|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 0:37:34 GMT
St. Paul's admonishment to slaves to obey their masters in no way refutes the fact that he told a Christian slave master to receive back a former slave as a friend. First of all, it wasn't "a former slave" - it was his own son. Not by blood, but by love. Second, he didn't tell the slave master to receive him as friend rather than slave, he beseeched him to. Third, you are placing the cart before the horse. This is the correct way to look at it: Paul's request to have Onesimus freed in no way contradicts his position that slaves should be diligent to their masters. Throughout the history of slavery we have slave owners granting freedom to slaves, or people asking for individuals to be freed, who were not opposed to the institution of slavery. There is no contradiction, as there is no overlap. Just because you want something to happen to one specific individual, does not mean you want the same to happen to all individuals of the same demographic. Yes, indeed - specifically, even if they were not rewarded in this life, they'd be rewarded all the more in the next. And slave owners didn't mind this at all, because here was a religion which told slaves to be content to be slaves! So there was incentive both from below and above to encourage Christianity, which is a major reason why it spread so fast. As already mentioned, St. Paul was not a rebel leader; just a missionary. Hence, he did not encourage rebellion from the people that were slaves, who were Christians. That's right. People awaited being awarded in the next life. Hence, they humbly lived their lives as slaves, and other low-class positions, because their Lord too, had Suffered in this life, and is now the King of Heaven. The pagan Roman masters/mistresses of the Christian slaves worshipped Mars, the god of war & bloodshed, as well as other gods, and enjoyed hedonistic lifestyle in the PRESENT life.
|
|