Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

270
Journal of Biblical Literature
points out the subtle contradiction in Paul’s responses to the Corinthian church
regarding marriage and the situation of Christian slaves. Paul makes it clear
that legitimate sexual expression is limited to marriage and that the integrity of
a Christian’s body is crucial to the integrity of the Christian body as a whole.
Using Paul’s logic, a slave’s sexual relationship with her master would be considered
porneiva. 62 Glancy concludes that “the sexual obligations incumbent on
many slaves would have presented sometimes insuperable barriers to their participation
in churches of the Pauline circle.” 63
Because in 4:1–6 the Petrine author urges the Christians to stay away from
the licentious practices of the non-Christians, we may assume that he held
views similar to those of Paul. But his address to the slaves indicates that he
considered them to be integral members of the Christian communities in Asia
Minor. This means one of three things: (1) the slaves were not faced with sexual
demands; (2) the author does not care that the slaves are participating in un-
Christian sexual activity; or (3) some slaves were refusing to submit sexually.
The third option seems to be the most likely because it makes the most sense in
light of the author’s discussion of suffering. It is likely that at times the slaves
were being severely punished for refusing or resisting sex upon request. 64 Does
that mean, therefore, that the author urged them to submit to or accept authority
(which would have meant sexually) to avoid the suffering and to appear
“good” to the outside world, as Corley and others assert? 65 That is hardly plausible,
considering that his statement immediately preceding the Haustafel is to
urge them “to abstain from the desires of the flesh” (2:11). 66
So what does “accept authority” (uJpotavssesqe) mean in this context?
First, that the slaves are to endure unjust treatment. The author defines this as
suffering for behaving correctly (do right and suffer for it), which would
62 Glancy, “Obstacles to Slaves,” 496, 499.
63 Ibid., 501.
64 There is no evidence that they successfully prevented the sexual advances, but resisting in
any form would have been disobedience.
65 Corley, “1 Peter,” 353. In truth, anyone who supports the assimilationist view would have
to argue that this is exactly what the author had in mind. Schüssler Fiorenza writes that according
to 1 Peter the slaves and wives “should seek to reduce suffering and tensions as much as possible by
a lifestyle that is totally conformed to the customs and ethos of the pagan household and state” (In
Memory of Her, 261). Her argument must be that the author of 1 Peter supported the kind of sexual
service being demanded of Christian slaves by their masters.
66 This exhortation before the Haustafel should not be construed as implying that the slaves
who are addressed specifically in the Haustafel somehow “desired” the sexual relationships they
had with their masters. The exhortation regarding sarkikw'n ejpiqumiw'n is clearly meant as a general
suggestion for the entire Christian community, not the slaves specifically. The author’s exhortations
to holiness (1:13; 2:9), discussions about the negative behaviors of the Gentiles (4:3–4), and
his assumption that the slaves are moral beings (2:18–21) indicate that he would not condone a
slave’s sexual service.