Why didn't Jesus outright denounce slavery?

[Barnesy]

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.

But if slavery is wrong now then it was wrong in the old testament. Were not talking about what we should eat!!

 

[TheLittleLady]

It seems my ways of teaching do not fit with your needs for learning. I will not respond to your posts anymore, will pray that someone else can better word things.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

These rituals were interactions between man and God. They caused no harm to the man partaking or not partaking in them. They also did not harm other men. Slavery is not a religious ritual but an act that is a sin if done today. There is no comparison between eating or not eating meat on Friday and holding a person against there will and forced to work.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

Barnesy:

So its servitude in the new testament but slavery in the old testament. Why is it different?? Dont they use the same language??

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament is in Greek. Not the same language.

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?

I’ve seen the applicable Old Testament word rendered both “slave” and “servant” in translations–I don’t know enough about Hebrew to render a proper verdict as to which is more accurate. The issue of slavery in the Bible is a sufficiently complex subject that I usually don’t weigh in heavily in discussions on it (hence why originally my only post in this topic was to post a few links on the subject), but I wanted to correct the claim regarding them being in the same language.

 

[rfournier103]

Since I come here so infrequently since the change from the old format, I haven’t mastered the “quote” options here. I really don’t care for the way this forum operates, but that’s another matter.

In any event, why Christ did not outright denounce slavery during His earthly Ministry is a bit of a mystery. I have never once really given it any thought. In fact, having perused the internet a little bit yesterday and today, I have noticed a couple of things.

First, there actually has been much written from on the topic from both atheists and Christian apologists. Apparently the OP and the posters that have taken the position against Christ have failed to Google the topic and see what noted Christian scholars have had to say on the topic, but would rather put laymen on trial for what Jesus Christ “failed” to do.

Here are some of the answers I found online from some Catholic and other Christian sites:

Why Doesn’t the New Testament Condemn Slavery?

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)

thinktheology.co.uk

The Bible Is Not Silent on Slavery | Catholic Answers Magazine

Why It’s Wrong to Say the Bible Is Pro-Slavery

Slavery in any sense is a perversion of God’s created intent for human beings.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04/does-the-bible-condone-slavery

Some interesting answers to the question.

The second thing I’ve come to learn is that this topic is a common point atheists use to attack Christianity, the Bible, the Church, and believers. These attacks aren’t ‘in-your-face’ attacks as such, but rather subtle little questions they like to plant in the minds of believers to sow doubt. The intent is to make the believer question their religion or even the very existence of God. This is called “street epistemology.” It is a conversational tool to make believers question their firmly (or not so firmly) held beliefs and make them abandon them, and it can be a very effective “atheistic evangelization” tool if the Christian is unprepared for the attack.

Why did the OP choose to engage Catholic laymen here on the forum rather than get his answer from the Catholic.com apologists? Because he wants us to doubt our faith and deny Christ. The question wasn’t a bad one, but one to which the answer was readily available. He doesn’t want the answer - he wants us all to abandon our Faith. Even if he will never admit it.

I live in a very secular area that is increasingly hostile to Christianity and belief. I see this more and more often. I freely admit that I have never been engaged with this particular question before, but I am certain that this won’t be the last time I hear it.

 

[ATraveller]

Apparently the OP and the posters that have taken the position against Christ have failed to Google the topic and see what noted Christian scholars have had to say on the topic, but would rather put laymen on trial for what Jesus Christ “failed” to do.

No, it’s because Christians aren’t interpreting Scripture properly. Don’t you know, atheists, rather than the Early Church Fathers and doctors of the church are in charge of telling us what we believe.

The topic has popped up many times on CAF. The problem with the critics of Christianity is their arrogance and prejudices prevent them from accepting their approach is wrong. They think you can just read a Bible verse from an atheist listicle site and that’s it. No need for commentaries or interlinear translations.

 

[Thom18]

Something that a lot of people are ignoring is that God brought His people out of their slavery in Egypt. Riddle me this: why would He do this is He didn’t take offense at slavery? Is it because it was His people feeling the burden of it?

Let’s assume that this was the case for a moment. Let’s assume that He only believed slavery to be wrong if it were His people enslaved. Where does this leave us? If God created all people, and if He invites all of us to be His adopted children, then doesn’t that make everyone one of His own? Even if someone were to reject this gift of sonship or daughtership, He has told us to treat all people the same. There are not separate Commandments for the “in group and out group”. We cannot murder our closest friends, we cannot covet their possessions or spouses, but has He ever made a provision allowing this if it were an “outsider” who would be killed or coveted?

Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourself. Who does He call our neighbor besides the Samaritan, the outcast, that one person we’re holding a grudge against? He tells us that the most despised person- even the Roman who is holding us hostage, in a type of slavery- is worthy only of love when He forgave them for their trespass against Him.

We are all His people. How, then, could He condone the practice of treating His sons and daughters as property to be sold and dealt with cruelly?

 

[Barnesy]

It seems my ways of teaching do not fit with your needs for learning. I will not respond to your posts anymore, will pray that someone else can better word things.

Thats ok. Maybe some one else has the answers that can help.

 

[JimG]

Onesimus was a runaway slave, who had met Paul and become a new Christian. His master was Philemon. St. Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon, asking Philemon to accept him back as a brother in Christ. Paul even offers to pay any restitution which may be owed by Onesimus to Philemon.

 

[Barnesy]

Onesimus was a runaway slave…

Ive never heard of a runway servant so i guess this man really was a slave.

 

[Hume]

@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.

You’re certainly not going to like this reply, but there were a few different types of slavery in Jesus’ time, some of which might have been economically necessary as there wasn’t really an alternative like bankruptcy in those days.

As such, “Jesus on slavery” already requires a little more honing before you can really begin to address it. Not all slavery in his day matched the commonly held myth of “White men prowling African jungles with nets to capture them and haul them to a plantation somewhere in the Americas”.

This honing is impossible since Jesus never touched the subject. There’s nothing to parse.

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.

Absolutely, but it’s worth pointing out that with these mere 4 assertions, you’ve lost some Christian groups. Certainly not Catholics, I don’t think. But some, for sure.

Point here being, your conclusions drawn don’t get to apply to “All Christianity”. Just big chunks of it.

But I’m with you 100%. Old testament God was completely fine with the enslavement of people in multiple ways.

 

[JimG]

“Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.”
–Phill 2:5-8

 

[Isearch]

“Just cause” slavery, according to the old Catholic encyclopedia, includes the fact that one could sell one’s own children to slavery (though admittedly, they must be sold to a kind master) and the fact that slavery could be inherited.

 

[Phatmass1]

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.

I don’t agree with you that Jesus accepts slavery. He started a Church. Jesus is also Spirit. That Spirit leads us to know through the Catholic Church that owning people and beating them is not okay or good. That it’s wrong. So Jesus is not for slavery. If your stance is Jesus is a myth or was real but isn’t God then this is all just stories to you that are fiction. You’re just presenting the case why it’s all BS. On the other hand if Jesus is really God and this is the reality of existence then Jesus has a firm and definite postion on slavery. And in 2019 we can know through His Catholic Church He is not for slavery. I know it. That’s why I was at Mass today giving Him worship. If I thought that Jesus was for slavery or His Church now taught it’s a good thing He would not receive worship from me.

You really have one parable on Jesus that shows Him to be indifferent to slavery. And it’s one to many. We agree. But you also have a ton of stuff Jesus said and did that would show His character to be of someone that is not okay with slavery. The main one Him being God but lowering himself to a slave himself and being beaten and killed on the Cross for all of humanity’s sins including owning people and beating them.

The Old Testament said you could stone a woman to death caught in adultery. Jesus blatantly showed that you couldn’t do that. That it was not okay. As Jesus was being beat on the Cross he told the Father to forgive them because they didn’t know what they were doing. The examples go on and on to show the type of person Jesus was.

So you have a parable where Jesus is indifferent to slavery. But to say this proves he accepts slavery you have to ignore the other 95% of his words and actions that would cast doubt He approved of it. Especially verses on how you treat the least of these. And what you do to them you do to Jesus Himself.

And then you have His Church that teaches now that it’s not okay. Slavery is not good. His Church is led by His Spirit. Did it take some time to get to the point where it’s 100% known that God is against slavery? Yeah. Did it take to long in my opinion? Yeah. Were a lot of people harmed because of this? Yeah. Do I wish Jesus would of made it abundantly clear back then like he did with the woman caught in adultery? Yeah. But the important thing is we got here.

(Continued Below)

 

[Phatmass1]

So the only way you’re going to be able to say Jesus is for slavery is to take a fundamentalist and Sola Scriptura approach to the topic. And using that approach you can attempt to make God out as a monster. You can cite other stuff in the Old Testament that shows He’s cool with women being raped or childrens heads being bashed with rocks and killed. But that approach is not convincing to someone who knows their Catholic Faith and how we interpret the Bible. It’s not convincing to someone who knows God and has experienced his love. Overall I love the Bible but I’m not never critical of certain things in it. Although as a Catholic it’s not the Bible alone for me and my interpretation of it. It’s also His Catholic Church led by His Holy Spirit. It’s His guidance and wisdom bringing me into the fullness of truth on everything. God Bless. God is good and loves you.

 

[Isearch]

The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church used to teach that some forms of slavery with “just titles” were ok. These include the fact that one could inherit slavery from his/her parents and the fact that one could sell one’s own children to slavery.

 

[Phatmass1]

The main thing for me is what the Church teaches now. I get what you’re saying and I struggled with it in the past. But I know where Jesus stands on it now so I’m content with that.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

“Just cause” slavery, according to the old Catholic encyclopedia, includes the fact that one could sell one’s own children to slavery (though admittedly, they must be sold to a kind master) and the fact that slavery could be inherited.

One must always guard against the fallacy of presentism. It should go without saying that our ideas about what is just can and do develop overtime. There are a great many things that were acceptable in the first century that are not in the 21st century. But, the underlying principle remains that same. These days (in the US for example) just cause slavery is limited to our prison population.

 

[Barnesy]

Isearch:

“Just cause” slavery, according to the old Catholic encyclopedia, includes the fact that one could sell one’s own children to slavery (though admittedly, they must be sold to a kind master) and the fact that slavery could be inherited.

There are a great many things that were acceptable in the first century that are not in the 21st century.

So there must be some things today that you think are ok that wont be ok in a thousand years. What do you think they are?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

So there must be some things today that you think are ok that wont be ok in a thousand years. What do you think they are?

Only time will tell how the clock ticks.