1 Corinthians 7:21

21. Servant As opposed to freeman in 1 Corinthians 7:22; the word, doubtless, here implies a slave.

Care not for it Care not in the sense of repining. You have a divine freedom; let that inspire you with a free contentment with your condition. That fully obeys the law of abiding stated in 1 Corinthians 7:20.

But A limitation now comes to the extent of that law of abiding. If In the Greek ει και , if also; that is, if, in addition to, or over and above this Christian uncaringness, thou art able to become a freeman, for such is the Greek reading.

Use it rather The question is to what the it here refers. Some refer it to δουλεια , slavery, implied in the word servant or slave. Others refer it to ελευθερια , freedom, as is implied in the words made free. Stanley considers the grammatical question between these two as remarkably evenly balanced, assuming that there is no third supposition. We think, on the contrary, that it refers to neither. Beyond reasonable doubt, we think, it refers to the chance of being free implied in δυνασθαι , art able. (Whilst revising these notes for the press we find, with satisfaction, that Dr. Fairbairn suggests the same reference. Our own notes stand precisely as they were written months before seeing his work on the “Pastoral Epistles.”) Alford maintains that the meaning is, use slavery, and supports it elaborately by a series of arguments which we think to be so many mistakes.

1 . He argues that also implies an additional thought in the same direction with the antecedent thought. This is true, and our interpretation, as above, provides for it. The antecedent thought is the moral freedom of Christian quietude, and the also implies an additional thought in the same direction, namely, the actual chance of emancipation.

2. But the position of this also, ( και ,) he says, ought, by the interpretation he opposes, to be not before, but after art able. That is true, we reply, if freedom is supplied as the reference of it; but if, as we suppose, the chance implied in art able is the reference, the also is placed just right.

3. The but, he says, expresses too strong a contrast. Assuredly not. The contrast is between remaining a contented slave and the becoming a freeman; a contrast justifying a very strong but.

4. The absence of a supplied objective after use ( it is supplied by the translator, as the italics show) flings us back, not on the secondary subject of the sentence, freedom, but the primary, slavery. But our interpretation makes it refer to neither slavery nor freedom, but to the being able to be free; and that is the subject of the entire sentence after the but; if thou hast a chance to be free use it in preference.

5. Our interpretation, Alford says, is inconsistent with the context; for the context tells the Christian to remain as he is, and the interpretation tells him to change his position. But Alford entirely misconstrues the context. Paul does not, as Dr. Hodge well says, forbid a man to “better his condition.” He does not forbid a journeyman mason becoming a boss mason: or an employe laying up money and becoming a capitalist and an employer; or a rail splitter’s behaving himself well and becoming president. What he is forbidding is, the expectation that Christianity is to break up the social order and fling every believer out of his position in the general system. The direction, therefore, to the slave, to remain a free-hearted slave, or to become free in accordance with social order, is truly telling him to remain in the system as he is.

6. But our interpretation, he says, makes the apostle “turn out of his way to give a precept of merely worldly wisdom, that a slave should become free if he could.” But is the direction to rise, if possible, from slavery, “a precept of mere worldly wisdom?” For a man to remain a voluntary slave when he might be free is a base self-degradation, an endorsement of the enslavement of others, and thereby a heinous wickedness. It is none the less this because, under the Mosaic law, a slave might prefer slavery, and so have his ear bored as a token of perpetual bondage; for that, like polygamy and free divorce, was on account of the hardness of the hearts of that age. A perverted state of society may, no doubt, exist under pagan despotism, where all are virtual slaves, in which emancipation may bring no higher wellbeing, moral or economical, especially for some individuals. But as Christianity asserted the law of marriage, so it could not but assert the moral obligation of every man to be free, unless the social state held him fast. The Christian was morally bound to be a freeman if possible. And in the day when a government becomes Christian when right and progress are understood principles, slave laws and fugitive-slave laws are crimes and have no validity then it is the duty of the slave, according to the law of revolution, when the opportunity arrives to assert his freedom by war and blood. Short of that it is his right, if possible, to escape; and the “underground railroad,” that aids his passage, is no unrighteous institution.

7. Finally, Alford asserts that the Greek for use is better suited to the word for slavery than for freedom, and he quotes so old an author as Herodotus to justify his criticism on the New Testament. All this has nothing to do with our position; which is, that neither freedom nor slavery is the object of use, but the chance of emancipation. And it is conclusive to our purpose for us to say that every instance in the New Testament of the Greek word for use has for its object a means to an end. And here it means to use the chance of emancipation as a means to the end of becoming a freeman.