Why didn't Jesus outright denounce slavery?

[ATraveller]

Please note:

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

I will mute you if you continue to “talk to me”.

 

[Phatmass1]

I’m interested to know where Jesus stands on slavery and your source for it. Thank you.

This is where Jesus stands on slavery.

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994 sets out the official position:

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.”

 

[Phatmass1]

The thing is we’re Catholic. I provided from the Catechism above that the Church now condemns slavery. That means Jesus does as well. If you want to argue it took too long you can do that. But Catholics don’t go by Scripture alone and our individual interpretation of it. So a parable from Jesus appearing indifferent on slavery or other texts or lack of texts on the subject doesn’t convince me Jesus is for slavery. Especially when the Church says it condemns slavery AKA Jesus condemns slavery.

The Bible says in John 21:25 ► Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

In my opinion Jesus wasn’t okay with slavery back then just like He isn’t now. But at the time the Bible was written and the fact it was written by sinful men (we all are) it came out the way it did. It was still inspired by God. But the attempt to throw Jesus completely under the bus on this issue doesn’t work for me. Because of all his other words and actions rooted in pure love. And the fact His Church now teaches that slavery isn’t acceptable. Which is Jesus Himself letting you know it isn’t acceptable.

 

[Maximus1]

It wasn’t considered a crime if pedophilia or rape was regularly conducted with slaves. That doesn’t sound like a contract or debtors prison. An forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who owe us was a theme in several passages. Including the admonishment that conditions God’s forgiveness on our own with others. ( In this regard we still actively disobey).
Personally I look at the times and entrenchment of slavery. A flat out admonishment would have defied what many thought of as normal.
Christianity was in large measure radical in it’s breaking down of slavery. Services and meetings included slaves and masters. They were equal there. They mingled interpersonally which was unheard of.This was the seed of what is necessary to abolish slavery. Recognition of human dignity in another.

 

[TMC]

1. Are we sure he did not? The Gospels don’t record everything Jesus did or said.
2. Jesus certainly taught a way of treating others that is inconsistent with slavery. Perhaps the full implications of those teachings took time to develop. Didn’t He say as much? (John 16:12).
3. What other crimes does Scripture record Jesus denouncing? I don’t recall a teaching on rape, for example, or genocide, or most crimes, really. The ill of those actions must be deduced from His broader teachings, just like slavery.

 

[EndTimes]

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.”

This question is actually a very common question arising on Catholic Forums…

The World had devolved by the time of Jesus… and chattel was entrenched…

Fact is, as with butlers, maids, servants, serfs, soldiers and so forth, were all let go, they’d be in a far worse survival situation than being with a benevolent or even non-benevolent ‘lord’…

MOSAIC LAW [Leviticus 25:43]
You are not to rule over slaves harshly, but you shall fear your God.

[Ephesians 6:9] And masters, do the same for your servants… Give up your use of threats, because you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The thing is we’re Catholic. I provided from the Catechism above that the Church now condemns slavery. That means Jesus does as well. If you want to argue it took too long you can do that. But
Catholics don’t go by Scripture alone and our individual interpretation of it. So a parable from Jesus appearing indifferent on slavery or other texts or lack of texts on the subject doesn’t convince me Jesus is for slavery. Especially when the Church says it condemns slavery AKA Jesus condemns slavery.

Imagine we’re all part of some in-person forum similar to CAF back in 451. If I had asked you then whether Jesus approved of slavery, would you point to the Church’s then-current stance on slavery like you’re doing now? If so, you’d be reference the recently enacted 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. In that Council they referenced several previous councils/synods and declared them law. One of those was the Synod of Gangra in 340. In that synod they declared that “If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.” So the synod is fine with slavery and against freeing slaves (anathema is essentially the same as excommunication) The Council of Chalcedon is fine with slavery since it says Gangra is law. The Church is fine with slavery since it sees the ecumenical councils are infallible (see this article).

Tests for whether a definition has been made include: (a) if a pope is writing, does he use the phrase “I define”? and (b) if a council is writing, does it use the phrase “let him be anathema”? If either of these is the case, it’s probably an infallible definition, especially as this language has been used in recent centuries.

If we were to discuss slavery in 1452, you would point to the most recent Church writing on the matter: Dum Diversas. In that bull the Church said it was fine for Christians to take the property, subjugate “the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ”. It doesn’t limit the targets by time, place, severity, or reason. The only limitation is not to do this to Christians.

If we were to talk on 1435, the latest reference is Sicut Dudum. I mentioned that upthread and it shows clearly that the Church was fine with enslaving people who were not at war and not willing to become Christian.

If we talked on 1537 you would be able to talk about the latest Chrurch writing on slavery, Sublimus Deus. This one thankfully says the natives of the Western Hemisphere are rational beings and should not be enslaved. Great! Of course if we talked a year later then we can’t use Sublimus Deus since the pope rescinded at the behest of Spain.

{continued}

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Take it another way. If we debated whether the United States has officially treated black people living in it fairly. If we look at the Constitution you can point to the 13th through 15th amendments. But if we were to look at the Constitution before then we can see where for census purposes they are considered three-fifths of a person. I’m an American citizen and I love my country, but that doesn’t mean I pretend it didn’t change or had errors in its past.

In short, yes if you only focus on the now the Church was against slavery. But whatever past versions of you and me discussed this in the past would have pointed to the Church and said it was fine with slavery – and by your reasoning Jesus was fine with slavery.

In my opinion Jesus wasn’t okay with slavery back then just like He isn’t now. But at the time the Bible was written and the fact it was written by sinful men (we all are) it came out the way it did. It was still inspired by God.

So it was inspired by God to tell absolute lies about God? One of the three legs of the stool is Scripture – but we can just disregard anything AT WILL that we don’t want to thing is true?

 

[Divine3]

How do we know He didn’t? You can’t find everything Jesus said in the bible…there would never be a book big enough.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

How do we know He didn’t? You can’t find everything Jesus said in the bible…there would never be a book big enough.

1. Jesus the son has the same sense of morality as God the Father (lest you believe in Marcionism).
2. God the Father instituted slavery to his people even though they didn’t own slaves at the time, hadn’t owned slaves in at least 430 years, and had been enslaved themselves in all that time. Also you can’t use the excuse that other cultures had slaves since God told his people were not to follow the practices of those other nations.
3. We know the Church approved of slavery for over 1900 years of its existence.

All signs point to God (including his son) approving slavery.

 

[Divine3]

Not sure I agree with you because who am I to know the mind of God? And the greatest, most evil type of slavery is slavery to sin. Slavery to evil.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Not sure I agree with you because who am I to know the mind of God? And the greatest, most evil type of slavery is slavery to sin. Slavery to evil.

The thing is we don’t have to guess God’s position on slavery. Exodus 21 is a very good start, as it’s God’s own words to Moses on what is and is not allowed. He twice calls slaves property, says they can be beaten to death as long as they linger in agony for a day.

And the type of slavery we’re talking about here is the one most commonly associated with the word. Even if you want to add in “slavery to sin” there’s no reason that God (in any of his persons) couldn’t have denounced both regular slavery as well as “slavery to sin”,

 

[TK421]

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.”

Slavers were fairly quickly outlawed in the empire once Christians gained political power. Jesus didn’t explicitly talk about all sorts of things, or at least it wasn’t recorded in the 4 Gospels.

There aren’t exact rules for employment because it varies depending on the time and point in history. It is possible and even likely that based on standards in the 24th century, current people’s employment situations will seem somewhat oppressive, but that doesn’t mean it is okay for us to revolt and be disobedient at work.

 

[Phatmass1]

This is why my first post in the thread was thanking you for your knowledge on this subject. I honestly admire it and am thankful for it. It has opened my eyes to the reality of all this. So again thanks. My take is the world had been obsessed with slavery for a long time. With all people participating in it at some point. So I’m not that surprised sinful men that wrote the Bible and members of the Church supported it and took part in it. It’s just the way it was back then.

As I said to you in my first post this topic has caused me to question Catholicism/Christianity the most. I would of hoped/expected that the Bible would of blatantly condemned slavery as well as the Church. But I honestly don’t put the Bible on this big pedestal like many Protestants do. I think it’s a great book and the inspired Word of God. But it’s also written by sinful men a very long time ago. And it’s clear in that time slavery was normal. It was accepted. And the Bible as a result shows that. And I get this line of thinking can lead to “well then it’s not inspired by God. It’s just another book.” But I disagree because there is a ton of wisdom in there and prophetic texts. Also the revelation of Jesus and what He did for all of us. So me personally I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I’m the same way you’re as an American citizen that loves his country despite past mistakes…with being Catholic. I’m not here saying mistakes weren’t made. I’m also not saying the Church didn’t support slavery in the past. They clearly did as you showed in your post. Again a sincere thank you for this. But back then almost everyone supported slavery. Doesn’t make it right. It’s just reality. To your comment by this reasoning (me quoting current Catechism on slavery) Jesus was fine back then with slavery. That’s a good point. Maybe back then that was his permissive will on it. If you ask me He was against it back then too. Despite what documents, people, Bible Ect said. But it’s a good point by you. If I can quote the Catechism now and say this reflects where Jesus stands on the issue then you can quote the old ones and say this is where He stood back then. But I live in 2019. And right now the Church teaches slavery is not okay. So that is where Jesus currently stands on the issue. I don’t think it means He changed. I think if anything it was His permissive will back then. And now we see his actual will completely. Slavery is not good or okay. Just like burning people at the stake isn’t okay. I’m definitely not one of those Catholics who thinks the Church never did anything wrong. We all know now with the cover-ups plenty has been done wrong. So it’s no illusion anymore. But I realize mistakes were made in the past as well.

 

[Phatmass1]

You said… “So it was inspired by God to tell absolute lies about God? One of the three legs of the stool is Scripture – but we can just disregard anything AT WILL that we don’t want to thing is true?”

I don’t see it as “telling absolute lies about God” This was the reality and world these people lived in. Slavery was the norm. Also the Bible isn’t only about slavery. It’s a small part of it. But the Bible was written by sinful men. It was inspired by God. As I said before I look at a bunch of the Old Testament texts as allegorical. I don’t think it’s stuff that actually happened. If you take a fundamentalist approach to it all then perhaps you end up with more problems and your faith is challenged more. That’s not my situation. Yeah I struggled with this topic big time but I found my way through it. And it wasn’t me just shutting my brain off and saying I believe no matter how bad this seems. It was taking it all in and seeing it through the lens of what I have been taught about Catholicism and how we view Scripture Ect

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Slavers were fairly quickly outlawed in the empire once Christians gained political power. Jesus didn’t explicitly talk about all sorts of things, or at least it wasn’t recorded in the 4 Gospels.

When you say empire, do you mean the Roman Empire. If so, do you have a source as to the year slavery was abolished? I’m curious if this was a formal declaration or not, and how that year squares up to when Christianity was required to be practiced in the empire. So far my very brief noodling on Google hasn’t come up with solid answers yet.

 

[TK421]

No I don’t have the source handy. I read it in a book a few years back. I think it was sometime in the late 400s.

Here is a layout of the abolishment of slavery in more recent centuries:

Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I definitely see a strong relation between Christianized countries and the abolishment of slavery practices. It was abolished later in the Far East or in Africa, and later yet in the Islamic world, such as in Saudi Arabia where it wasn’t legally abolished until the 1960s. Obviously in a perfect world it would have been abolished instantly, but then again in a perfect world there are about ten thousand other things that would be different as well.

 

[Isearch]

It seems there are no adequate answers to the the posts of @Mike_from_NJ about the Church’s role in slavery without disproving the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of infallibility. I have been looking for them, admittedly. But, my quest seems to be in vain.

His posts’ information about the Bible, Church doctrine, and slavery are damning on much of Christianity ( if not all of it).

 

[Phatmass1]

It seems there are no adequate answers to the the posts of @Mike_from_NJ about the Church’s role in slavery without disproving the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of infallibility. I have been looking for them, admittedly. But, my quest seems to be in vain.

His posts’ information about the Bible, Church doctrine, and slavery are damning on much of Christianity ( if not all of it).

The adequate answer is what the Church now teaches on slavery in the current Catechism. I really could care less if past Pope’s said “Accept slavery or be an anathema” My faith is in Jesus and His revelation to us. We continue to learn every single breath here and it will continue into eternity. In the past it could of been the permissive will of Jesus to allow slavery. And now we know his actual will. At judgement day we will be judged on our love for one another. Love doesn’t own people and beat them. Only God knows how culpable people were who did this and taught it was okay.

 

[EndTimes]

The adequate answer is what the Church now teaches on slavery in the current Catechism. I really could care less if past Pope’s said “Accept slavery or be an anathema” My faith is in Jesus and His revelation to us. We continue to learn every single breath here and it will continue into eternity. In the past it could of been the permissive will of Jesus to allow slavery. And now we know his actual will. At judgement day we will be judged on our love for one another. Love doesn’t own people and beat them. Only God knows how culpable people were who did this and taught it was okay.

EXACTLY - This question of Jesus and Slavery … has been presented over and over again in Forums - in the manner of Questioning Jesus and Christianity - and conflicts ‘slavery’ as being congruent with what occurred in E.G. Africa and the UK // USA // etc…

The World had devolved by the time of Jesus… and chattel was entrenched… and actually acceptable to most servants…

Fact is, as with butlers, maids, servants, serfs, soldiers and so forth, were all let go, they’d be in a far worse survival situation than being with a benevolent or even non-benevolent ‘lord’…

MOSAIC LAW [Leviticus 25:43]
You are not to rule over slaves harshly, but you shall fear your God.

[Ephesians 6:9] And masters, do the same for your servants… Give up your use of threats, because you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him