Slavery

[lemonbeam]

Why didn’t Jesus ever condemn slavery?

 

[06convert]

Well. Slavery in Biblical times wasn’t like slavery is today. Slavery in Biblical times was more about social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they couldn’t afford their debts or provide for their family. As a slave, your needs were provided for by your masters. There were even some doctors, lawyers, and politicians that were someones slaves.

Today, slavery is typcially about nationality or race. Owners of slaves consider their “property” to be inferior human beings. This method of slavery is wrong. The plagues that God sent to Egypt are examples of how He feels about racial slavery. These were written out in the book of Exodus.

The Hebrews were slaves in the Bible, specifally because of their race and God helped them escape.

“In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” - Exodus 13:14.

.

 

[puzzleannie]

Why didn’t Jesus ever condemn slavery?

He did, all the time, his entire mission was delivering us out of bondage into freedom, but he was speaking of true slavery, sin, not the shadow of its effects: chattel slavery.

 

[Lancer]

For your consideration…

He did…He does…He will…until the end of time.

Matt 6: 24 (Douai-Reims)24 No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Mammon… That is, riches,*** worldly interest***. (Challoner)

​

Who of us…(I am surely at the front of this line)…is not a slave to something…in this world (worldly interests/allurements)…and even worse…a slave to some aspects (great and little) of our Pride…Vanity…Sensuality (the flesh)…if I fail daily to completely and fully live up to the two Great Commandments…(1) love God with my whole heart, with my whole mind, with my whole soul and being, and with all my strength…(2) and to likewise love my neighbor (especially my enemies…like Osama and his likes) not as I love myself…but as Jesus has and continues to love me…then I am a slave in the purest sense of the word… and not a true and full disciple of Christ.

Consider this…and I write this as a Black man who grew up under Jim Crow segregation and the Civil Rights “fights” (some say civil rights “movement”…but if you were there and lived it…it was a knockdown deadly fight)…my Black family members and neighbors (all my black “brothers and sisters”) were much more free then (before Jim Crow laws were ended) than now…we were a much more God fearing (followed the Ten Commandments and the natural law of conscience and heart)…holy (prayer life and love for the poor) and family oriented (parish and natural)…and loyal to our people. Today…well you read and see the news…so you tell me…in Jesus’ eyes…when were we (Black people) most clearly slaves?..when were we most free?

Lastly…Black people, especially Christians and most especially Christian Catholics…voting for politicians who are Black, White or Hispanic…who run for President, for Congress (Rep or Senator) … or who run for offices at the State and local levels…who clearly are pro abortion/choice…who support and vote and enact laws and funding that promote…sustain…and enhance abortion, same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia … who vote for and sustain social programs that don’t just give a helping hand but enslave the person into a socialist/welfare mindset…are giving up their freedom of being true (adopted) sons and daughters of the Father of Truth…*and becoming *slaves to the father of lies.

After the Holy Mass and the sacraments…Jesus gave no greater gift to the Church than the Holy Spirit (as well as his Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary) both present to and both (Mary in an intercessory way) guiding the Magisterium (the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him)…who in turn…guide us in these turbulent times…and keep the Great Ship on the Church on course even in this “Perfect Storm” to the harbor of heaven…in Christ Our Lord!

Only my 2 cents…

Pax Christi

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I don’t think there are any easy answers. Matthew 6:24 seems more like it’s saying that you can’t serve both God and your own selfish material interests. If this really did mean that you couldn’t serve God while serving the master who enslaved you, then why does Ephesians 6:5 command slaves to obey their earthly masters and to serve them as sincerely as they do Christ? And why does Jesus command severe beatings for disobedient slaves (Luke 12:47-48)?

Well. Slavery in Biblical times wasn’t like slavery is today. Slavery in Biblical times was more about social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they couldn’t afford their debts or provide for their family. As a slave, your needs were provided for by your masters. There were even some doctors, lawyers, and politicians that were someones slaves.

You’re right that Hebrew slaves were not treated the same as modern slaves. According to Exodus 21:2, they were to serve only six years and then they were to be freed and wouldn’t owe their masters anything. But as Leviticus 25:44-46 says, things are different for non-Hebrews. They can be perpetually enslaved, treated as property, and passed on to one’s children.

Personally, I think that enslaving another human being is a moral abomination. Even if you treat them nicely and provide them material comforts, it just seems deeply immoral to take away a fellow man’s freedom and force him to do follow your every command. But it seems like slavery in the Bible was worse than this. Slaves were savagely beaten and, as Exodus 21:20-21 says, it’s okay to beat a slave to within an inch of his life since the slave is property, as long as it takes him a day or two to die. Only if a slave dies right away is the master to be punished.

I don’t see any of these passages as evidence that God does not exist, but I do think that the issue of biblical slavery is a legitimate issue that should be seriously confronted.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

And why does Jesus command severe beatings for disobedient slaves (Luke 12:47-48)?

He doesn’t. You are taking the passaged out of context.

be like servants who await their master’s return from a wedding, ready to open immediately when he comes and knocks.
37
Blessed are those servants whom the master finds vigilant on his arrival. Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself, have them recline at table, and proceed to wait on them.
38
And should he come in the second or third watch and find them prepared in this way, blessed are those servants.
39
Be sure of this: if the master of the house had known the hour when the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.
40
You also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come."
41
Then Peter said, “Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?”
42
And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time?
43
Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so.
44
Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property.
45
But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ 9 and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk,
46
then that servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful.
47
That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely;
48
and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

He doesn’t. You are taking the passaged out of context.

Thanks, I had previously looked at the context but was a little confused by some of it, and it looks like my interpretation of it was wrong. I’m still not sure that I have it exactly right, but is it saying that upon Jesus’ second coming, those who disobeyed God will be physically beaten, but those who disobeyed God’s will but did not know what it was be physically beaten, but to a lesser extent?

Also, do you think that any of those other passages were taken out of context?

 

[Mark77]

Thanks, I had previously looked at the context but was a little confused by some of it, and it looks like my interpretation of it was wrong. I’m still not sure that I have it exactly right, but is it saying that upon Jesus’ second coming, those who disobeyed God will be physically beaten, but those who disobeyed God’s will but did not know what it was be physically beaten, but to a lesser extent?

Also, do you think that any of those other passages were taken out of context?

My brother ‘evil atheist’ ( i’m from St. Louis too, & i am way more evil than you!!), the punishment we receive for our own individual choices & decisions is not from the hands of God, it is from our own conscience, which, unlike us, cannot lie!

**The worst possible punishment will be our self-inflicted separation from the Perfect Love of God & our friends & family, which is infinitely worse than any physical pain we could ever endure.
**
We should all stop trying to deflect the blame, we alone are responsible for what we choose to do & the repercussions from those poor choices!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora pro Nobis Pecatoribus!

mark

 

[anEvilAtheist]

My brother ‘evil atheist’ ( i’m from St. Louis too, & i am way more evil than you!!), the punishment we receive for our own individual choices & decisions is not from the hands of God, it is from our own conscience, which, unlike us, cannot lie!

**The worst possible punishment will be our self-inflicted separation from the Perfect Love of God & our friends & family, which is infinitely worse than any physical pain we could ever endure.
**
We should all stop trying to deflect the blame, we alone are responsible for what we choose to do & the repercussions from those poor choices!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora pro Nobis Pecatoribus!

mark

Thanks for your response, and it basically makes sense. One issue I have with that, other than not believing in God of course, is that I don’t think everyone’s conscience tells them the same thing. There are tons of Catholics who think that it’s moral to distribute condoms in Africa in order to save lives, and to give homosexual couples the same rights under the law as heterosexual couples, and there are tons of Catholics whose consciences tell them differently. For some, this conflict between the Church’s teachings and their conscience causes them to struggle with their faith. I guess you can get around this by saying that all these people are lying about what their conscience tells them, but while this is logically possible, it doesn’t seem very plausible to me.

I also haven’t been able to understand why God would create the world such that some people end up in hell, even if it is merely separation from God. If God knew in advance how everything would end up, I would think that he’d chose to create those who would end up in heaven over those who would end up in hell and you’d end up with no one in hell. I have some other thoughts on this, but I don’t want to derail the thread.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any other thoughts on the acceptability of biblical slavery or on why Jesus didn’t condemn slavery?

 

[ricko]

Jesus had a two-fold mission. He came as Teacher and Redeemer. He did not come to free the slaves or free the Jews from the Romans. I believe that because of the latter, the Jews refused to accept Him.

 

[Mersenne]

Jesus had a two-fold mission. He came as **Teacher **and Redeemer. He did not come to free the slaves or free the Jews from the Romans. I believe that because of the latter, the Jews refused to accept Him.

Okay but the question is why didn’t he teach that slavery was wrong?

 

[Nooj]

Well. Slavery in Biblical times wasn’t like slavery is today. Slavery in Biblical times was more about social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they couldn’t afford their debts or provide for their family. As a slave, your needs were provided for by your masters. There were even some doctors, lawyers, and politicians that were someones slaves.

Today, slavery is typcially about nationality or race. Owners of slaves consider their “property” to be inferior human beings. This method of slavery is wrong. The plagues that God sent to Egypt are examples of how He feels about racial slavery. These were written out in the book of Exodus.

The Hebrews were slaves in the Bible, specifally because of their race and God helped them escape.

“In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” - Exodus 13:14.

.

Jesus did not come in Biblical times. He came in the time of the Roman Empire. Roman slavery was different from Biblical slavery, so apologising for one will not apologise for the other. While Jesus uses slaves over and over again in his parables, he never condemns the institution of slavery. Nor did Paul or any of the Church Fathers.

 

[GratefulDad]

The chattel enslavement of humans by other humans is against the natural law and has never been taught as good by the Church. January 13th will be the 565th Anniversary of Pope Eugene IV’s encyclical “Sicut Dudum”, Pope Eugene IV Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands, January 13, 1435

papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm

In it he says clearly:
.
.
“We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.”
.
.
.

 

[Mersenne]

The chattel enslavement of humans by other humans is against the natural law and has never been taught as good by the Church. January 13th will be the 565th Anniversary of Pope Eugene IV’s encyclical “Sicut Dudum”, Pope Eugene IV Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands, January 13, 1435

papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm

In it he says clearly:
.
.
“We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.”
.
.
.

Yes, but as anEvilAtheist pointed out, the bible clearly encouraged chattel slavery in some cases, even if the pope may have condemned it in one case.

 

[JustaServant]

Okay, I’m going to jump in and present an uncomfortable (for some) answer.
A few years ago I watched a doc on the History Channel about some of the great ancient philosophers, Plato, Socrates and a few others. The narrator lamented the fact that, though these men were great thinkers and ahead of their time, they NEVER addressed the ‘issue’ of slavery, and were critisized for not doing so. Why did they not condemn it?
Slavery was not condemned because it was not considered evil.
You can scour through ancient records and you will never find one great ancient thinker opposed to slavery. Why? Because it simply never occured to them to do so, it was part of societal makeup. The ancient Jews had a far humane practice of slavery than did their pagan counterparts. In fact, this might be shocking to modern liberal sensibilites, there were those who CHOSE to be slaves.

But if the slave plainly says, “I love my master, my wife, and my
children; I will not go out as a free man,” then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. (Exodus 21:5-6).

The slave in this passage, after his ear was pierced, was commonly referred to as a “bondservant”. The slave’s decision to “go under the awl” was a voluntary one and greatly influenced by the type of person the master was. His life proclaimed his love for his master. His life, and now his piercing, left no doubt about his undivided and intense loyalty.
We sit on our high horses thinking ‘oh those poor ancient fools, lost in slavery’. Have you ever stopped to consider slavery has NEVER stopped in our society? How many are slaves to debt and see most of their paychecks going to pay it off? Or slaves to drugs, alcohol, sex, ect.
You were all slaves to something.
It’s just a matter of historical perspective.

 

[Nooj]

Roman slaves could equally decide to keep serving their masters. Black slaves could equally decide to keep serving their Confederate masters. Does that make slavery good or bad?

 

[Mersenne]

Okay, I’m going to jump in and present an uncomfortable (for some) answer.
A few years ago I watched a doc on the History Channel about some of the great ancient philosophers, Plato, Socrates and a few others. The narrator lamented the fact that, though these men were great thinkers and ahead of their time, they NEVER addressed the ‘issue’ of slavery, and were critisized for not doing so. Why did they not condemn it?
Slavery was not condemned because it was not considered evil.
You can scour through ancient records and you will never find one great ancient thinker opposed to slavery. Why? Because it simply never occured to them to do so, it was part of societal makeup. The ancient Jews had a far humane practice of slavery than did their pagan counterparts. In fact, this might be shocking to modern liberal sensibilites, there were those who CHOSE to be slaves.

This may be shocking to your right wing ideology, but I’m sure most “modern liberals” are aware of the cultural place of slavery in the modern world. Statistics show they’d likely be far more aware then their right wing counterparts. It’s not about criticizing an ancient people whose sense of right and wrong was completely different then our own. It’s about criticizing modern people who claim these ancient moral guidelines are the greatest thing the world has ever seen, when they’re clearly the ramblings of ignorant desert nomads who had no problem killing and raping anyone a slightly different shade of brown.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The chattel enslavement of humans by other humans is against the natural law and has never been taught as good by the Church. January 13th will be the 565th Anniversary of Pope Eugene IV’s encyclical “Sicut Dudum”, Pope Eugene IV Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands, January 13, 1435

papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm

In it he says clearly:
.
.
“We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.”
.
.
.

First of all, the pope’s pronouncements do not change what’s in the Bible and what Jesus said, which is what this thread is primarily about. Second of all, all this passage shows is that there was once a specific group that the pope did not think should be enslaved. He does not say that slavery is a moral abomination and should be abolished. Instead, he seems primarily concerned about the enslavement of Christians or those who wanted to become Christians.

Although the current pope does not support slavery, popes in the 1400’s actually supported slavery in cases where Christians were not being enslaved. Consider the papal bull Romanus Pontifex:
Pope Nicholas V:

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit

 

[GratefulDad]

Pope Eugene IV clearly states anyone who participates in slavery either directly or indirectly is Excommunicated from the Church. Prisoners of war are prisoners of war and not captured, sold or traded for slavery.

Just because a document does not call out every combination and permutation of a specific evil does not give such evil justification. It is called splitting hairs these days.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Pope Eugene IV clearly states anyone who participates in slavery either directly or indirectly is Excommunicated from the Church. Prisoners of war are prisoners of war and not captured, sold or traded for slavery.

Could you quote the portion that states that “anyone who participates in slavery either directly or indirectly is Excommunicated from the Church.” It seemed to me that he was only saying that residents of the Canary Islands that had previously been enslaved should be released, and that in the future, people would be excommunicated if the people they enslaved were Christian or wanted to be Christian.

Just because a document does not call out every combination and permutation of a specific evil does not give such evil justification. It is called splitting hairs these days.

The portion of the document that you quoted doesn’t even say there is anything immoral about slavery. Maybe this will make it clearer. Imagine that there’s a gang leader who orders his people not to murder a specific person. That is not evidence that he is against murder. Especially if his statement was to not kill anyone who paid protection money. Similarly, the pope’s pronouncement not to enslave people who wanted to follow the Church is no evidence that he was against slavery in general. I’m sure there were popes who were against slavery though. My point was that the record is mixed.

And what of the papal bull I quoted from? The pope specifically authorized King Alfonso to perpetually enslave non-Christian Africans. And there were other similar bulls issued in that time period, such as Dum Diversas.