Crucifixion of a slave?

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Ben

This would seem to require 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 to be an interpolation.
(Theoretically one could imagine a Jewish slave of a Jewish master crucified by his master in contravention of Jewish halakah, but it seems unlikely.)

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

This would seem to require 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 to be an interpolation.
(Theoretically one could imagine a Jewish slave of a Jewish master crucified by his master in contravention of Jewish halakah, but it seems unlikely.)

I agree with this.

[Ben C. Smith]

It may be significant that the first epistle to Timothy both acknowledges the role of Pontius Pilate (6.13) and also simultaneously sheds some of the abovementioned Pauline and Petrine naïveté concerning rulers; 1 Timothy 2.1-2 NASB:

1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

Now one is to pray for rulers so that there may be tranquility.

It actually seems fairly difficult to find Christian statements about the governing authorities that are as naïve as what we find in Romans 13.1-7 and 1 Peter 2.13-17. Cyprian at one point simply quotes part of the former, without comment, as part of a catena of scripture passages. Clement of Alexandria at one point in book 1 of The Instructor uses Romans 13.3 as part of an a fortiori argument (to the effect that, if rulers are not a terror to a good work, then God, by nature good, cannot be a terror to those who do not sin). But I have so far not found any Christian author who (A) is actually writing about Christian relations with secular rulers and (B) assumes the goodness of those rulers without qualification. There always seems to be at least a hint that rulers can be evil as well as good.

Titus 3.1-2 NASB (and of course refer to 1 Timothy 2.1-2 above in this respect):

1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men.

Martyrdom of Polycarp 10.2 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... hoole.html):

10:2 The proconsul said, Persuade the people. But Polycarp said, I have thought thee indeed worthy to receive explanation, for we have been taught to render such honour as is fitting, and as does not injure us, to the powers and authorities ordained by God; but those I consider not worthy that I should make my defence before them.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.24.1-2 (http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeusa ... #chapter24):

1. As therefore the devil lied at the beginning, so did he also in the end, when he said, "All these are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give them." For it is not he who has appointed the kingdoms of this world, but God; for "the heart of the king is in the hand of God." And the Word also says by Solomon, "By me kings do reign, and princes administer justice. By me chiefs are raised up, and by me kings rule the earth." Paul the apostle also says upon this same subject: "Be ye subject to all the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: now those which are have been ordained of God." And again, in reference to them he says, "For he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath to him who does evil." Now, that he spake these words, not in regard to angelical powers, nor of invisible rulers -- as some venture to expound the passage -- but of those of actual human authorities, [he shows when] he says, "For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, doing service for this very thing." This also the Lord confirmed, when He did not do what He was tempted to by the devil; but He gave directions that tribute should be paid to the tax-gatherers for Himself and Peter; because "they are the ministers of God, serving for this very thing."

2. For since man, by departing from God, reached such a pitch of fury as even to look upon his brother as his enemy, and engaged without fear in every kind of restless conduct, and murder, and avarice; God imposed upon mankind the fear of man, as they did not acknowledge the fear of God, in order that, being subjected to the authority of men, and kept under restraint by their laws, they might attain to some degree of justice, and exercise mutual forbearance through dread of the sword suspended full in their view, as the apostle says: "For he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath upon him who does evil." And for this reason too, magistrates themselves, having laws as a clothing of righteousness whenever they act in a just and legitimate manner, shall not be called in question for their conduct, nor be liable to punishment. But whatsoever they do to the subversion of justice, iniquitously, and impiously, and illegally, and tyrannically, in these things shall they also perish; for the just judgment of God comes equally upon all, and in no case is defective. Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of nations, and not by the devil, who is never at rest at all, nay, who does not love to see even nations conducting themselves after a quiet manner, so that under the fear of human rule, men may not eat each other up like fishes; but that, by means of the establishment of laws, they may keep down an excess of wickedness among the nations. And considered from this point of view, those who exact tribute from us are "God's ministers, serving for this very purpose."

Tertullian, Scorpiace 14 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian18.html):

No doubt the apostle admonishes the Romans to be subject to all power, because there is no power but of God, and because (the ruler) does not carry the sword without reason, and is the servant of God, nay also, says he, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. For he had also previously spoken thus: "For rulers are not a terror to a good work, but to an evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shall have praise of it. Therefore he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid." Thus he bids you be subject to the powers, not on an opportunity occurring for his avoiding martyrdom, but when he is making an appeal in behalf of a good life, under the view also of their being as it were assistants bestowed upon righteousness, as it were handmaids of the divine court of justice, which even here pronounces sentence beforehand upon the guilty. Then he goes on also to show how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, bidding you pay "tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom," that is, the things which are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things which are God's to God; but man is the property of God alone. Peter, no doubt, had likewise said that the king indeed must be honoured, yet so that the king be honoured only when he keeps to his own sphere, when he is far from assuming divine honours; because both father and mother will be loved along with God, not put on an equality with Him. Besides, one will not be permitted to love even life more than God.

Tertullian, On Idolatry 15 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian02.html):

Therefore, as to what relates to the honours due to kings or emperors, we have a prescript sufficient, that it behoves us to be in all obedience, according to the apostle's precept, "subject to magistrates, and princes, and powers;" but within the limits of discipline, so long as we keep ourselves separate from idolatry.

Origen, Against Celsus 8.65 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en168.html):

Moreover, we are to despise ingratiating ourselves with kings or any other men, not only if their favour is to be won by murders, licentiousness, or deeds of cruelty, but even if it involves impiety towards God, or any servile expressions of flattery and obsequiousness, which things are unworthy of brave and high-principled men, who aim at joining with their other virtues that highest of virtues, patience and fortitude. But whilst we do nothing which is contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so mad as to stir up against us the wrath of kings and princes, which will bring upon us sufferings and tortures, or even death. For we read: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." These words we have in our exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, to the best of our ability, explained at length, and with various applications; but for the present we have taken them in their more obvious and generally received acceptation, to meet the saying of Celsus, that "it is not without the power of demons that kings have been raised to their regal dignity." Here much might be said on the constitution of kings and rulers, for the subject is a wide one, embracing such rulers as reign cruelly and tyrannically, and such as make the kingly office the means of indulging in luxury and sinful pleasures. We shall therefore, for the present, pass over the full consideration of this subject. We will, however, never swear by "the fortune of the king," nor by ought else that is considered equivalent to God. For if the word "fortune" is nothing but an expression for the uncertain course of events, as some say, although they seem not to be agreed, we do not swear by that as God which has no existence, as though it did really exist and was able to do something, lest we should bind ourselves by an oath to things which have no existence. If, on the other hand (as is thought by others, who say that to swear by the fortune of the king of the Romans is to swear by his demon), what is called the fortune of the king is in the power of demons, then in that case we must die sooner than swear by a wicked and treacherous demon, that ofttimes sins along with the man of whom it gains possession, and sins even more than he.

Theophilus, To Autolycus 3.14 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book3.html):

And that we should be kindly disposed, not only towards those of our own stock, as some suppose, Isaiah the prophet said: "Say to those that hate you, and that cast you out, Ye are our brethren, that the name of the LORD may be glorified, and be apparent in their joy." And the Gospel says: "Love your enemies, and pray for them that despitefully use you. For if ye love them who love you, what reward have ye? This do also the robbers and the publicans." And those that do good it teaches not to boast, lest they become men-pleasers. For it says: "Let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth." Moreover, concerning subjection to authorities and powers, and prayer for them, the divine word gives us instructions, in order that "we may lead a quiet and peaceable life." And it teaches us to render all things to all, "honour to whom honour, fear to whom fear, tribute to whom tribute; to owe no man anything, but to love all."

Apostolic Constitutions 4.13 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07154.htm):

Be subject to all royal power and dominion in things which are pleasing to God, as to the ministers of God, and the punishers of the ungodly. Render all the fear that is due to them, all offerings, all customs, all honour, gifts, and taxes. For this is God's command, that you owe nothing to any one but the pledge of love, which God has commanded by Christ.

Ben.

[robert j]

This is a little game of what if, in five steps, just exploring various options in the (at least potentially) early epistles.

What if (1) we were to take the Christ hymn in Philippians more literally when it says that Christ took the form of a slave? That is, in early Pauline circles, Jesus was not thought of as the free peasant he appears to be in the gospels, but was regarded as actually in servitude of some kind and as actually having died the kind of death one might die in such servitude. Philippians 2.5-11 NASB:

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant [μορφὴν δούλου]...

Is it possible that a very early layer of Christianity imagined Jesus as having been an actual slave, crucified by a cruel master (at the behest of demonic powers)? What do you think, pro or con?

Ben.

Just thinking out loud here.

The primary basis for your suggestion here is the Christ hymn in Philippians.

Several key words in that passage are subject to a variety of opinions on their intent and meaning --- volumes could be written (and have been written) on the subject. Perhaps none more so than with the term morphe (μορφῇ).

What was the intent of the author? What ancient precedents should be followed? Plato? Aristotle? The LXX?

How did the author intend to relate Jesus to God? Appearance? Form? Nature? Essence? Exact equivalent? I think the most common translation as “form of God” has become a safe, but rather vague translation --- but perhaps the best one can do. Of course some bibles go a bit farther with “very nature God” and at least one much farther with “is God”.

In Philippians 2:6-7 (using the translation you provided) --- Jesus existed previously in the morphe of God ---

who, although He existed in the form of God (μορφῇ Θεοῦ), did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Then he willingly took the morphe of a slave/bond-servant/servant (all appropriate translations of δούλου) ---

but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant (μορφὴν δούλου)

To your suggestion, if the author’s intention was to characterize Jesus here as “was a slave” using the term morphe, wouldn’t it follow that the author’s intention would be the same with God? That is, was actually God. Are you willing to apply that same connotation of morphe with God here?

[Ben C. Smith]

To your suggestion, if the author’s intention was to characterize Jesus here as “was a slave” using the term morphe, wouldn’t it follow that the author’s intention would be the same with God? That is, was actually God. Are you willing to apply that same connotation of morphe with God here?

I am, yes. I believe that, for Paul as for other very early Christians, Jesus = Yahweh in some way. Prerogatives and powers which in the Hebrew scriptures belonged to Yahweh now belong to Jesus (to the extent that, where the LXX applied "the Lord" to Yahweh, Christians now apply "the Lord" to Jesus). So Jesus is, at least in some way, equal to God.

The language of "forms" brings us back to what I perceive to be the story to which all the early epistles attest (be they Pauline, pseudo-Pauline, or other): a redeemer myth of some kind, which in various versions involves a change of form for the son of God, as in the Ascension of Isaiah, or here in the Naaseene Hymn:

But Jesus said, Father, behold,
A strife of ills across the earth
Wanders from thy breath (of wrath);
But bitter Chaos (man) seeks to shun,
And knows not how to pass it through.
On this account, O Father, send me;
Bearing seals, I shall descend;
Through ages whole I'll sweep,
All mysteries I'll unravel,
And forms [μορφάς] of Gods I'll show;
And secrets [κεκρυμμένα, literally hidden things] of the saintly path,
Styled "Gnosis," I'll impart.

Or here in the Teachings of Silvanus:

O soul, persistent one, in what ignorance you exist! For who is your guide into the darkness? How many likenesses did Christ take on because of you! Although he was God, he was found among men as a man. He descended to the Underworld. He released the children of death. They were in travail, as the scripture of God has said. And he sealed up the (very) heart of it (the Underworld). And he broke its (the Underworld's) strong bows completely. And when all the powers had seen him, they fled, so that he might bring you, wretched one, up from the Abyss, and might die for you as a ransom for your sin. He saved you from the strong hand of the Underworld.

Or in the Epistle of the Apostles:

13 Now that which he revealed unto us [the apostles] is this, which he spake: It came to pass when I was about (minded) to come hither from the Father of all things, and passed through the heavens, then did I put on the wisdom of the Father, and I put on the power of his might. I was in heaven, and I passed by the archangels and the angels in their likeness, like as if I were one of them, among the princedoms and powers. I passed through them because I possessed the wisdom of him that had sent me. Now the chief captain of the angels, [is] Michael, and Gabriel and Uriel and Raphael followed me unto the fifth firmament (heaven), for they thought in their heart that I was one of them; such power was given me of my Father. And on that day did I adorn the archangels with a wonderful voice (so Copt.: Eth., Lat., I made them quake--amazed them), so that they should go unto the altar of the Father and serve and fulfil the ministry until I should return unto him. And so wrought I the likeness by my wisdom; for I became all things in all, that I might praise the dispensation of the Father and fulfil the glory of him that sent me (the verbs might well be transposed) and return unto him.

It is not my claim that any of these texts predate Paul, but I suspect his talk of likenesses and forms is based on something similar to the substance of what they have preserved.

[Bernard Muller]

I think the servant/slave in Philippians 2:7 is to be understood as servant/slave of God, humbling himself & obedient unto death to God (2:8), even if Christ was in position to be equal to God (2:6).

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

I think that the early Christians themselves simulated the death of Christ by crucifying a real slave on the earth. That slave was considered the humanoid Christ kata sarka for all the few hours of the sacred drama.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think the servant/slave in Philippians 2:7 is to be understood as servant/slave of God, humbling himself & obedient unto death to God (2:8), even if Christ was in position to be equal to God (2:6).

Bear in mind that θεὸς can mean either God (the God) or god (a god), and that the definite articles can make a difference:

Philippians 2.5-11: 5 τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῶ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῶ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῶ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, 10 ἵνα ἐν τῶ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, 11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

[outhouse]

This is a little game of what if, in five steps, just exploring various options in the (at least potentially) early epistles.

What if (1) we were to take the Christ hymn in Philippians more literally when it says that Christ took the form of a slave? That is, in early Pauline circles, Jesus was not thought of as the free peasant he appears to be in the gospels, but was regarded as actually in servitude of some kind and as actually having died the kind of death one might die in such servitude. Philippians 2.5-11 NASB:



Ben.

Well, why wouldn't/couldn't Nazareth be a work camp for the rebuilding of Sepphoris ? I think it was. As a Satellite village I'm not sure how free these oppressed peasants actually felt, if they were even free. Your getting into the socioeconomics of Galilee and its required to answer your question, and it is still heavily debated quite well from the poverty side, and not so well from the middle class view of apologist.

The well would not have enough water for Agrarian needs outside of what the terraces could supply for local villagers. The rock cut water channels were to small for a city like Sepphoris.

[outhouse]

Is it possible that a very early layer of Christianity imagined Jesus as having been an actual slave, crucified by a cruel master (at the behest of demonic powers)? What do you think, pro or con?

Ben.

Early layer?

Some of the early traditions could have surely been as such, is that the actual context Pauline text describes? I think there were different levels of oppression as to where we could claim some without the Roman title of slave could be viewed as such in Roman society. The authors had a motive to keep Roman oppression on the downlow so to speak, they surely were not going to write anything that would be a threat to the temple or that would be death.

So you wont find much for that whole cruel master theme without reading between the lines.