Why didn't Jesus outright denounce slavery?

[angelboy63]

Always wondered what the Church had to say about this, as I found it a bit odd. We all know any kind of human slavery is wrong, yet there are mentions in the NT to treat your slave well. I’m no theologian, so I can’t find the exact verses, but I remember occasionally reading things in the NT regarding slavery and was wondering why didn’t Jesus just come out and say, “Slavery of any kind is WRONG! No man shall have ownership of another man. Slavery is evil. All men are owned by God, not other men.”

 

[edward_george1]

Maybe it’s because what’s meant by slavery in the New Testament isn’t what you’re thinking it is. The slavery of that time and place was more like indentured servitude, where someone would be bonded to a creditor and work a period of time to pay the debt. It wasn’t thought of as ownership of another human being.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Francisco_Fernando]

Maybe it’s because land productivity was so low definitely.

 

[edward_george1]

That is exactly what I said.

 

[edward_george1]

I said “indentured servitude.”

I can’t help but wonder if you’re mocking me…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Would you say slavery as described in the New Testament is the same as it is described in the Old Testament?

 

[catholic03]

I certainly was not mocking you. I see now that it was not a necessary thing to add on to your explanation.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Father.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God the Father in the Old Testament gave very specific directions on slavery. I know of nothing in the New Testament that shows things changed since the OT or that Jesus differed in his opinion on slavery than his father.

You folks may disagree, but I see no real difference between the slavery defined in the Bible than that of other nations and times. This is especially true of non-Hebrews slaves.

 

[Guest1]

Question:​

Did the Catholic Church or any pope formally condone slavery?

Answer:​

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a clear teaching on slavery as it applies to our times. It states:

The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that . . . lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord” (2414).

Note that the key phrase is “in disregard for their personal dignity.” Slavery is practically universal in human history, and not all kinds of slavery are the same. Not all forms of slavery in human society could be described as concretely against the human dignity of the slaves of a certain time, given the different conditions and great social inequality. It took centuries for society to develop to the point of recognizing every person as a subject or citizen of a state as well as of a household. As long as the household is the principal model of social order, then slavery tends to be a part of it. This was not always in disregard of human dignity but sometimes even as a way of preserving it.

We should notice that St. Paul does not suggest that the Christian master free his slave in the first-century Roman empire, nor does he allow slaves to run away or revolt. This was because in the conditions of that society Christians could respect the dignity of slaves better by keeping them or by gradually freeing them. St. Peter Claver had to own slaves in order to guarantee their good treatment, for example.

In our own time, we can safely say that all forms of slavery are contrary to the natural law and are not permitted to Christians. This is because the natural law is the work of human reason in determining the good to be done and the evil to be avoided. So progress can be made in the natural law, since progress can always be made in human reason. But once this progress has been made, one may not go back to the earlier position, even if, in the past, something now forbidden by the natural law was permitted. Another example of this kind of progress is the universal current prohibition of polygamy, even though it was permitted in the past.

• The Changing Circumstances of Slavery | Catholic Answers

 

[angelboy63]

Then why does it say “slave”, and not “servant” - clearly two different things.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The story of Philemon isn’t telling people to cease owning slaves. It’s Paul (not God) giving a very vague request for Philemon to be kind to his slave, Onesimus. It doesn’t ask Philemon to free Onesimus. And in general the defense of slavery by believers is based on this vagueness, because of how utterly the cruel the specific instructions from God are on the matter.

An analogy I often use is imagine a politician up for re-election campaigns on supporting the troops. All sorts of vague language is bandied about doing good to those who serve, but then we look at what actions have been done by this politician. He cut funding for veteran’s hospitals, puts them in unnecessary fights, and reduces their armor and other supplies. All that big talk means nothing compared with the actual things done.

The same is true with slavery in the Bible. So much of the Bible talks about how to inflict harm via slavery, thus defenders have to grasp at anything that even hints at kindness.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I wouldn’t worry that some translations say servant and some say slave. Imagine there was a translation that used a new term called “flarp”. You’d judge whether flarp is good or bad based on how it’s described, and looking through Exodus and Leviticus paints a very grim picture of the practice. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a skunk by any other name would be just as foul.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No, and I never said that you said it did. My point was that if Philemon was to treat Onesimus as a brither – as an equal – then by necessity it would require he be free of his servitude.

Which was the precedent set (as I said in my first post, about how Christians are supposed to treat slaves. He is setting the example).

And they aren’t vague. He literally tells him to accept him back as a brother.

You know there is a reason it is canonical right? That it was inspired by God.

Do you believe in Marcionism? Did Jesus differ in how to treat people than God the Father? Did Jesus not give an analogy on how a slave who is unaware of what he did still be “given stripes” (beaten to leave marks)?

And, no, just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t mean God approved it. Apologists state specifically that when trying to explain why certain other things are in the Bible.

 

[angelboy63]

Great discussion here, but the whole thing just seems like a very gray area. I can’t see how slavery could be anymore justified thousands of years ago than it could be today. A wrong is a wrong, and Truth is infinite. Slavery of ANY kind seems wrong…whether you treat your servant good or bad, or like a brother. No one has the right to claim ownership over anyone at any point in world history. I just think it’s a bit odd it wasn’t addressed full on…like, “Thou shall not steal”…“Thou shall not claim ownership of another man”. I mean, I can see being employed, and someone having the upperhand over you, but “owning” someone and selling them? You’d think that would be something God was vehemently against.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If you want I can post other Bible quotes on the matter.

I’m going to have a LOT more passages that will make my case.

Luke 12:47-48:
47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Just because God isn’t telling people that they should have slaves doesn’t negate the fact that he says it’s ok to own and harm them.

In fact, God commanded that after the seventh year any slave that wants their freedom is to be granted freedom and even given a portion of what belonged to the house that the slave belonged to.

Incorrect. Only male Hebrew slaves were released after 7 years. Female slaves and foreign slaves served for life.

If the slave wanted to stay, then they would be required to stay forever.

Also incorrect. If a male Hebrew slave got a wife or had children while serving for 7 years, then he would be released on his own – never to see his wife and children again. In order to remain with his family he would have to have his ear pierced against a door with an awl and then would serve for life. Don’t make it seem like a slave would want to stay because he loves his master so much. It’s blackmail, plain and simple. This is a hideous practice and sure doesn’t seem very pro-family. It’s amazing what gets defended.

 

[angelboy63]

So this says that God allowed ownership of a slave. Why? Why would he not condemn it all out, period? This is one of those bible mysteries I’ve never understood.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’ll get to the other passages you mentioned in due time, but your quoting of this one absolutely fascinates me.

Did you think I wasn’t aware of Exodus 21:21? For those not aware it reads:

If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

It’s one combined statement, and leaving out the second half misrepresents the first half.

So when we put it all together we learn a few things.

1. If a master hits a slave with a rod and he dies that day the master gets punished. The master isn’t killed like he would be if he had killed some other non-slave man.
2. If a master hits a slave with a rod and he dies a day or two later then God is perfectly fine with that. In God’s own words there is no punishment. So killing a slave is fine as long as the slave lingers in pain.
3. This also means that in general beating s slave is fine so long as it doesn’t knock out a tooth or eye. The other 98% of the body is a valid target.
4. The slave is property, again in God’s own words. Near the start of the thread it was suggested that Romans had ownership of slaves, but not under the Biblical slave formula. Clearly this is not the case.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I noticed for this one – as opposed ot Exodus 21:20-21 – there was no trouble in quoting two consecutive passages. As I mentioned above, the teeth and eyes are not valid targets of the rod, but everything else is even if it kills the slave in a lingering way.

Deut 15 “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has [a]escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your [b]towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

I guess the question here is why would a slave want to escape. Could it be the killing, blackmail, and rape?

Lev: 22 There shall be one [a]standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the Lord your God.’”

Num: 15 As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you , a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the Lord. 16 There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.’”

And yet foreign slaves weren’t released after 7 years. They were purchased and could be given to others as you would any other property. Again, the vague generalities are proven untrue by the unpleasant specifics.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

When one uses an analogy it says something about them. Many years ago I worked in a seaside amusement area. One of the mechanics would often joke that some equipment had to be smacked to make sure it worked, “like a mouthy woman”. He was someone who saw nothing wrong with that. When I would tell new employees about the equipment I would say it would need to be hit, but I wouldn’t use the analogy as I don’t think women should be hit. Jesus, in the use of his analogy of unknowing slaves getting “striped” doesn’t seem to have a problem with the practice. This is backed-up by the fact that God the Father also sees no problem with that practice.

Especially when you actually know what God teaches us, which you seem to ignore.

Let me provide actual context. Where were the Hebrews when God gave them instructions on slaveowning? They were in the desert after serving 430 years as slaves themselves. Did they have slaves at the time? No. Was it an excuse that other cultures in the area had slaves? No, God specifically said they were not to follow the practices of other nations that he’d remove from the land. We know that God had his people do things other cultures didn’t and do things other cultures didn’t.

Sorry, I’m going to stand with Church teaching and Sacred Scripture on this one over an Atheist.

I’m using the actual passages and not trying to make them say something they don’t actually say. And if you’d like I can go into great detail as to how the Church practiced slavery.