what it has helped to create is an enduring immoral axiom.
Paul exhorts also the Christian to greet one another with a holy kiss. This was indicative of the times.
I think I want to avoid either extreme. I want to recognize that the customs of the day of his writing is reflected in his writing somewhat. But on the other hand I cannot dismiss his exhortation for wives to be subject to THEIR OWN husbands. And husbands should love to the uttermost their wives.
This is somewhat a difficult matter like
Romans 13 concerning human government. It is nearly impossible to imagine that when Paul wrote Romans 13 Ceasar Nero was the emperor. I don't think Paul was implying by subject to God ordained governments, that Christians should line up to go to the lions with all submission to Nero's blood thirsty persecutions.
I have to discontinue for the moment.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)