Formato de orden de trabajo

This section will first outline the problems of 1 Cor. 7:21 in order to understand the major points that make the verse difficult to interpret, and explain why the opinions of the scholars are divided. A survey of the interpretive problems is expected to provide a basic understanding that will apply throughout the history of interpretation in the latter half of this section. The scholarly views from the time of the church fathers to the modern period will be surveyed chronologically.

5.1.1 Outlining the issues

In 1 Corinthians Chapter 7, Paul discusses the issues of marriage, celibacy and divorce. Within this larger context, he refers to the issues of circumcision and manumission, which were important

576 _{In the New Testament, ‘freedman’ only appears in 1 Cor. 7:22 and in Acts 6:9. The passage in the}

book of Acts mentions that that there was a so-called ‘synagogue of the Roman freedmen’ (Liberti/nwn), which suggests their widespread presence in Roman society. It may also imply their connection with the synagogues in Rome.

transitions of status in the daily life of the people (vv. 17-24). The general theme that runs through these issues is that Paul teaches the Corinthians to remain in the condition in which they were called; in v. 18 and 19, he states that both circumcised and uncircumcised must not change their

circumstances since the issue is of no importance. Paul then proceeds to discuss the issue of

manumission in v. 21. If the question is understood in the same manner as in the case of circumcision, it can be assumed that slaves must remain as slaves. He adds that one should not be troubled by this matter, since, according to his theological account, there is a reversal of status (v. 22). Thus, the tenor of the passage appears to be that he advises a continuation of status. However, the verse which is the key to interpreting this passage is obscure. In v. 21, after writing that if a slave is able to become free, Paul uses the verb xrh=sai577 (use [it]578), but omits the object (see the texts and the translations below). Thus, readers must fill in the ellipsis with an appropriate phrase or word, in addition to selecting a relevant meaning for each word in the sentence. The two major understandings that have been discussed by scholars are (a) to supply ‘slavery’ (th|= doulei/a|) as the elliptical object of the verb, in which case v. 21cd would mean: ‘even if you are able to become free, use the condition of slavery more’ (i.e. ‘remain in slavery’); and (b) to supply ‘freedom’ (th|= e0leuqeri/a|) as the object, which would convey the contrary meaning: ‘if you are indeed able to become free, by all means, take freedom’. The earliest debate known on the question is stated in the work of John Chrysostom in the fourth century, which shows that there was a continuous debate about the understanding of the passage;579 and, as will be discussed, the debate still continues today.580 The major translations of the

577 _{The verb is the aorist imperative, 2}nd _{person singular of a deponent verb xra&omai.}

578 _{Other meanings have been suggested, e.g. Bartchy proposes the meaning as ‘to live according to’.}

Bartchy, MALLON XRHSAI, p. 156. See 5.2.4 for details.

579 _{‘We are not ignorant that some say, the words, ‘use it rather’, are spoken with regards to liberty:}

interpreting it, ‘if you can become free, become free’. But the expression would be very contrary to Paul’s manner if he intended this.’ John Chrysostom, Homily 19, Pg 61: 155-64. Cf. John Byron, Recent Research on

Paul and Slavery (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), p. 94.

580 _{The commentators from ancient to modern who provide th=| doulei/a| include Peshitto, Chrysostom,}

Theodoret, Bengel, De Wette, Weizsäcker, Heinrici, Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, Schmiedel, B. Weiss, Bachmann, Bousset, Lietzmann, J. Weiss, Sickenberger, Kiefl, Juncker, H.D. Wendland, Goodspeed. Those who provide th=| e)leuqeri/a| include Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Evans, Zahn, F. Godet, J.B. Lightfoot, Goudge, v. Walter, Steinmann, Schlatter, Moffatt. For the views of the more recent scholars, see the discussion below (5.1.2). Cf. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (tr. W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich; Fourth revised and augmented ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p.

Bible are almost equally divided into two camps,581 but the balance of the opinions of recent scholars is said to have shifted toward the ‘take freedom’ view.582 Before examining the history of

interpretation in scholarship, it may first be important to give a brief outline of the problems in 1 Cor. 7:21, which may help us grasp a picture of the problems entailed in interpreting the crucial issues.

7:21

dou=loj e0klh/qhj, mh/ soi mele/tw: a)ll’ ei0 kai\ du/nasai e0leu/qeroj gene/sqai, ma~llon xrh=sai.

[RSV] Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.583

[NRSV] Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.584

7:22

o( ga_r e0n kuri/w| klhqeij dou=loj a)peleu/qeroj kuri/ou e0sti/n, o(moi/wj o( e0leu/qeroj klhqei\j dou=lo&j e0stin Xristou=.

[RSV] For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.

[NRSV] For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ.

The two translations, namely RSV and NRSV, are given above as examples (note the

892; Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A critical and exegetical commentary on the First Epistle of St.

Paul to the Corinthians (The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New

Testaments Series; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1961 [first published in 1911]), pp. 148; Bartchy,

MALLON XRHSAI, pp. 6-7 (Table I: A Synopsis of the Interpretation of 1 Cor. 0721); A.C. Thiselton, The

First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 554-6.

581 _{For the translations which suggest the reading of ‘remain in slavery’: NRSV, NJB. For the}

translations which suggest the reading of ‘take freedom’: AV/KJV, RV, RSV, TEV, NIV.

582 _{Byron, Recent Research, p. 114. Briggs, ‘Bondage and Freedom’, p. 111. The third option has been}

proposed by Bartchy: ‘by all means, live according to [God’s calling]’. Bartchy, MALLON XRHSAI, p. 183.

583 _{The alternative translation is suggested in the footnote to 1 Cor. 7:21 in RSV: Or make use of your} present condition instead.

584 _{The alternative translation is suggested in the footnote to 1 Cor. 7:21 in NRSV: Or avail yourself of} the opportunity.

difference especially in v. 21). There are several elements to be considered that allow the passage to be interpreted in two ways.585 The main point is that the object of the verb xrh=sai is absent, as mentioned above. The context of the passage favours the ‘remain in slavery’ reading, considering that Paul repeats the importance of ‘remaining in the condition when they were called’;586 _{thus, th|=} doulei/a| can be supplied for the elliptical object of the verb. However, the tense and mood of the verb suggest the ‘take freedom’ interpretation, since the aorist imperative conveys the meaning of a ‘command to do something instantly, or once for all’,587 _{and not that of a continuous state. Thus,}

585 _{The third possibility, proposed by Bartchy, will be discussed below (5.2.4). Bartchy, MALLON} XRHSAI, p. 183.

586 _{Cf. 1 Cor. 7:17, 20, 24, 26.}

587 _{C.F.D Moule, An Idiom–Book of New Testament Greek (2}nd _{ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University}

Press, 1963), p. 20; cf. Margaret E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical

Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1962), p. 82.

For example, the following scholars consider the aorist imperative of xrh=sai to be a reason for the ‘take freedom’ interpretation: ‘the aorist xrh=sai… could be employed far more naturally of using an

opportunity than of continuing in a state’: John Edgar McFdyen, The Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians (Intepreter’s Commentary on the New Testament 6; New York: A.S. Barnes, 1909), p. 48; ‘Still more decidedly does the aorist (xrh=sai, not xrw~) imply a new condition’: Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, pp. 147-8; ‘In the latter case [i.e. ‘remain in slavery’ interpretation] one would have expected a ‘linear’ (Present) Imperative [and not aorist imperative]’: Moule, An Idiom–Book, p. 21; ‘the aorist imperative chr!sai suggests making use of a definite opportunity’: F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992 [1971])p. 72; ‘it is the aorist imperative, which more naturally signifies the beginning of a new ‘use’ than the continuing of the old’: Leon Morris, The first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An introduction and

commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; London: Tyndale Press, 1966 [1958]), p. 114.

While many scholars who maintain the so-called ‘take freedom’ interpretation refer to Moule’s work (An Idiom–Book, pp. 20-1), and invariably assume that aorist imperatives command action that is ‘once-off’ or short in duration (and present indicatives to be continuing action), Moule recognizes that there are exceptions that ‘make one wonder whether the underlying rational has yet been discovered’ (An Idiom–Book, p. 20 [italics his]).

Stanley E. Porter raises concerns that New Testament scholars in many cases follow this traditional view on aorist imperatives (and present imperatives) and ignore the ‘exceptions’; he points out that there are a large number of cases that do not follow traditional understanding (ex. reported by Donovan, Naylor, Poutsma, Louw and Bakker) and concludes that ‘the use of the verb tense alone will not prove which side is correct in this instance ’ (Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and

Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989), p. 357).

Constantine R. Campbell, who generally affirms Porter’s view, comments that ‘Porter’s critique must be heard, as must his surprise at the alarming reality that some grammarians continue to expound accepted axioms long after they have been debunked through scholarly inquiry’ (Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect

and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek 15;

New York: Peter Lang, 2008), p. 82). Campbell explains that the conventional view, i.e. the opposition between present and aorist imperatives, is based on Aktionsart categories that explain verbs on a pragmatic level and cannot be the key to understanding semantic qualities. He argues that there is a need for explanations that distinguish pragmatics and semantics, and that further understanding on both sides enables the development of ‘core values’ that clarify the underlying rational on the issue (pp. 79-83).

from the grammatical account, it is likely that th|= e0leuqeri/a| would be the object of the verb. In addition to this discussion, there are four other main grammatical, lexical and structural elements to be considered,588 _{which will be outlined below.}

(1) The combination of the two particles, ei0 kai/, often introduces a concessive clause, i.e. ‘although’ or ‘even though’;589 2 Cor. 4:16, 7:8a, 7:8c, 12:11 provide examples of this usage.590 As the NRSV takes this view and translates the particles as ‘even if’, this understanding naturally leads the sentence to conclude ‘remain in slavery’. However, if they were understood separately, kai/ would become emphatic and would modify the du/nasai (you are able) or the following clause;591 _examples of this use can be found in the same chapter: 1 Cor. 7:11 and 28.592 In addition, the conjunction a)lla& at the beginning of v. 21c (in front of the ei0 kai/) cannot be dismissed; it is said that the strong

oppositional meaning of a)lla& separates v. 21cd from the previous clauses, and thus serves to introduce a new command in order to speak directly to the slaves among those to whom Paul addressed the letter.593 _{The passage is thus interpreted as: ‘but if you can indeed gain freedom, take} that opportunity’. As shown above, the translation of the RSV is based on this understanding.594

588 _{Cf. Bartchy, MALLON XRHSAI, pp. 8-9; C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the} Corinthians (BNTC; 2nd _{ed.; London: A & C Black, 1971 [first published 1968]), pp. 170-1; G. Fee, The First} Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1988 [1987]), pp. 315-8;

Thiselton, First Epistle, pp. 553-9. Byron, Recent Research, p. 93.

589 _{E.g. Jean Héring, The first epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (tr. from the 2nd French ed. by}

A.W. Heathcote and P.J. Allcock; London: Epworth Press, 1962), p. 55. Cf. C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom Book of

New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953), p. 167 n. 3. For detailed discussions on ei) kai/,

see: Thrall, Greek Particles, pp. 79-81.

590 _{Thrall, Greek Particles, pp. 79.}

591 _{Thrall, Greek Particles, pp. 79. While Jean Héring argues that ei0 kai/ ‘always’ has a concessive}

meaning, C.F.D. Moule, against Héring, considers that kai/ should be taken closely with du/nasai, and translates the clause as: ‘but if you can secure your freedom, prefer to take the opportunity’ (italics are by Moule). Héring,

First epistle, p. 55; Moule, Idiom Book, p. 167 n. 3.

In addition, there are three textual variants of this verse which omit the kai/: F (010): Codex Augiensis, and G(012): Codex Boernerianus, both from the 9th century CE; (a): Individual Old Latin manuscript

(translation). Harrill, for example, considers that these omissions are accidental, rather than the deliberate redaction by scribes in order to interpret the text as ‘take freedom’. Harrill, Manumission of Slaves, p. 119.

592 _{Thrall, Greek Particles, p. 81.}

593 _{E.g. Bartchy, MALLON XRHSAI , p. 113, n. 429; 158, n. 547.} 594 _{However, RSV does not translate the emphatic sense of kai/.}

(2) The ma~llon595 can be used for the adverb ‘more’ to qualify a verb (e.g. ‘use the condition of slavery more’); however, J.H. Moulton, for example, considers it to be an elative comparative, and translates it as ‘by all means’,596 _{which assumes that the following sentence would be ‘take freedom’.} On the other hand, if the adverb is a contrasting comparative, meaning ‘rather’, the reader must define what Paul is contrasting, which could be either of the following understandings: i.e. even if you are able to become free (v. 21c), ‘rather, remain in slavery’;597 _{or, in contrast with not being concerned} about being a slave (v. 21ab), ‘rather, take freedom’.598

(3) Moving on to the next verse (v. 22), Paul explains a theological concept with a conjunction ga&r. With this conjunction, he introduces a reason for what he has just stated in the previous verse. The question is to which part of the previous verse Paul is referring, namely v. 21ab or cd. If v. 22 is referring to the immediately preceding clauses (v. 21cd), it would seem natural to understand v. 21cd as ‘remain in slavery’.599 This is because Paul explains the reversal of their situations through belonging to Christ in v. 22; thus, it would mean: even if you are able to gain freedom, remain in slavery, for there is the reversal of status.

However, v. 22 could also be referring to v. 21ab.600 _{In these clauses, Paul advises that one} should not be concerned about being a slave. Paul here may particularly have in mind the slaves who are in a situation where they cannot gain manumission, and the reason why they should not be