Barrett Vs Horsley Analysis

Theses Statement

Both C.K. Barrett and Richard A. Horsley tackle the common issue of slavery in the bible, but Barrett defends the argument that those who convert to Christ should remain in the social status they were apart of when they converted, whereas Horsley states that those who converted should be able to change social statuses, regardless of what status they belong to prior to the conversion.

Religion Essay has to be 1800 words to 2000 good luck idiot

For years, people have used the Bible as an argument against the cruel practice of slavery in the new world. A slave is defined as "a human being who is the property of another and subject to compulsory labor, beyond the limits of the family” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics p.596).

K. Barrett’s argument is that everyone who walks this Earth was placed in the social status they are presently in by God, and that this is how it should remain. This can be seen on page (156) in the quote, “Let each one walk according to the lot the Lord has apportioned him, as God has called him." However, the assembly of this verse makes its Greek translation adequately unclear. Barrett 's use of the word "walk" is metaphorical, and the word "called" in this context holds two meanings: The first is to literally walk. The second equivalently means to follow; therefore the text is basically directing to let each person “follow” according to the lot the Lord has appointed. This verse shows that Paul is not thinking primarily of a vocation to which a man is called, but of the condition in which a man is when the concerting call of God comes to him and summons him to the life of the Christian faith. This gives presumption that God wants the converter to remain in the state at which he was converted. In addition, Barrett states that those who were called to become Christians in a state circumcision do not have to undo their circumcision, and those who were uncircumcised when called to the faith do not have to be circumcised to stay in the faith. On page ( ), Barrett writes, “Were you a slave when you were called?... Let not that trouble you, but even though you should be able to become free put up with your present status.” ( ). Overall, Barrett 's main argument states that

Looking at Horsley article, historically the canonical Paul has proven very useful for the legitimation of as well as the subordination of women. Most believed that Paul’s spouse stance on slavery in particular and his supposed social conservatism was based on such limited textual evidence seems dumbfounding when we realize that the advocates of a socially conservative Paul simply assume a particular phrase in 1 Corinthians 7:21-24. Another key factor to the argument that Horsley points out is that the “translation” on this passage is conjectural and highly contested. In the New international Version (NIV) it says “21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.” While in the young literal translation it says “21a servant — wast thou called? be not anxious; but if also thou art able to become free — use [it] rather; 22for he who [is] in the Lord — having been called a servant — is the Lord’s freedman: in like manner also he the freeman, having been called, is servant of Christ: 23with a price ye were bought, become not servants of men; 24 each, in that in which