Why didn't Jesus outright denounce slavery?

[skelly]

I doubt you are atheist.

 

[twf]

A thousand difficulties don’t equal one doubt… to paraphrase St John Newman. I too have difficulties with the slavery issue, and I think the hand waving we see on this thread is not helpful, but I trust that somehow it all fits into the greater scheme of providence.

 

[Isearch]

The way I see it, there could only be two choices:

• Accept that the Roman Catholic Church teaching changed and the Church has to decide what to do with their teachings on their “infallibility”.
• Believe that slavery in itself isn’t bad, but there were too many abuses that retaining it would be considered immoral [this means that, in a “just” slavery, the master allows his slaves everything, from having weekly rest to having families, and treats them so well that they may be said to be free (except they are not actually free)].

The first option casts doubt on Roman Catholicism itself and out of the question for most Roman Catholics. The second option is abhorrent and “just” slavery is just a fantasy (at least for the vast majority of the cases).

 

[nfinke]

This one always bothered me too. I have always heard the explanation that “well the slavery they talk about in the OT and the NT isn’t the same, and indentured servitude isn’t inherently evil, and also God made many laws to lead the Israelites away from a practice they weren’t prepared to abandon immediately”.

And all those are true and good, but in the new testament, the stiffed-neckedness of the Jews wasn’t an issue, and Jesus was saying much harder sayings that made Him immediately lose many followers, the main one being you must eat my flesh to inherit eternal life. Like at that point, saying “one man shall not own another” as definitively as He said “do not commit adultery” would have been pretty easy to accept.

And it goes without saying God knew how many of His children would suffer from the evil of slavery. I don’t see what God gained from making it vauge in any way.

I often think the same thing about abortion. Obviously there are passages that you can look to and see that an unborn person is a human life, but it would have saved a LOT of naysayers if God had just said “the child in the womb shall not be harmed, it is an abomination” or something along those lines.

I guess as the Jews say, “If I knew God, I’d be God.”

 

[po18guy]

The mother He created for Himself was His bond slave. And, what a blessing that slavery was. As to forms of cruel, inhuman slavery, what He taught about love, including through Saint Paul in his letter to Philemon (should) control human behavior and interaction.

 

[Bithynian]

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.

The Hebrew noun for slavery is עְַבוֹדָה (avodah), but it also has the general sense of “work” and “service”. Likewise, the noun עָבַד (avad) can mean either “servant” or “slave”.

An accurate translation is very much contextual, but in many verses it can be somewhat ambiguous as to whether “servant” or “slave” is more legitimate. An added difficulty is that our modern understanding of “service” and “slavery” is not especially coterminous with that of ancient Israel.

 

[Barnesy]

having a guide for ethical treatment is wise.

We have one and its universal. All you do is ask yourself if it was ok for you to be a slave and then you have the guide.

 

[Barnesy]

Depends on who I am doesn’t it.

Criminals could certainly be put in bondage to work off a debt to a victim of their crime or to society. So if I had committed some crime and that was my punishment I would have no right to complain.

There’s many scenarios where a loss of personal freedom is just.

Punishing someone isnt the same as slavery is it. Do you want to be a slave?? No. Of course not so dont make someone else a slave. Its a pretty easy rule to follow.

 

[Barnesy]

Slavery was the one of the most common punishments for centuries across many civilizations so they aren’t mutually exclusive.

Well lets say its not a punishment in your case but someone wants to make you a slave any way. Would you like that? No obviously not so you dont make any one else a slave. So its pretty easy to understand and a simple rule for you to follow.

 

[ATraveller]

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.

And Onesimus became a bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church after he was freed by Philemon.

A thousand difficulties don’t equal one doubt… to paraphrase St John Newman. I too have difficulties with the slavery issue, and I think the hand waving we see on this thread is not helpful, but I trust that somehow it all fits into the greater scheme of providence.

A general view in parts of Protestantism is an emphasis on God’s sovereignty. He can permit or tolerate for a period of time and then put a stop to it like divorce during Moses’ time vs. the NT period. A number of the Early Church Fathers have written they weren’t happy with slavery and that the Fall brought about distortions in relations between God and humanity and between people themselves.
There are things that are difficult and we might not like the difficult things and we will find there aren’t going to be sufficient answers. Lutherans underscore this mystery and the absence of answers.
And of course, there are things where things that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible nor do they have to be. For Catholics, that might be birth control or the communion wafers must be of certain grains. For some Protestants, full immersion or submersion baptisms are only valid and sprinkling isn’t valid.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

@rfournier103
The links you gave are basically a rehash of talking points we’ve gone over in this thread. I did find it interesting that in one of them it said falsely that slaves in general were released after 7 years. The truth is that a slave had to fulfill all of the following criteria to be release, otherwise they served for life:

• Be male
• Be Hebrew
• Be willing to never see his family again if he acquired them while enslaved

In the link written by Trent Horn he tries to play off the idea that God was using slavery to help the souls of those enslaved in lieu of their physical and mental well-being. This assumes (wrongly) that one can’t be helped both in body and soul at the same time, that the goals are somehow mutually exclusive. I’ve said it before, no one is as quick to limit what the infinite God can know or do like an apologist defending the Bible.

As far as how atheists and doubters question believers regarding Biblical slavery, I disagree that they are trying to get believers to doubt their faith. What I think is being done is to address the evident doublethink that occurs with slavery’s defenders. God is all good, but allows great harm. Jesus says to treat slaves as brothers, but God says to treat them as lesser and calls them property. Biblical slavery isn’t like more modern slavery, yet slaves in the Bible could be beaten, reped, and killed.

By getting a slave defender to agree to what is right and then show how slavery in the Bible goes against that it gets to the heart of the problem. It prevents that person from going into one of the standard retreat positions and perhaps see why slavery can’t be brushed aside.

@ATraveller
I wouldn’t say atheists are being arrogant in how they interpret scripture, but are simply unwilling to dp the standard “the passage says A, but it reeeeally means not A”. What specific passages do you feel are not being interpreted correctly, and why should your interpretation supersede that of its plain reading?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

@Thom18
It’s evident that the rules for slavery differ between that of a Hebrew slave and of a non-Hebrew slave. The former did not server for life (again excepting the blackmail in Exodus 21) while the latter did no matter what. Those from foreign nations could be purchased, but Hebrews could not.

And this idea of a favored people when it comes to slavery did NOT stop at the Bible. If we take the three-legged stool of Catholicism, we already have covered this with scripture. There’s nothing in sacred tradition that called for equality in slavery, and most certainly did not look to abolish it. we then come to the Magesterium. We have several papal bulls and other writings which gave a favored status to one people with regards to slavery – except this time the favored people were Christians and not Jews. In fact, the 4th Council of Toledo said Jews were not to hold slaves “for it is not right that the members of Christ should serve the ministers of Anti-Christ.” (Bonus antisemitism!) In the papal bulls of Regimini Gregis and Creator Omnium they say it is wrong to enslave a Christian, but says nothing about enslaving a non-Christian.

The most startling is Sicut Dudum. This needs a bit of backstory. The Portuguese were running a slave trade and in the 15th century they were taking slaves from the Canary Islands off the west coast of Africa. Again, they were not supposed to take Christians, but they were. The pope released the bull. It does not denounce the Portuguese for engaging in the slave trade. He doesn’t say one bad word about taking away the non-Christians. The sole complaint is that the Portuguese were taking away those natives who either had been baptized or had vowed to become baptized. The pope disliked that saying those people were “made a promise of safety that was not kept,” meaning that they were given the choice of getting baptized or being enslaved. The pope also lamented that because the baptized were being enslaved that people saw no point in following through with promises of baptism. In sum, all three legs of the stool not only endorsed slavery but also a favored people status in regard to it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

@Hume
Even if you say that at times then it was necessary for one to indenture themselves to pay off a debt (which is only a fraction of the people that were enslaved) there are several points that need to be addressed:

1. There is a flat term of seven years no matter the extent of the debt.
2. Male Hebrew slaves who gained a family during his service would have to choose between freedom and his family.
3. There is no reason for a person to be allowed to be beaten in order to pay off a debt.
4. By saying there was nothing like bankruptcy in society at the time ignores the fact that God made ALL the rules for the society. Did he not tell his people that they HAD to celebrate the Sabbath (in some cases under penalty of death)? Did he not tell his people that all the males had to be circumcised (something that the OT explains almost killed Moses when he was slow in circumcising his son)? Does God not see all possible worlds including all which allow for methods to pay back a debt, allow for bankruptcy, create a fund for the destitute, etc. that don’t involve abject cruelty? Anytime an apologist gives an excuse that society at the time did not allow for options X or Y is blaming God.

With regards to your point about how not all Christianity would agree with the 4 points I made in my earlier post, I would agree. Although they are always going to be outliers in such matters, the vast majority would agree with all 4 points.

@Phatmass1
This goes back to my analogy early in the thread of a politician who by word supports the troops, but more importantly by action does great harm to them. To defend Jesus on this matter uses a great deal of glowing language but no concrete specifics. Yes, God changed when the father said to stone an adulterer and the Son said not to; but we have something we can cite on that. Those who have defended slavery have pointed to the passages in the Bible that specifically supported it and could not be shown passages that specifically went against it.

There are some things that Jesus differed on with God the Father, but there are also a great many things to which they agreed. Who is to say that Jesus disagreed with the Father on this matter? Certainly not the Bible and certainly not Christianity for numerous centuries after Jesus’ death.

@skelly
I must admit I wasn’t expecting that comment. Why do you think I am not an atheist? Is it because of the amount of information I’ve posted on this thread, because that doesn’t require faith – just a little internet legwork.

 

[Hume]

Again, no debate here. Old Testament god was fine with slavery.

Your vulnerability in trying to tie it to Jesus would be the usual counter that it’s part of “The Law” that Christ fulfilled/abolished/whatever.

Modern non-trinitarian Christians would most easily avoid your critique. Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses. But you’re right for the most part. “Fringe”.

 

[ATraveller]

I wouldn’t say atheists are being arrogant in how they interpret scripture, but are simply unwilling to dp the standard “the passage says A, but it reeeeally means not A”. What specific passages do you feel are not being interpreted correctly, and why should your interpretation supersede that of its plain reading?

I don’t know why you bother asking me since you have consistently shown in the past you dismiss scholarly sources that don’t conform to your position. You consistently treat ancient Hebrew or Greek as if it were English when anyone who has studied the Bible in a scholarly manner will reveal many words can be vague. I’m not wasting time replying to people like you. You have shown you’re not genuinely interested in learning about the Christian faith.

 

[Thom18]

@Mike_from_NJ

Church history isn’t my strong suit, but I’ll assume that you accurately present what you describe. If I misunderstand you in anything, correct me, because I’ve had a lot of difficulty understanding what people are communicating tonight (a weakness of the internet).

Concerning the fourth Council of Toledo, what you’ve shown is that the idea of Jews owning Christian slaves was condemned. I take no offense at this. Is your concern that the Church didn’t condemn slavery in general, that it chose instead to condemn a particular form of slavery? Because this is just the nature of councils. Particular questions or problems are addressed, and they are convened for the sake of responding to them. Here, it would seem that Jews owning Christian slaves had become a significant problem in the area (these councils, of which there were 18, it seems, were not ecumenical, such as Vatican II, but local or national), and so the problem was addressed by the council. It only sought to answer the question brought to it, and not questions which weren’t posed to it, so I take no issue here.

This also applies to Sicut Dudum, albeit not a council but a bull. You are concerned that slavery in general was not condemned although a specific form of it was. The Pope sought to address the issue of Christian (and prospective Christian) faithful being enslaved by other (supposed) Christians, and so he threatened with excommunication those who didn’t restore such people to their previous state. Again, your issue here is one of silence on the issue of slavery as a whole, which was not the purpose of either council or bull. Your criticism, then, cannot be “the Church condoned slavery” but that, like Jesus, She addressed the issues which were proposed to Her as they were proposed to Her.

I hope that this helped.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t know why you bother asking me since you have consistently shown in the past you dismiss scholarly sources that don’t conform to your position.

I ask you because you painted atheists as a whole with a very broad brush as arrogant. All statements on a forum, but especially ones that denigrate an entire group of people requires evidence supporting it. Ignore the fact that the question came from me. If a believer asked you to back up your assertion showing all atheists as arrogant how would you do so?

And I have dismissed writings of pro-slavery believers both old and new, but with cause. Often they are internally consistent. For example, if one mentions how common slavery was at the time, it ignores how God gave numerous laws to his people that separated them form other peoples. Everything I dismiss I back up with history, scripture, and/or morality for everyone to debate and discuss.

You consistently treat ancient Hebrew or Greek as if it were English when anyone who has studied the Bible in a scholarly manner will reveal many words can be vague. I’m not wasting time replying to people like you. You have shown you’re not genuinely interested in learning about the Christian faith.

Which passages have I quoted on this thread contain vague word usage? (And don’t tell me slave/servant because as I explained a few times now, even if the word were instead “flarp” we can see how God says “flarps” can be treated to know it means slaves.)

I have learned much about the Christian faith, and am willing to learn more provided it’s not an attempt to present a meaning forged not from history or writings but from whole cloth in an attempt to subdue embarrassment about Biblical slavery.

 

[ATraveller]

I ask you because you painted atheists as a whole with a very broad brush as arrogant. All statements on a forum, but especially ones that denigrate an entire group of people requires evidence supporting it. Ignore the fact that the question came from me. If a believer asked you to back up your assertion showing all atheists as arrogant how would you do so?

When atheists dismiss commentaries by saying they aren’t relevant to reading a passage then they’ve arrogated authority to interpret passages originally written in ancient Hebrew or Greek to themselves. For clarity, I never bothered reading anything you wrote or many of the others so this isn’t about anything anyone wrote on this thread.

Which passages have I quoted on this thread contain vague word usage?

I wasn’t referring to this thread but previous ones.

Honestly, I’m not interested in “conversing” with you based on your past behaviour.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Back in the mid-20th Century, the state of Virginia had an anti-miscegenation law (a law that made it illegal for people of different races to marry). Mr. and Mrs. Loving married in Washington, D.C. (where it was legal) then lived in Virginia. They were arrested and the judge told them that God had made the various races separate for a reason.

The ruling made it sound as though the problem was a person from any race marrying any other race. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where they noted something about the law: It was only illegal for a white person and a non-white person to marry. The law had no problem with, say, a black man marrying a Japanese woman. They rightly pointed out that the law. as terrible as all anti-miscegenation laws are, this one was made for a specific person against a group of people. So we know that these various writings were made to harm non-Christians.

Your criticism, then, cannot be “the Church condoned slavery” but that, like Jesus, She addressed the issues which were proposed to Her as they were proposed to Her.

Mule muffins! By allowing slavery against a subset of people then we can say definitive;y that the Church condoned slavery. If you think there was some epidemic of Christians enslaving Christians or Jewish people enslaving people then it should be blatantly obvious that a law saying no one at all gets to own slaves would solve these problems easier than deciding who in Spain or the Canary Islands can own or be a slave.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

When atheists dismiss commentaries by saying they aren’t relevant to reading a passage then they’ve arrogated authority to interpret passages originally written in ancient Hebrew or Greek to themselves.

If a person dismisses them without reason, then I’d agree with you. If they see a reason to dismiss them then it’s worth discussing. Just because an atheist disagrees with a commentary doesn’t mean he or she is doing so out of hand.

For clarity, I never bothered reading anything you wrote or many of the others so this isn’t about anything anyone wrote on this thread.

I’m not sure if that’s conducive to a forum.

I wasn’t referring to this thread but previous ones.

Honestly, I’m not interested in “conversing” with you based on your past behaviour.

Obviously you are under no obligation to discuss this matter with me or anyone else on CAF. It likely hasn’t gone unnoticed by other parties reading the thread that my points were not addressed at all, just my character.

I feel my behavior in the past and the present has involved courtesy, citing my sources, not ignoring points against my arguments, and presenting a variety of things to consider. Have a good night.