Porneia, sexual immorality and romantic love, committed love in marriage.

[lismore]

Good point/question - this was common in both Greek and Roman society. Church Father Clement of Alexandria (+/- 190-200 AD) states a slave woman who is ordered by her master to prostitute herself commits no sin if she obeys, because she has no power to refuse. The guilt belongs entirely to the owner.

Historical accounts show efforts by Christians to buy these female slaves free to relieve them from this horrible situation.

Thank you for your reply. Yes that would make sense. God Bless

 

[jonojim1337]

Good point/question - this was common in both Greek and Roman society. Church Father Clement of Alexandria (+/- 190-200 AD) states a slave woman who is ordered by her master to prostitute herself commits no sin if she obeys, because she has no power to refuse. The guilt belongs entirely to the owner.

Historical accounts show efforts by Christians to buy these female slaves free to relieve them from this horrible situation.

Says here he didn’t specifically adress sexual abuse of slaves:

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Says here he didn’t specifically adress sexual abuse of slaves:

View attachment 373835

I will look up a more detailed quote .. thanks for asking for detail

 

[jonojim1337]

You mean to tell me, the Roman citizenry had an interest in sharing their inheritance with plebians? No sir, that is called a bastard, and that is generally looked down upon.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I will look up a more detailed quote .. thanks for asking for detail

More detailed quote:

The same holds true for the maidservant who is under the yoke of slavery; she too is in another's power, that is, her master's. But if she is a believer, let her regard herself as belonging to God, not to her master, and let her keep her body pure for the Lord who bought her with his own blood. [...] But if her master is an unbeliever, let the believing maidservant bear up, knowing that she is serving the Lord Christ. Let her not maltreat her flesh but rather adorn it chastely, keeping it pure and undefiled for the Lord. For it is not permitted her to fornicate or to surrender her body to anyone but her own husband. But if she is forced by her master, let her pray to be given strength to endure and not to sin against the Lord. For the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and must be kept in holiness.

Upon reading better I agree it's more likely he was referring with 'endure' to persist in refusal than to let her master have his way with a sinful plan. Under Torah law though the master could have married her still himself but any believing master would never be allowed to force his slaves to commit sin - including prostitution.

PS: later theologians do seem to provide this exoneration in case of force/coercion - e.g Augustine (The city of God - +/- 420 AD):

But since purity is a virtue of the soul, and has for its companion virtue, the fortitude which will rather endure all ills than consent to evil; and since no one, however magnanimous and pure, has always the disposal of his own body, but can control only the consent and refusal of his will, what sane man can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses his purity?

And this seems a rhetorical question.

 

[jonojim1337]

More detailed quote:

The same holds true for the maidservant who is under the yoke of slavery; she too is in another's power, that is, her master's. But if she is a believer, let her regard herself as belonging to God, not to her master, and let her keep her body pure for the Lord who bought her with his own blood. [...] But if her master is an unbeliever, let the believing maidservant bear up, knowing that she is serving the Lord Christ. Let her not maltreat her flesh but rather adorn it chastely, keeping it pure and undefiled for the Lord. For it is not permitted her to fornicate or to surrender her body to anyone but her own husband. But if she is forced by her master, let her pray to be given strength to endure and not to sin against the Lord. For the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and must be kept in holiness.

Upon reading better I agree it's more likely he was referring with 'endure' to persist in refusal than to let her master have his way with a sinful plan. Under Torah law though the master could have married her still himself but any believing master would never be allowed to force his slaves to commit sin - including prostitution.

PS: later theologians do seem to provide this exoneration in case of force/coercion - e.g Augustine (The city of God - +/- 420 AD):

And this seems a rhetorical question.

While slaves did not enjoy the rights of a trial, it doesn’t stop anyone from viewing this as a shameful act.