Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

Post Reply
User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic

Post by Gwarlroge » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:02 pm

All right. I lost track of where we got in the "Real Issue" thread, so here's a new thread addressing one basic question I had.

I hope I have not turned the argument into a strawman. Either way, it goes like this.

When Paul tells slaves, masters, husbands, and wives to do things in a certain way, he is working within a given culture. In Paul's case with the Ephesians and Colossians, the culture contained slavery and patriarchy. Scripture never tells us that we should be slaves or patriarchalists. Indeed, Scriptural principles tell us that we should not be either of those. Master/slave and husband/wife authority structures have no basis in Christian teaching. Paul intended Christian societies to outgrow these things. Therefore [etc. etc.] we should be egalitarians and not complementarians, just as we should not be pro-slavery activists.

Did I get this right? If so, then I have some questions (which may later turn into opinions).

1. Why should we assume that slavery is wrong or undesirable? (I am being serious. I find nothing wrong with slavery as it is described in Scripture.)
2. Why would Paul support a "free" society (i.e. one with no slaves)? On what grounds can we infer this from his letters (or the NT in general)?

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic

Post by KR Wordgazer » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:49 pm

Paul's letters say everyone in Christ has "adoption as sons" of God. In the original language that means someone adopted to full status as a freeborn male Roman citizen. We ALL have the same status. We are all "brothers and sisters" in Christ, with God as our Father and Christ as the Firstborn. Therefore it makes no sense in Christ for us to own one another. In fact, it makes no sense philosophically, if all humans are created by God, all descended from Adam and Eve, to think we have a right to own one another like property. Each person's conscience needs to be free to serve God. That's why Paul told slaves that if they could obtain their freedom, they should.

Question: when you say "as described in Scripture," are you referring to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the kind of slavery they practiced with their fellow Israelites? Or are you talking about Roman slaves in the New Testament? I certainly hope you see something wrong with the latter!
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic

Post by Gwarlroge » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:15 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:Paul's letters say everyone in Christ has "adoption as sons" of God. In the original language that means someone adopted to full status as a freeborn male Roman citizen. We ALL have the same status. We are all "brothers and sisters" in Christ, with God as our Father and Christ as the Firstborn. Therefore it makes no sense in Christ for us to own one another. In fact, it makes no sense philosophically, if all humans are created by God, all descended from Adam and Eve, to think we have a right to own one another like property. Each person's conscience needs to be free to serve God. That's why Paul told slaves that if they could obtain their freedom, they should.
Makes sense.
Question: when you say "as described in Scripture," are you referring to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the kind of slavery they practiced with their fellow Israelites? Or are you talking about Roman slaves in the New Testament? I certainly hope you see something wrong with the latter!
Oh, whoops! The first kind. :)

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic

Post by Metacrock » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:40 pm

Gwarlroge wrote:All right. I lost track of where we got in the "Real Issue" thread, so here's a new thread addressing one basic question I had.

I hope I have not turned the argument into a strawman. Either way, it goes like this.

When Paul tells slaves, masters, husbands, and wives to do things in a certain way, he is working within a given culture. In Paul's case with the Ephesians and Colossians, the culture contained slavery and patriarchy. Scripture never tells us that we should be slaves or patriarchalists. Indeed, Scriptural principles tell us that we should not be either of those. Master/slave and husband/wife authority structures have no basis in Christian teaching. Paul intended Christian societies to outgrow these things. Therefore [etc. etc.] we should be egalitarians and not complementarians, just as we should not be pro-slavery activists.

Did I get this right? If so, then I have some questions (which may later turn into opinions).

1. Why should we assume that slavery is wrong or undesirable? (I am being serious. I find nothing wrong with slavery as it is described in Scripture.)
2. Why would Paul support a "free" society (i.e. one with no slaves)? On what grounds can we infer this from his letters (or the NT in general)?
eee gad.

slavery is abusive and exploitative. IT's the rich and powerful exploiting the poor. Apologists create the nonesne that it was a sweet sentimental way of life where precious family retainers were valued and so forth, that's all garbage.

They discovered where the slaves at Pompey got to, they hid in caves and died. They have examined their remains they say they were worn out. the worked so super hard they were wrong out. that's the only thing that's going to come of controlling people' lives.

It is wrong to control people's lives, other then for the civil good.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
met
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic

Post by met » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:07 pm

Would you like to see American troops shipping, maybe, Third World and Middle Eastern women and children back to your country in chains to do all the menial work for Americans and have their offspring in that same situation in perpetuity?

. . . and there's nothing wrong with that?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic

Post by Gwarlroge » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:38 am

Metacrock wrote:
Gwarlroge wrote:slavery is abusive and exploitative. IT's the rich and powerful exploiting the poor. Apologists create the nonesne that it was a sweet sentimental way of life where precious family retainers were valued and so forth, that's all garbage.
Some of it was, though, wasn't it? Yet probably most of it wasn't. :/
They discovered where the slaves at Pompey got to, they hid in caves and died. They have examined their remains they say they were worn out. the worked so super hard they were wrong out. that's the only thing that's going to come of controlling people' lives.

It is wrong to control people's lives, other then for the civil good.
:/

User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic

Post by Gwarlroge » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:39 am

met wrote:Would you like to see American troops shipping, maybe, Third World and Middle Eastern women and children back to your country in chains to do all the menial work for Americans and have their offspring in that same situation in perpetuity?

. . . and there's nothing wrong with that?
No, I wouldn't like to see that.

Post Reply