New Testament on slavery

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guilherme123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SPBlitz said:
As some others have pointed out, slavery in ancient times wasn’t quite like the chattel slavery of the American south. But still, your question is a good one.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the idea that the slavery in the Bible is markedly different than so-called chattel slavery is a fiction. Allow me to explain.
slavery back then was more like indentured servitude. It was even common for slaves to eventually buy their freedom.
Click to expand...
There are two main problems with this: One, only some of the people claimed as slaves in those times did so as a result of selling their service to repay a debt. By the Bible’s own words people could be born into slavery and serve their entire lives. By the Bible’s own words people could be purchased from neighboring nations and serve their entire lives. In fact, the option to sell one’s services to pay a debt was only allowed for male Hebrews. Women and non-Hebrews were slaves for life.

Two, we gain more understanding of a practice by studying how it works than by its terminology. If I tell you that there was something called Super Happy Fun Time. It involved taking a child that wasn’t yours without permission from the parents then we know that’s kidnapping. No matter what polished naming we use we know what it is and why it’s wrong. If we study slavery in biblical times (which is the same in both the OT and NT) we know that despite some whitewashing translations calling them “servants” they are slaves. They had no freedom to leave or stand up for themselves. They could be beaten and killed (with a few small exceptions). That includes those male Hebrews who sold their services. No servant can rightfully be killed by an employer. And speaking of those alleged indentured servants, when he served hos term they could leave; but if he was given a wife and/or had kids in that time he had to leave them behind – that is unless he succumbed to the blackmail and agreed to serve for life to remain with his family. Tell me what servant is required to serve to be with his family.
St Paul recommended this for Christian slaves because an outright slave revolt had already happened. I’m sure you’ve heard of their leader - Spartacus. That revolt led to 11,000 crucifixions. If St Paul had recommended they revolt, the same would have happened to them.
Click to expand...
Sometimes people reach their breaking point and need to make a stand despite the portential cost.
And sometimes revolts succeed.
Instead, he recommended they be patient and use the legal route to gain their freedom. In the meantime, they should focus on being a good Christian, as that’s more important than freedom.
Click to expand...
It’s very easy to say just live with it when one is not the slave. That goes for people then who weren’t slaves and people today. There was no legal route and for many it was a choice between escape and a painful agonizing death.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
40.png
SPBlitz:
As some others have pointed out, slavery in ancient times wasn’t quite like the chattel slavery of the American south. But still, your question is a good one.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the idea that the slavery in the Bible is markedly different than so-called chattel slavery is a fiction. Allow me to explain.
Click to expand...
Well, yes the two are different. Unless you insist on reading scripture through modern fundamentalist eyes. If you insist on fundamentalism then yes, everything in the bible is true as you understand it today.
Your assertion that all mentions of slavery can be blended together homogeneously is false.

Cultural context and literary genre can be difficult to pursue and apprehend. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put forth the effort to broaden your understanding.

In any case, Christ himself is the word made flesh. And his life and his way of living demonstrate the value and appreciation of human freedom, and the dignity of every human person.
 
Last edited:
It’s my understanding, from a catechist presentation among other things, that
  • Slavery back in the days of the NT and even the OT was not the simple and exploitative system that you had later on in places like the American South. Although that didn’t make slavery in NT days perfectly okay, it made it somewhat less evil and in some cases even beneficial to the slaves (slavery as practiced then might be better than starving in the street or being immediately killed by a conquering nation).
  • Slavery was a recognized part of the social order in the days of the NT. The early Church was concerned with spreading Christ’s message, not with upsetting the social order. It did not want to be perceived as a bunch of revolutionaries, otherwise Jesus would have simply been instructing the Jewish people to revolt against the Romans. Part of preserving the social order was encouraging slaves to be obedient to their masters.
  • In addition, obedient slaves who were Christians would be able to evangelize to others of their households, up to and including their masters, and indeed Christian slaves did bring about many conversions.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
  • Slavery was a recognized part of the social order in the days of the NT. The early Church was concerned with spreading Christ’s message, not with upsetting the social order. It did not want to be perceived as a bunch of revolutionaries, otherwise Jesus would have simply been instructing the Jewish people to revolt against the Romans. Part of preserving the social order was encouraging slaves to be obedient to their masters.
Click to expand...
This is the key point, as I see it. Jesus was not a political messiah, sent to “redeem” Israel from its subjection to the Roman Empire. The redemption that Jesus promises is something else.

In two passages in the Gospels, Matt 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44, Jesus rejects the idea of a political Messiah, telling his hearers that he will be a more exalted figure: instead of sitting on the throne of David, he will share the throne of God (Psalm 110).
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
This is the key point, as I see it. Jesus was not a political messiah, sent to “redeem” Israel from its subjection to the Roman Empire. The redemption that Jesus promises is something else.
Click to expand...
I see the same preservation of social order in the “Wives, be obedient to your husbands” business which has also from time to time been misused over the centuries.
 
Guilherme123 said:
Any explanation on why the New Testament is so tolerant with slavery and why were the slaves instructed to be submissives? Because I’m having a hard time trying to justify the immorality of slavery with what was left by the apostles.
Click to expand...
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, and living faithfully in their vocations in Christ no matter what circumstances they were in. So if you are a Husband, be faithful, even if your wife isn’t the best wife. If you are a wife, be faithful, even if your husband isn’t a great husband. If you are a father, be a faithful father. If you are a child, be a faithful child. And if you are a slave, be faithful even as a slave. We do all these things that people might see your good works and glorify God in heaven. The idea was not to create a utopian society in a world which is in bondage to sin. It is to proclaim Christ who died for your sin and will come again to restore all creation.
 
Last edited:
Guilherme123 said:
Honoring Christ with submission to the person who owns you doesn’t make any sense. If needed, you absolutely have the right to kill your owner to seek freedom from him.
Click to expand...
Glad Christ didn’t follow this precept. He went willingly to the cross knowing that he was in subjection to His Father’s will that we might be saved.
 
Those in Haiti would disagree.

It’s telling that many Christian priests were involved in revolutions.
 
As we fight for human dignity against tyrants and enslavers, we must not violate human dignity by needless killing. I expect that the Catholic priests involved in revolutions tend toward greater justice and less bloodshed.
 
Beryllos said:
As we fight for human dignity against tyrants and enslavers, we must not violate human dignity by needless killing.
Click to expand...
I’d say stopping a person from permanently erasing the dignity of another isn’t “needless.”
 
Killing is more permanent than enslaving, and affords fewer opportunities for repentance and salvation. Love your enemies, and pray and work for their salvation.
 
I’m just telling you what Jesus said, and what it is to be a Christian. Nobody said it is easy.
 
Then Christians and those in the Old Testament who fought for freedom are bad Christians according to your interpretation of Christ.
 
@Julius_Caesar I have been growing weary of your petty quarrels, and in your latest post you attribute something to me that I did not say. I will no longer read your posts or respond to you.
 
Last edited:
@goout
Why specifically can we not blend biblical slavery and more modern slavery when they are equally immoral and cause the same devastating effects? To me, this appears to be a distinction without a difference.

You mentioned literary genre. What genre were the writings in the Bible that spelled out how one could obtain and (mis)treat slaves? It was a series of rules and regulations amongst other rules and regulations. It was to be taken quite literally.

Where does the second person of God say not to engage in slavery? Even if he did (which he didn’t) we also have to consider that the first person of God had no qualms about it? Unless we’re talking Marcionism then this needs to be addressed.
@Tis_Bearself
“Somewhat less evil” is not particularly encouraging when describing commands from a deity. Catholic media abounds with calls to not engage in moral relativism, but that is the most common apologetic used in defense of biblical slavery. Matthew 7:9-10 says “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?” Slavery is giving a less poisonous snake to a starving person. In the same speech where he first list the Ten Commandments he said these acts against their fellow men, women, and children go without punishment because slaves are merely property. To say slavery was better than starving neglects the other acts the slaveowner could do. This includes not harming them or preventing them from leaving. Slavery versus starving is a false dichotomy when it comes to the owners.

You noted that slavery was a recognized part of the social order in the days of the NT. The problem with that is God specifically told his people to perform acts that other nations were not doing, and vice versa. Leviticus 18:3 and 24 as well as Leviticus 20:23 also make that clear.
 
First of all, the Catholics don’t follow Leviticus.

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?”) 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.

So, I’m not inclined to argue this answer. If somebody else wants to pick up the ball and bat it around, fine.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top