Why didn't Jesus outright denounce slavery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter angelboy63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
angelboy63 said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Because this MIGHT partially be a translation issue. When I took a Latin class, we learned that the Latin word for slave is “servus.” This is also the same word use for servant (aka butler, maid, etc.)
 
angelboy63 said:
why didn’t Jesus just come out and say…
Click to expand...
Jesus didn’t denounce slavery because he didn’t see it as something that violated God’s Laws. It’s that simple. It wasn’t an oversight or mistake on His part, nor do we need to “interpret” any words of His to see if we can read a condemnation of slavery into it. He simply didn’t condemn it, and neither did any other Prophet of God. Slavery offends modern sensibilities, not God’s Laws.
 
Roguish said:
Jesus didn’t denounce slavery because he didn’t see it as something that violated God’s Laws. It’s that simple. It wasn’t an oversight or mistake on His part, nor do we need to “interpret” any words of His to see if we can read a condemnation of slavery into it. He simply didn’t condemn it, and neither did any other Prophet of God. Slavery offends modern sensibilities, not God’s Laws.
Click to expand...
This way of thinking and the cover up of pedophiles is why people are leaving the Church. Once you start declaring that Jesus and God had/has no problem with the owning of slaves and beating them you lose most people that have common sense. If God is all good and loving he’s not cool with slaves being owned and being beaten. From my understanding the Catholic Church doesn’t say in 2019 that slavery is a good thing. Nor do we read and interpret the Bible as fundamentalist.
 
What has been said many times in this thread, the thing that English translations of Scripture calls “slavery”, as it was practiced by the Hebrews, was indentured servitude.

It is not what we think of, which is called chattel slavery.

If Christ was incarnate today, and spoke modern English, I am sure he would have used the proper term.

I will be very honest, there was one point in our lives when we were so desperately poor, we were both food and housing insecure, it would have been a blessing had there been someplace where we could have gone into servitude, to work and have room and board provided. I would have thanked God to have been that sort of servant/slave whatever term you want to use.

Maybe one has to have been at the bottom of society to really understand the compassionate system in place in 1st Century Palestine.

HE gave us the Church, so, when things are misunderstood, the Church interprets for us. Just like they do with this term today.
 
Last edited:
Another thing, some people seem confused about the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Let’s look at the New Testament.

Here is a link to many translations of the New Testament teaching to slaves:

https://biblehub.com/ephesians/6-9.htm

https://biblehub.com/colossians/3-22.htm

And here is the following passages to the masters:

https://biblehub.com/ephesians/6-5.htm

https://biblehub.com/colossians/4-1.htm

Not a single word allowing beating, mistreatment, in fact these verses are in context with the teachings on how families are to treat one another.
 
Treatment aside, the concept of one person owning another is the issue for those of us concerned that slavery is condoned in the bible. I am not sure I buy that what was really being discussed is indentured servitude. And if that truly is what is being discussed, I don’t think it is much better. It is somewhat better, but not much.
 
For an atheist you spend a lot of time watching Catholic TV, studying the Bible and posting on a Catholic forum…
 
God sent Moses to lead his people out of Egypt where they had been kept in bondage for 400 years…so it would be reasonable to assume that type of slavery was something that Jesus…and the Jewish people as a nation understood to be evil…so there would have been no reason for Jesus to have condemned that type of slavery which was already well known…it’s similar to those who say that Jesus never preached against homosexuality…it had already been condemned by God in the Old Testament…so there was no reason why Jesus would have to mention it again.
 
If you attempt to make slavery that allows slaves to be beaten and owned for life in some cases…as something good you probably shouldn’t be expecting reasonable people to take you seriously. If you choose to read and interpret the Bible as saying this is a good thing and something God approved of back then and would now that’s on you. That’s not the God I know and love. And if you can show me the Catholic Church teaches in 2019 that God is the way you make him out to be and some forms of slavery are good then help me out and give me some links. And I will cease being Catholic/Christian today. Because as far as I know we aren’t fundamentalist and aren’t expected to believe that God who is all love is okay will people in certain cases being owned for life and being able to be beaten. God is the opposite of this. Despite what is claimed in certain passages in the Bible. I believe there’s some other stuff in there about killing children and the raping of women that I take with the same grain of salt and in context. Again God gave us brains and reasoning skills for a reason. We’re not expected to just turn this off and call what is evil good. It’s really not that complicated.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
What has been said many times in this thread, the thing that English translations of Scripture calls “slavery”, as it was practiced by the Hebrews, was indentured servitude.

It is not what we think of, which is called chattel slavery.

If Christ was incarnate today, and spoke modern English, I am sure he would have used the proper term.

I will be very honest, there was one point in our lives when we were so desperately poor, we were both food and housing insecure, it would have been a blessing had there been someplace where we could have gone into servitude, to work and have room and board provided. I would have thanked God to have been that sort of servant/slave whatever term you want to use.

Maybe one has to have been at the bottom of society to really understand the compassionate system in place in 1st Century Palestine.

HE gave us the Church, so, when things are misunderstood, the Church interprets for us. Just like they do with this term today.
Click to expand...
So its servitude in the new testament but slavery in the old testament. Why is it different?? Dont they use the same language??
 
Peebo said:
…it’s similar to those who say that Jesus never preached against homosexuality…it had already been condemned by God in the Old Testament…so there was no reason why Jesus would have to mention it again.
Click to expand...
And it was ok to beat your servants in the old testament so there was no no need to repeat that again. Is that what you mean?
 
Just give in and admit beating servants isn’t moral. No matter what the Bible says on it. It shouldn’t be that difficult to come around on. And you don’t then have to conclude the Bible got homosexuality wrong just because beating slaves isn’t moral. Just see the light on the beating of slaves and owning them for life and how it’s never okay. Then or now.
 
Last edited:
Barnesy said:
So its servitude in the new testament but slavery in the old testament. Why is it different?? Dont they use the same language??
Click to expand...
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament is in Greek. Not the same language.
 
Last edited:
JSRG said:
40.png
Barnesy:
So its servitude in the new testament but slavery in the old testament. Why is it different?? Dont they use the same language??
Click to expand...
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament is in Greek. Not the same language.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I didnt know that. So every time the old testament says slavery it means slavery and everytime the new testament says slavery it means servant. Is that right?
 
edward_george1 said:
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
Click to expand...
Indentured servitude is bad, too. Especially in circumstances in which, as in ancient Rome, the master had the power of life and death over the indentured servants.
 
@Hume
That Jesus doesn’t denounce slavery isn’t something to be judged in a vacuum. Sure, there are many topics that Jesus neither denounced or condoned, but slavery is not one of them. When you take Jesus not denouncing slavery along with these other considerations were get a much fuller picture:
  1. Jesus is God.
  2. God is unchanging.
  3. God gave instructions on how to acquire, use, and misuse slaves to a people that hadn’t owned slaves in at least 430 years.
  4. God commented on slavery in so much as he used it in an analogy showing where slaves could be beaten for things they were not aware of.
So as to the OP’s question I agree with your speculation that Jesus accepted slavery, although I would go farther than that. Since we know God told his people to not follow the practices of neighboring nations, then his acceptance of slavery isn’t because of the times but because he saw nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with beating a slave, of blackmailing a male, Hebrew slave to work for life just to see his family, to selling a daughter as a slave to serve at the whim of the master and/or his sons, of having a baby be born a slave, of having a slave killed while lingering for a day.

@skelly
I’m not sure if your post was meant as praise for researching the matter thoroughly or if you meant it pejoratively. I’m guessing the latter, which brings up something I’ve commented on in the past, if you’ll permit me. When a doubter or non-believer talks about a Christian matter he or she is often told that they need to study the topic more. But then when it’s clear that the doubter is well-versed on the topic, then suddenly that doubter is told they are considering the matter too much. In other words for some believers there is no acceptable level of study for the non-believer on a Christian topic if the person differs with the believer.

I find, and you may disagree, that a non-believer has invested enough time in a matter to be well versed in it, the last resort occasionally is not to discredit the accuracy of his study but of the amount of it.

I feel that there is no harm in knowing more about a subject especially if one wants to speak at length about it. Do you feel that in my posts I have presented something factually incorrect?
 
Last edited:
There are teachings, disciplines, that change.

It used to be sinful to eat meat on Friday. Now, the rules on fasting/abstaining are left to Bishops’ conferences.

The dietary laws were very strict in the Old Testament, those were removed in the New Testament.

Circumcision used to be required, that condition was removed in the New Testament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top