7L. The Role of Christian Slaves

The most illuminating adaptation of household terms to theological ideas is the constant assertion that Christians are the servants of God. Their leaders are God's stewards (1 Corinthians 4. 1; Titus 1. 7; 1 Peter 4.10), and the duty with which they are entrusted is the administration of God's goods for the benefit of the household (1 Corinthians 9.17; Ephesians 3. 2; Colossians 1.25). More commonly still, they are simply servants, stressing the subjection rather than the trust. These metaphors from slavery suggest how far the institution was appreciated as a means of support for the otherwise unrepresented and helpless. The bond frequently excited feelings not of resentment, but of personal devotion and loyalty towards the master. Moreover, as with the centurion whose servant was dear to him' (Luke 7.2), the bond could be the basis of mutual affection. (3)

All One in Christ

1 Peter 2:18-25 commands Christian slaves to submit to their masters. It is possible that it was more common in these churches for slaves to be Christians than masters, since masters are not addressed (cf. 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10) and since the lengthy theological foundation establishes Christ's suffering as the pattern for Christian slaves who must continue to suffer unjustly. The unique Christological grounding reveals the special circumstances of the churches to which Peter writes (cf. the confessional material used to ground the behaviour in Titus 2:11-14; 3:3-7). In any case, the church's calling to engagement in the world prohibited slaves from opting out of this social institution. To encourage anything else would be regarded by unbelievers as anarchy.(5)

Additions to the Gathering

Positively then, a house functioned to encourage additions to the gathering, but it also presented problems for a group with the baptismal confession affirming that "there is no longer slave or free" (Galatians 3:28b; cf. I Corinthians12:13c). The Christian confession and the design of Greco-Roman houses were at odds with each other. As we saw above, "one dominant imperative in a slave-owning society was to contrast adequately the servile and other areas of the house." Most kitchens, where slaves worked, were poorly lit and never decorated, or they had red vertical stripes in the corners. Owners of larger houses "deliberately segregated" cooking and dining, placing the smells, noises, and persons of the kitchen as many meters as possible from the dining rooms. The kitchens were "nowhere" where "nobodies" worked. At the Greco-Roman symposium, guests and sometimes uninvited guests reclined and were served by these slaves. Plutarch argues, against his two brothers, that typical honours at a symposium must be done as carefully as possible.

Social Relationships Turned Upside Down

True, once annually at the Saturnalia, social relationships were turned upside down; without regard to rank, family, or wealth, each took whatever couch he for she wished, drank the same wine as the rich host, ate the same food, and the rich host and his friends served the household slaves. Because they rejected slavery, the Therapeutae described by Philo went further: Slaves never served at their symposia. Instead they appointed the most virtuous young men to serve the others, which surely means that the young aspired to perform this service. How did the Pauline church resolve these tensions? Unlike the Therapeutae, they seem to have continued their former customs, maintaining distinctions between rich and poor, masters and slaves: (7)

Invite the Poor

Lucian wrote a letter: "Tell them [the rich], moreover, to invite the poor to dinner, taking in four or five at a time, not as they do nowadays, though, but in a more democratic fashion, all having an equal share." "When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord's Supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?"(1 Cor. 11:20-22b) Only the elite had the leisure to go to thermal baths in the early afternoons and to begin their meals in mid-afternoon, a contrast to their poorer clients or slaves who lacked either the time in the afternoon or the resources to bring their own food. Lampe gives an outline of Greco-Roman meals and suggests how they might have structured the Corinthian Eucharist: "First tables," the afternoon meal, began around 3 p.m., but the poor and some slaves would arrive only in time for "second tables."

First Tables

Two problems result: First, the wealthy would have eaten their food, and the latecomers would have brought little or none. Lampe cites a similar problem in Xenophon. Participants in the potluck brought their own meat, fish, and vegetables, but some brought a lot, others little, each keeping their own. Socrates thought this destroyed fellowship at the meal; therefore, he instructed the slaves either to redistribute food baskets to all, or to distribute the food itself, so that sufficient food was placed before everyone. Paul suggests something similar, probably with the slaves still serving. First Corinthians 11.33 shows that Paul wants the Corinthians to eat a meal. Lampe observes that the term Paul uses for "dinner" never refers only to bread, but also to foods that were eaten with the bread, and he suggests then that verse 34 ("if anyone is hungry, let this one eat at home") must be interpreted in light of verse 33 ("when you come together to eat, wait for one another"). If a wealthy person had visited the baths and was hungry, let him or her eat something at home before going to the congregational potluck. (7)

Serving Model

Jesus makes himself a model of the one serving. Luke 14.26b contains an imperative: "Let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves." The apostles remain leaders; there are "great ones among you" (v. 26b). But the leaders are somehow to become "as" those held in low esteem, as the young, as one serving. The ordinary pattern of kings ruling, of their being benefactors, has something negative about it, so that Jesus is recommending something extraordinary. A benefactor, a patron, places a client in an inferior position by the benefaction, so that the latter is indebted to the patron, which Jesus is criticizing. Some interpreters see a close relationship to John 13, where Jesus washes the disciples' feet, although the term "serve" does not appear in the Johannine account. Luke 12:35-38 and Mark 13:33-37 are closer: Slaves wait for the master to come home, who when he finds them awake, "will gird himself and have them sit at table, and he will come and serve them" (Luke 12:37).

The Lukan parable of the doorkeeper astoundingly has the master serving the slaves, quite as remarkable as Jesus modeling servant leadership. Reading both Luke 12 and 22, some interpreters understandably suggest that Jesus was serving others reclining at the meal. Such a symbolic action would have been astounding in a Greco-Roman house. We have seen Foss's observations that the wealthier the Greco-Roman house, the farther they "segregated" the kitchen and its slave staff from the dining rooms and their elite. (7)

Questions for Discussion

1. How does a "servant attitude" affect our relationships to one another?

2. Discuss the phrase "there is no longer slave or free."

Bibliography

(5.) Selections from "Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development" editors Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. A Compendium of Contemporary Christian Scholarship Copyright All rights reserved.

"You are fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household." Ephesians 2.19

^ top of page | next | previous