New Testament on slavery

[Mike_from_NJ]

I know you’re not going to be arguing the point any further, so this response is for anyone who picks up the ball with me regarding this line of inquiry.

First of all, the Catholics don’t follow Leviticus.

As per God an act is either good or evil, and whether other nations do the same thing doesn’t change that. Other kids are doing it never worked with my mom and it shouldn’t work with God. Plus, even if it’s not practiced now he did tell his people what he did about acquiring slaves for life in Leviticus. If we say that act is evil now then either it was evil then or something occurred to change that from good to evil.

Second of all, I realize this is a tough question. I am giving you the answer as I received it from a Salesian catechist/ apologist who covered it in a course on “Tough questions raised by Scripture”.

I don’t expect everybody to like the answer, as there’s always someone who will say “God should have done more” or “The Church should have done more” or some other variation on “Bad ol’ Church”. (Which in itself is sort of a variation on “Why does God let bad things happen in the (post-Jesus) world?”)

If God were silent on the matter of slavery then we could base his position on his position on related matters. But he didn’t. He spoke many a word on the matter, all in favor of the practice – spelling out particularly harsh actions that would mean no punishment for the slaveowner. It’s less “God should have done more” and more “God should not have done and said what he did.”

In my experience, most of the time these people are looking to pick at the Church and are not open to accepting the logical explanation, which is that mankind’s moral sensibility evolves and positive changes happen in small steps over time, as well as the whole “maintaining of social order” discussion we just had on this thread.

God imposed many rules on his people. What to wear, eat, say, and do. These were not gradually implemented. God’s call not to kill didn’t start out with allowing killing, then limiting it, then eventually abolishing it. The same is true for honoring the Sabbath or circumcision. A man in the Bible was killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Moses was said to have been almost killed by God for not circumcising his son in a timely manner (luckily his wife was quick with a sharp rock). We don’t get anything resembling a call to end immediately or eventually slavery. Instead what we get is an instruction manual on how to do it.

 

[AlNg]

The New Testament authors were not interested in telling people to rebel against just or unjust systems in a fallen and sinful world. They were interested in people being saved from sin

Isn’t it a mortal sin for a male slave master to enslave a young girl ?

They were interested in people being saved from sin

If so, why didn’t they preach against the sin of enslaving innocent children?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

If so, why didn’t they preach against the sin of enslaving innocent children?

Call me when you’re brutalized because you preach the kingship of Jesus.

 

[OddBird]

Honoring Christ with submission to the person who owns you doesn’t make any sense.

Paul prefaces that with “submit to one another”. It’s telling that he includes masters and slaves in that reciprocal submission. Without going all revolutionary and trying to change the established social order, what he suggests here is actually counter cultural for the Roman society of the time.

If needed, you absolutely have the right to kill your owner to seek freedom from him.

No, you don’t. You can’t achieve good by evil means.

ETA: in the first times of the Church, a good part of what the first Christians were preoccupied with was convincing the Roman authorities that, in spite of their refusal to worship the emperor, they were actually quite inoffensive and non-threatening. Christianity appealed to a lot of “little folk” - poor, humble workers, slaves. It was important for Paul to both make it understood that the notions of master and slave were completely devoid of significance in Christ, and make sure that the social order wasn’t threatened so Christians could have relative peace.

 

[Mmarco]

As per God an act is either good or evil, and whether other nations do the same thing doesn’t change that. Other kids are doing it never worked with my mom and it shouldn’t work with God. Plus, even if it’s not practiced now he did tell his people what he did about acquiring slaves for life in Leviticus. If we say that act is evil now then either it was evil then or something occurred to change that from good to evil.

Slavery has always been evil. You must understand that the Old Testament expresses an imperfect moral law, which is stated explicitly by Jesus in the Gospel:

Matthew 19: 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard . But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Jesus says clearly that the Old Testament contains an imperfect moral law because of the hardness of biblical people’s heart. This is the reason why the Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.

 

[commenter]

Matthew 19: 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard . But it was not this way from the beginning.

There was no slavery “in the beginning”. But some evils take time to eradicate due to hardness of hearts, including our hearts in 2020.

The NT, with it’s Golden Rule, and the two great commands, and much more, provided the raw material to end slavery…in the long run. The NT provides the guidance of the Church, pondering the implications of Scripture and Tradition, which ended slavery.

In the future people will look at us, and wonder how we could have done or condoned so much evil, that we ourselves don’t notice.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

There are three important factors to consider. One, what you bring up isn’t God allowing something then later taking it away. Instead it’s Moses allowing it and God taking it away. Show where God specifically allowed for divorce (apart from sexual immorality). On the other hand, I can point to quite a few verse where God speaks in great detail about approving slavery. For example, he approved beating of slaves hard enough that they could linger and die for a day.

Two, even if you say divorce is wrong it involves the two parties severing an agreement they made. Those who were born into slavery or were purchased as slaves had no choice in the matter. This no way excuses the atrocities committed to those male Hebrew slaves who agreed to serve for 6/7 years, but it shows this is not analogous.

Three, you’ve quoted the passage about Jesus specifically citing divorce as wrong because there is no such equivalent passage regarding slavery.

 

[Beryllos]

On the other hand, I can point to quite a few verse where God speaks in great detail about approving slavery.

God or Moses? Perhaps you could cite a few of those verses.

 

[AlNg]

No, you don’t. You can’t achieve good by evil means.

I disagree. I think it is justified to kill your slavemaster who is holding you as his slave, if that is the only way to escape. I don’t think that slavemasters have the right to buy and sell children at auction so that they can be used as sex toys by the wealthy or be used as forced hard labor by the wealthy. That would be my personal opinion on it.

 

[OddBird]

I don’t think that slavemasters have the right to buy and sell children at auction so that they can be used as sex toys by the wealthy or be used as forced hard labor by the wealthy.

I don’t think anybody has the right to “own” another human being, let alone exploit them as workforce or as a sexual object. This is deeply immoral. I also think that believing that the end justifies the means is a dangerous path, and that by killing someone, even to escape slavery, you lay a claim on their life which is no better than the slaveowner’s claim on the life of the slave.

 

[AlNg]

by killing someone, even to escape slavery, you lay a claim on their life which is no better than the slaveowner’s claim on the life of the slave.

Is it justified to lay a claim on the life of your opponent in war ?

I also think that believing that the end justifies the means is a dangerous path,

So you have to sit down and accept your fate in a concentration camp such as was seen in WWII ?
I suppose that pacifism is the best path and the most ideal one, but I would oppose slavemasters enslaving children and exploiting them for their perversions. I think that the end does justify the means in cases like that. Where the good end is freeing children from being used a sex slaves.

 

[Mmarco]

There are three important factors to consider.

None of your factors is relevant. The point is that Jesus says clearly that the Old Testament contains imperfect moral laws because of the hardness of biblical people’s heart.
Jesus gave us the perfect moral rules “love your neighbour as yourself”, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you”, “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you”.

It is absolutely evident that slavery is uncompatible with Jesus’ teachings; we do not need an explicit teaching directly from Jesus for everything.
Actually we do not know if Jesus spoke to His disciples explicitly also about slavery or not; the Gospels do not report every single word pronounced by Jesus.

John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[Mmarco]

I think it is justified to kill your slavemaster who is holding you as his slave, if that is the only way to escape.

2000 years ago, slavery was permitted by the law; if you had killed your slavemaster, you would have been considered a murderer and condamned to death. There would have been no hope to survive for a slave who had killed his slavemaster.
The times were not yet ready to accept our democratic standards.
The role of christians in history is not the one to make violent revolutions, but to change society with the strength of our faith and ideas.

 

[Julius]

The role of christians in history is not the one to make violent revolutions, but to change society with the strength of our faith and ideas.

This is what differences us from the various violent revolutionaries of the past and present. We do not need a huge revolution to achieve our goals, for we have God on our side, all we need is faith and trust that God knows what he is doing.

 

[AlNg]

2000 years ago, slavery was permitted by the law;

In my personal opinion that was an unjust law. Today abortion is permitted by the American law. IOW, the American law permits a mother to murder her unborn child. Just because the law permits it, does not make it right, at least that would be my personal opinion.

 

[goout]

Mmarco:

2000 years ago, slavery was permitted by the law;

In my personal opinion that was an unjust law.

Marco is making exactly that point

The point is that Jesus says clearly that the Old Testament contains imperfect moral laws because of the hardness of biblical people’s heart.
Jesus gave us the perfect moral rules “love your neighbour as yourself”, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you”, “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you”.

It is absolutely evident that slavery is uncompatible with Jesus’ teachings

 

[Julius_Caesar]

No, you don’t. You can’t achieve good by evil means.

How is obtaining freedom evil?

 

[goout]

OddBird:

No, you don’t. You can’t achieve good by evil means.

How is obtaining freedom evil?

It’s not evil to be free.
Read what he said again.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Julius_Caesar:

OddBird:

No, you don’t. You can’t achieve good by evil means.

How is obtaining freedom evil?

It’s not evil to be free.
Read what he said again.

And again I ask: How is obtaining freedom evil?

Else Gideon, Ehud, and the Maccabees are all murderers.

 

[Hodos]

Isn’t it a mortal sin for a male slave master to enslave a young girl ?

That’s not the way that worked. You are misinformed. If you are asking about Exodus 21:7 a girl who has not yet reached maturity could be engaged to marry, but would serve as a laborer until such time as she reached maturity, and then became the person’s wife. The purpose however of this type of agreement was always marriage, not servitude. In fact, if the person decided for some reason not to marry the maiden, she would go free and the person would not be compensated for the loss of labor originally agreed upon in the contract. Also this was typically done voluntarily with the father’s consent. So unless you are saying marriage is a mortal sin, the answer is no.