NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp oiket:

rwp@1Peter:2:18 @{Servants} (\hoi oiketai\). Note article with the class as with \andres\ (3:7|), though not with \gunaikes\ (3:1|). \Oikets\, old word from \oikos\ (house), means one in the same house with another (Latin _domesticus_), particularly house servants (slaves) in distinction from the general term \doulos\ (slave). "Ye domestics." See similar directions to Christian servants (slaves) in strkjv@Colossians:3:22-25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:5-7; strkjv@1Timothy:6:1f.; strkjv@Titus:2:9f|. \Oikets\ in N.T. occurs only here, strkjv@Luke:16:13; strkjv@Acts:10:7; strkjv@Romans:14:4|. {Be in subjection} (\hupotassomenoi\). Present middle participle of \hupotass\, common late compound to subject oneself to one (Luke:2:51|). Either the participle is here used as an imperative (so in strkjv@3:1,7|) as in strkjv@Romans:12:16f.|, or the imperative \este\ has to be supplied (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 945). {To your masters} (\tois despotais\). Dative case of \despots\, old word for absolute owner in contrast with \doulos\. It is used also of God (Luke:2:29; strkjv@Acts:4:24,29|) and of Christ (2Peter:2:1; strkjv@Jude:1:4|). \Kurios\ has a wider meaning and not necessarily suggesting absolute power. {To the good and gentle} (\tois agathois kai epieikesin\). Dative case also with the article with class. For \epieiks\ see on ¯James:3:17|. There were slave-owners (masters) like this as there are housekeepers and employers of workmen today. This is no argument for slavery, but only a sidelight on a condition bad enough at its best. {To the froward} (\tois skoliois\). "To the crooked." Old word, also in strkjv@Luke:3:5; strkjv@Acts:2:40; strkjv@Phillipians:2:15|. Unfortunately there were slave-holders as there are employers today, like this group. The test of obedience comes precisely toward this group.

rwp@Luke:16:13 @{Servant} (\oikets\). Household (\oikos\) servant. This is the only addition to strkjv@Matthew:6:24| where otherwise the language is precisely the same, which see. Either Matthew or Luke has put the \logion\ in the wrong place or Jesus spoke it twice. It suits perfectly each context. There is no real reason for objecting to repetition of favourite sayings by Jesus.