"Magnifica Humanitas" (May 15, 2026) and “Instruction of the Holy Office, June 20, 1866” on the Roman Catholic Attitude Towards Slavery

  

It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII. (Leo XIV, “Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV on Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence,” May 15, 2026)

 

Note (no. 175) for the above:

 

Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter In Plurimis (5 May 1888), Acta Leonis XIII, VIII, Rome, 1889, 169-192. Consider that, as late as 1866, the Holy Office distinguished between the immoral and moral aspects of slavery, without fully condemning it: Instruction of the Holy Office on various doubts of Monsignor Massaia, Vicar Apostolic in the country of the Galla, April 1866, response to question no. 15.

 

 

“Instruction of the Holy Office, June 20, 1866”:

 

15. Whether Christians and even missionaries can licitly be present as witnesses or agents or other such name at contracts, judgments or other types of public acts which deal with slaves according to the laws of those peoples.

 

[Response] Although the Roman Pontiffs have left nothing untried by which servitude be everywhere abolished among the nations, and although it is especially due to them that already for many ages no slaves are held among very many Christian peoples, nevertheless, servitude itself, considered in itself and all alone (per se et absolute), is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law, and there can be present very many just titles for servitude, as can be seen by consulting the approved theologians and interpreters of the canons. For the dominion which belongs to a master in respect to a slave is not to be understood as any other than the perpetual right of disposing, to one’s own advantage, of servile work, which dominion it is legitimate for a person to offer to another person. From this it follows that it is not repugnant to the natural and divine law that a slave be sold, bought, exchanged, or given, as long as in this sale, or buying, or exchange or giving, the due conditions which those same approved authors widely follow and explain, are properly observed. Among these conditions those which are to be especially looked at are whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the seller does nothing by which the slave to be transferred to another possessor suffer any detriment to life, morals or the Catholic faith. Therefore, Christians, about whom one is speaking in the first question, can licitly buy slaves or, to resolve a debt, receive them as a gift, as long as they are morally certain that those slaves were not taken from their legitimate master or reduced to slavery unjustly. For if the slaves who are offered for sale have been taken from their legitimate master, it is not permitted to buy them, because it is a crime to buy what belongs to another and has been taken, the master being unwilling, by theft. If, however, they have been unjustly reduced to slavery, then one must determine whether they are unwilling to be sold or given to Christians or whether they consent to it. If they are unwilling, they can by no means be bought or received, since the captives themselves are masters of their own liberty, although it has been unjustly taken from them. If indeed, after they have been fully taught that freedom belongs to them by right and which they lose only by injury to others, they spontaneously and by their own free will, as masters of themselves, present themselves to Christians to be received by them and held in servitude, by a prudent plan in order to be freed from the harsh present servitude, from which they have in no way the ability to free themselves, and choose a milder servitude in the hands of Christian buyers and with whom they are easily able to persuade themselves that they can come to a knowledge of worshipping the true God, and of confessing Him to the inestimable advantage of their souls; in such circumstances it is permissible for the Christians, especially when they act in favor of the Faith, to purchase such captives for a just price, and to take and retain them in their own servitude, as long as they are of the mind to treat them according to the precepts of Christian charity, and take care to imbue them with the rudiments of the Faith so that, if it is possible, they may be freely and happily led, this being done by no compulsion, but only by opportune persuasion and encouragement, through their conversion to the True Faith into the liberty of the sons of God which is found only in the Catholic Church. On this matter one should look at the instruction of His Holiness Pius VI (Sept. 12, 1776), which is attached.

 

Indeed, just as slaves can be licitly bought, so they can licitly also be sold, but it is altogether necessary that the seller is the legitimate possessor of the slave, and does nothing in the sale by which the life, morals or Catholic faith of the slave to be sold would be harmed. Therefore it is illicit to sell a slave or in any manner give the slave into the ownership of any master who by a certain or probable judgment can be foreseen to be going to treat that slave inhumanely, or lead him to sin or abuse him for the sake of that most evil trade which has been condemned and strictly prohibited by the constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, especially by Pope Gregory XVI. Likewise it is illicit to sell a slave, taking no account of the marriage rights and duties of that same slave. Much more illicit is it so sell a Christian slave to a faithless master, or even, where the danger of falling away is prudently to be feared, to an heretical or schismatic master. If he keeps these things properly in mind, the Vicar Apostolic will clearly see what response is to be given to questions 13, 14, and 15. For nothing impedes any Christian family — as mentioned in question 13 — from selling their slaves in good conscience, if they possess them legitimately and, in the sale, observe the cautions described above. So also the seller mentioned in question 14 can be admitted to the sacraments if it is a fact that the slaves who have come into his possession as pay, have not been taken from their rightful master by theft nor been unjustly reduced to slavery, and if he furthermore solemnly promises that he will sell them in such moral conditions that none of the rights and duties which belong to them as men — and, if they have it embraced the Christian faith, as Christians — will be harmed or endangered by the sale. Finally in respect to question 15 it is determined that the Christians themselves, even missionaries, can be present as witnesses and as agents — or any other name not prohibited by the sacred canons — in contracts, judgments and other public acts of this types done in respect to slaves as long as the acts are licit in themselves and are vitiated by no evil circumstance.

 

Examples of Jewish Commentaries on Lamentations 5:12

  

Source:

 

Alon Bakhut on Lamentations 5:12:1

שרים בידם נתלו וכו'. הרצון שהם עצמם נתלו בידים ולא נהדרו פני זקנים הם חכמי הדור המזהירים אותו לבל יאבדו עצמם לדעת. והטעם לפי שבחורים טחון נשאו למשכב זכור ואם כן פחדו שיאנסום לעבירה ומותרים להרוג עצמם וק"ל:

 

 

Alon Bakhut on Lamentations 5:12:2

או יאמר בחורים הראוים למשכב זכור טחון נשאו. ונערים שאין ראוים לכך כפתום בכרעי המטה ושמשו בפניהם להיות ולדם כמותם. וזהו בעץ כשלו. והוא באמת מכה הכתובה בתורה יעלם ה' עליך וכו' יעלם ר"ת יעמדו ערומים לפני מטתן. ולכך אמר אי הוי מטי להתם לא הוי צריכה לך דהדבר מפורש ואין זה בכלל מכה אשר לא כתובה עיין בגמרא וק"ל:

 

 

Devarim Nichumim on Lamentations 5:12:1

שרים בידם.  ראוי לשים לב איזה יחס יש לתליות השרים בידם אל הדרת פני זקנים ועוד שאם הוא שבעון שלא הדרו פני זקנים נענשו שנתלו הל"ל לא הדרו מאי נהדרו. ועוד מאי איכפת לן אם היה בידם או ביד זולתם. ועוד בחורים טחון נשאו איך מתקשר אל הקודם ועוד אומרו בעץ כשלו שאם הוא שמתישות כחם בעץ בעלמא היו נכשלים למה ייחסם המכשול אל עץ ולא אל דבר זולתו שיכשלו בו בני אדם. ועוד אומרו בעץ בקמ"ץ ולא שו"א שהוא כאומרו בהעץ בה"א הידיעה. ועוד למה כשלו בו נערים מבחורים. אך הנה ארז"ל על פסוק ויהיו מלעיבים במלאכי ה' לא נחרבה ירושלם עד שבזו בה תלמידי חכמים וכן אמרו לא נחרבה ירושלם עד שבטלו תלמוד תורה כי ויתר הקב"ה וכו' הא כיצד אלא שמשום שהיו מלעיבים היחל ביטול תורה ונחרבה. ונבא אל הענין כי שרים המושלים בעם בידם וכח ממשלתם נתלו וישענו לשפני זקנים לא נהדרו וידוע כי כל זקנים שבמקרא תלמידי חכמים כד"א והדרת פני זקן קח את כל זקני העם הזקנים אשר בשער ואמר כי לא בלבד השרים נתלו בכחם לבזות ולבלתי הדר פני תלמידי חכמים כ"א גם כל ההמון וזה אומרו סתם לא נהדרו ולא נאמר לא הדרו ועי"כ בחורים הראויים ליישב בישיבה לפני הזקנים כי בטלו יגיעת עול תורה הביאם ה' לעול ד"א כמאמר התנא הפורק ממנו עול תורה נותנים עליו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ ונערים הראויים להתחנך בתורה יצאו לתרבות רעה כבן סורר ומורה הראוי לינתן על עץ כמשז"ל שעליו נאמר כי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות והומת ותלית אותו על עץ על בן סורר ומורה נאמר וזה יאמר כי על בזותם תלמידי חכמים נערים כשלו בעץ הידוע לנער הוא הסורר ומורה כי יוצאים לתרבות רעה ומזה נמשך לדבר על רעה הנמשכת מביטול תורה מפסוק שאחר זה זקנים משער שבתו וכו' כאשר יבא בס"ד: 

 

 

Ibn Ezra on Lamentations 5:12:1

שרים – אין לנו שרים שיושיעו נשינו כי אפילו הם נתלו בזרועם. ויש אומרים כי בידם שב אל העבדים הנזכרים למעלה:

 

 

Lechem Dim'ah on Eikhah 5:12:1-8

ואמר שרים בידם נתלו. הכונה אפשר כי השרים הם בעצמם אבדו עצמם לדעת ותלו את עצמם בידם ממש ותבחר מחנק נפשם כי יראו פן יתעללו בהם האויבי' על היותם שרי המדינה כי כן דרך האויבים הכובשים את העיר כי להמון העם מוליכין אותם בשביה לעבדים ולשפחות אמנם לשרי העיר הם מתעללי' בהם בעשות בהם משפטים בל ידעום ומיראתם מזה הם בידם ממש נתלו ונחנקו ומה גם כי השרים שהיו שרים רבים ונכבדים במעלה ושררה רבה ולעבדים ושפחות לא רצו להיות עבדים לעבדים אבל בחר מחנק נפשם ונתלו בידם ואומרו פני זקני' לא נהדרו הכונה שאלו השרים אשר בידם נתלו עדיין היו בחורי חמד שלא הגיעו לימי הזקנ' פניהם לא נהדרו עדיין בזקנה וז"א פני זקנים לא נהדרו כלומר היות פניהם פני זקנים עדיין לא נהדרו בזה כי בחורים היו ועכ"ז לא חשו על חייהם ובידם ממש נתלו מיראתם כדאמרן אמנם שאר הבחורים מהמון העם כי ידעו שלא יהרגו הא יבים אותם רק שיהיו שבויים תחת ידם להתעסק במלאכת אדוניהם אלו סברו וקבלו על המלאכה עליהם ולא רצו להמי' את עצמם וז"א בחורים טחון נשאו על כתפם וסברו וקבילו:

 

אי נמי אמר כי מה שנתלו ונהרגו השרים ע"י האויבים ראוי לומר כי ה"ל כאילו השרים בעצמם ובידם נתלו לפי שהם בידם סבבו את תלייתם שתלאום לפי שבהיותם בשררתם גברה גאותם וגאונ' כי פני זקנים לא נהדרו ואפילו בזקנים ובחכמים היו מזלזלים כי אין זקן אלא מי שקנה חכמה ולא נהדרו בימיהם פני הזקנים והחכמים לרוב גאותם ונמצא שהם סבבו את מיתתם וה"ל כאלו הם בידם תלו את עצמם שאלמלא העון לא היה שום אומה ולשון יכול לכבשם ואחר שאמר קינה על השרים שכבר מתו בא לקונן על הבחורים אשר הם חיים עדנה וספר גודל חולשתם מרוב צרותם כי אפילו הבחורים שכחם רב ועצום לא נשאר בהם כח לעשות שום מלאכה שיש בה טורח אבל עדיין היו יכולים לסבול מלאכת הטחינה שהיא מלאכה קלה להיות יושב והשוט בידו להכות את הסוס המסבב הרחים כי אין בזה טורח כי בהיות האדם יושב ושוט לסוס בידו ובכל פעם שסובב הסוס ועובר עליו מכה בו פעם ושתים וסובב ולרוב חולשתם לא יכלו לסבול שום מלאכה כי אם מלאכת הטחינה שהיא קלה וז"א טחון נשאו אמנם הנערים שהם יותר קטנים מהבחורים אלו לא נשאר בהם כח להלוך בחוץ על רגליהם ואפילו ע"י משענת עץ שיקחו בידם וז"א ונערים בעץ כשלו כלומר אפי' במשענת של עץ בידם כשלו בהליכתם מרוב חולשתם שבהם אח"כ מצאתי בהר"מ אלמושנינו ז"ל כפירושי זה בפסוק בחורים טחון נשאו כמו שאביא לקמן לשונו:

 

א"נ אמר נפלה עטרת ראשינו ונחרב בית מקדשינו אבל אין לנו להתאונן על חרבן המקדש אלא על חטאות שחטאנו לפניו ית' והכעסנו אותו שהם היו סבה להחריבו ועל זה ראוי ודאי להתאונן על שהכעסנו את בוראינו וז"ש אוי נא לנו כי חטאנו שהיתה הסבה שנחרב:

 

ועדז"א דהע"ה כי אפר כלחם אכלתי כו' אשר הרצון בו כי אפר כשיעור הלחם אנלתיו והכונה שלא היה כן שהייתי מטבל הלח' במעט אפר אבל באפר היה כשיעור הלחם שאכלתי ולכן לא אמר בלחם בבי"ת ושקווי בבכי מסכתי יובן עם מ"ש ז"ל כל חמרא דלא דרי על חד תלת לאו חמרא הוא ואמר כי כשהייתי מוזג את היין שהייתי שותה בבכי הייתי מוסך אותו כלומר כי על חד של יין היו תלת מדמעות וז"א ושקוי בבכי מסכתי וזו בעצמה כונת מש"ה ותשקמו בדמעות שליש. ונתן טעם למה אפר כלחם אכלתי ושקווי כו' מפני זעמך כו' כלו' אין אני מיצר על צרתי בשביל צרתי אלא מפני כי מן הצרה משתמע שאתה בכעס עמדי ושהכעסתיך ועל זה אני בוכה ושקווי בבכי מסכתי מפני זעמך וקצפך אשר הקצפתי אותך אמנם על איכו' מפלתי וצרתי איני מצטער מפני כי נשאתני ותשליכני כלומר וכי נשיאותי ורוממותי שהי' לי עד עתה על כל שאר העמים מהיכן בא לי והלא בתחלה עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים ואתה ברחמיך הרבים שנשאתני ורוממתני מכל הלשונות ואת' שנשאתני את' השלכתני והחזרתני לקדמותי וז"א כי נשאתני ותשליכני ולכן אין לי להתאונן על השלכתי שהשלכתני על כי ה' נתן וה' לקח יהי שם ה' מבור' ואין לי להתאונן אלא על שהכעסתיך בחטאתי וגרמתי לך זעף וקצף וז"א מפני זעמך וקצפך כו' כדאמרן והנה כל זה מסכים עם מה שפי' במ"ש אוי נא לנו כי חטאנו:

 

א"נ אמר נשים בציון ענו כו'. ויובן למה בציון נקט נשים דמשמע בעולות ובערי יהודה נקט בתולו' ולכן אפשר כי בראשונ' כאשר עלו החיילו' להלחם בירושלים ובציון בעברם דרך ערי יהודה לא היו שוכבים ואונסים אלא הבתולות ולא הנשואות כי עדיין לא גברה ידם כ"כ לתפוש אפילו הנשואות ולא ידעו מה יולד יום אם יגברו אם לאו ולכן לא מלאם לבם לתפוש אלא הבתולות אשר אין בזה כ"כ קפידא כמו לשכב הנשים הנשואות אמנם כאשר כבר גברה ידם וכבשו גם את ציון ואת ירושלים אז גם לנשים הבעולות שובים שכבים וז"ש נשים בציון ענו:

 

והרב מורי זלה"ה כתב כי הנה בציון שהוא המקום היותר מובחר וקדוש אשר לנו לא נתרצו בטמאם את הבתולות אלא אפילו שאר הנשים הבעולות עינו ואמנם בשאר ערי יהודה נסתפקו בבתולות לבד ומה שעשו כך אם מפני שהיתה כונתם לפגום מקום הקדוש ואם מפני שחשק צד הטומאה להתגבר במקום קדושה יתירה והגביר בהם זוהמת יצרם שם יותר או תהיה הסבה מצד יתרון היופי עכ"ל:

 

ואפשר שגם המתרגם הוקשה לו זה למה בראשונה נקט נשים דמשמע אפילו בעולות ואח"כ נקט בתולות ותרגם דבב' מלחמות משתעי קרא וז"ל נשיא דהוו נסיבן לגבר בציון אתעניאו מן רומאי ובתולתא בקרוי יהודה מן כשדאי עכ"ל ובזה לא קשה מידי כי אפשר שהרומאי' לא היו מקפידים לשכב אפילו עם הנשים הבעולות וע"כ אפילו הנשים הבעולות בציון עינו אמנם הכשדים אפשר כי גם בדתם הוא נאסר להם לשכב את אשת איש ולכן לא תפשו כי אם לבתולות וז"א בתולות בערי יהודה:

 

וגם אם נראה קצת דוחק לפירוש המתרגם כי המלחמה הראשונה היתה מהכשדים והלא נ"נ שהחריב בית ראשון והרומאי' החריבו בית שני והל"ל על ראשון ראשון ועל אחרון אחרון וקרא איפכא הוה ליה למינקט י"ל שאין זה דוחק כי לפי שגלות בית שני שאנו בו היה יותר רע ומר מהראשון אשר לא היה רק ע' שנה ע"כ בפתח דבריו התחיל לקונן על היותר חמור גם אם הוא מאוחר בזמן ומה גם כי כובד וגודל הדבר הרע אשר רצה לקונן עליו יותר רע היה לשכב עם הנשים הבעולות ולכן התחיל נשים בציון עינו:

 

 

Palgei Mayim on Lamentations 5:12:1

בידם נתלו. תלו עצמם בידיהם ואבדו עצמם לדעת בחטא שבשלותם פני זקנים לא נהדרו:

 

 

Alon Bakhut on Lamentations 5:12:1
“Princes were hanged by their hand,” etc. The intention is that they themselves were hanged by the hand, and “the faces of elders were not honored” refers to the sages of the generation who warn it not to destroy themselves by their own hand. And the reason is that the youths carried grain to the bed of male relations, and therefore they feared lest they be forced into sin; and it is permitted to kill oneself, and the matter is clear.

 

Alon Bakhut on Lamentations 5:12:2
Or one may say: the youths who were fit for male relations carried grain. And the young men, who were not fit for that, bent themselves at the feet of the bed and served before them, to be and their blood like them. And this is “they stumbled because of wood.” And this is truly the plague written in the Torah: “The LORD will cause your enemies, etc.” The word may be read as an acronym meaning, “they shall stand naked before their bed.” Therefore he said, “If he had reached there, it would not have been necessary for you,” because the matter is explicit, and this is not included among the “plague not written [in the Torah]”; see the Gemara, and the matter is clear.

 

Devarim Nichumim on Lamentations 5:12:1
“Princes were hanged by their hand.” One should note what connection there is between the hanging of princes by their hand and “the honoring of elders’ faces.” Moreover, if they were punished because they did not honor the faces of elders, it should have said “they did not honor,” not “they were not honored.” And moreover, what difference does it make whether it was by their hand or by someone else’s hand? And moreover, how does “young men carried grain” connect with what came before? And also the phrase “they stumbled by wood”: if it means only that their strength was weakened by some ordinary wooden object, why is the stumbling attributed to wood specifically and not to some other thing over which people stumble? And also why is “by wood” written with a qamatz and not a sheva, as if it were “the wood,” with the definite article? And why did the young men stumble through it rather than the youths? But behold, our sages said on the verse “and they mocked the messengers of God” that Jerusalem was not destroyed until they despised Torah scholars; and also, “Jerusalem was not destroyed until Torah study was abolished,” for the Holy One, blessed be He, tolerated everything, etc. How so? Rather, because they mocked them, the neglect of Torah began, and then destruction followed.

 

And now to the matter: the princes, the rulers of the people, were supported by their hand and by the power of their rule. “The faces of elders were not honored” means that they did not honor the faces of sages. And it is known that every “elder” in Scripture refers to Torah scholars, as in “you shall honor the face of an elder,” “take all the elders of the people,” “the elders who are in the gate.” He is saying that not only did the princes use their power to despise and fail to honor the sages, but so did the whole populace; and that is why it says simply “were not honored,” and not “they did not honor.” Because of this, the youths who ought to have sat in the study hall before the elders—since they abandoned the toil of Torah—were brought by God to another form of labor, as the sage said: one who throws off the yoke of Torah is given the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns. And the youngsters, who should have been trained in Torah, went out into bad ways, like the stubborn and rebellious son, who is fit to be put upon a tree, as our sages said; concerning him it is said, “If a man has committed a capital offense… and you shall hang him on a tree.” This is what he means: because they despised Torah scholars, the young men stumbled “by the wood,” that is, by the known “wood” of the youth—the stubborn and rebellious son—through which they go out into corrupt ways. From this follows the lament over the evil resulting from the neglect of Torah, from the next verse: “elders have ceased from the gate,” etc., as will be explained, with God’s help.

 

Ibn Ezra on Lamentations 5:12:1
“Princes” — We have no princes to save our women, for even they were hanged by their own arm. And some say that “by their hand” refers back to the servants mentioned above.

 

Lechem Dim'ah on Lamentations 5:12:1–8
And he said, “Princes were hanged by their hand.” The intention may be that the princes themselves destroyed themselves deliberately and hanged themselves with their own hands, and they chose strangulation for their souls, because they feared that the enemies would abuse them on account of their being princes of the state. For that is the way of conquering enemies when they capture a city: the common people they lead away in captivity as slaves and slave women, but the city’s princes they abuse by carrying out punishments on them, God forbid. Out of fear of this, they hanged themselves with their own hands and strangled themselves. Moreover, these princes were many and honorable, of high rank and great power; and they did not want to become slaves to slaves, but chose strangulation for their souls and were hanged by their hand.

 

And the phrase “the faces of elders were not honored” means that these princes, who were hanged by their hand, were still handsome youths and had not yet reached old age; their faces were not yet honored by age. This is what “the faces of elders were not honored” means: that their faces had not yet become honored as elders’ faces, for they were still young. Even so, they did not care for their lives, and they hanged themselves with their own hands out of fear, as said. But the rest of the youths among the common people, since they knew that the enemies would not kill them but would merely take them captive to perform the labor of their masters, accepted the labor upon themselves and did not want to kill themselves. This is why it says, “young men carried grain” — they carried it on their shoulders and accepted it.

 

Or alternatively: what caused the princes to be hanged and killed by the enemies should be regarded as though the princes themselves, with their own hands, hanged themselves, because by their own hands they brought about their hanging, since in their rulership their pride and arrogance increased; “the faces of elders were not honored,” and they even disrespected elders and sages, for no elder means other than one who has acquired wisdom. In their days the faces of the elders and wise men were not honored because of their arrogance, and thus they brought about their own death; it is as though they had hanged themselves with their own hands. For had it not been for the sin, no nation or tongue could have conquered them.

 

And after he has lamented the princes who have already died, he comes to lament the youths who are still alive, and he describes the greatness of their weakness amid their suffering. For even the youths, whose strength is normally great and mighty, were no longer left with strength to do any labor requiring exertion; but they could still bear the labor of grinding, which is light work, since one sits while doing it and holds the goad in his hand to strike the horse that turns the millstone. There is no great exertion in this, for when a person is seated and has the goad in his hand, every time the horse turns and passes by him, he strikes it once or twice and it goes around. But because of their great weakness they could bear no labor except grinding, which is light. Therefore it says, “young men carried grain.” But the youngsters, who are even younger than the youths, no longer had strength to go outside on their feet, even with a wooden staff in their hands. Thus it says, “and youths stumbled by wood,” meaning that even with a wooden support in their hands they stumbled in walking because of their extreme weakness. I later found that R. Moshe Almosnino, may his memory be blessed, wrote this same interpretation of “young men carried grain,” as I will quote below.

 

Or again: he says that Zion’s crown has fallen and our Temple has been destroyed, but we should not lament the destruction of the Temple itself so much as our sins before Him, may He be blessed, which caused it to be destroyed. Therefore we ought indeed to lament that we angered our Creator. And that is what is meant by “Woe to us, for we have sinned,” meaning that was the cause of the destruction.

 

And also David’s words, “I have eaten ashes like bread,” etc., mean that ashes were as much as bread to me—that is, I did not merely dip my bread in a little ashes, but there was as much ashes as bread in what I ate. That is why it does not say “in bread” with a bet. And “and mingled my drink with weeping” is understood from what our sages said: all wine that does not have three parts of water to one part of wine is not wine. He says that when I mixed the wine I drank with weeping, I poured it in, meaning that for one part of wine there were three parts of tears. That is the meaning of “and mingled my drink with weeping.” And this is also the meaning of “you gave us tears to drink in measure.” And he gives the reason why “I have eaten ashes like bread” and why “I mingled my drink,” namely, “because of your wrath,” etc. That is, I am not distressed by my suffering for its own sake, but because through the suffering it becomes apparent that You are angry with me and that I have provoked You. For this I weep, and I mingle my drink with weeping, because of Your wrath and indignation, which I have aroused in You. But over my affliction and misery I do not grieve, because “You have lifted me up and cast me down,” meaning: where did my exaltation and greatness, which I had above the other nations, come from? For originally we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and in Your abundant mercy You raised me and exalted me above all nations; and You who raised me have also cast me down and returned me to my former state. Therefore I have no reason to lament my downfall, for “the LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” I should lament only that I angered You through my sin and caused You wrath and indignation, as said.

 

And this also fits with what was explained in “Woe to us, for we have sinned.”
And also: “Women in Zion were humbled,” etc. It is understood why it says “women” in Zion, which implies married women, but in the cities of Judah it says “virgins.” So perhaps at first, when the armies came to make war on Jerusalem and Zion, as they passed through the cities of Judah they did not sleep with or rape married women, but only virgins, because they had not yet gained enough power to seize even the married women, and they did not know what the day would bring, whether they would prevail or not; therefore they did not dare to seize anything except the virgins, since that was not as serious as sleeping with married women. But once they had grown strong and conquered Zion and Jerusalem, then they also took married women. Therefore it says, “women in Zion were humbled.”

 

And my teacher and master, of blessed memory, wrote that in Zion, which is our most distinguished and holy place, they were not satisfied with defiling the virgins, but even the married women were violated. But in the rest of the cities of Judah they confined themselves to the virgins alone. And the reason they did so may be because their intention was to defile the holy place; or because the side of impurity desired to prevail in a place of greater holiness, and there the foulness of their evil inclination was intensified; or perhaps the reason was the greater beauty there, etc.

 

And it is possible that the translator himself was troubled by this: why, at first, it says “women,” which implies even married women, and afterward “virgins.” So he translated that the verse speaks of two wars: “The married women in Zion were humbled by the Romans, and the virgins in the cities of Judah by the Chaldeans.” And with that, nothing is difficult, because it is possible that the Romans did not care even to sleep with married women, and therefore even the married women in Zion were violated; whereas the Chaldeans may have had a law forbidding intercourse with another man’s wife, and therefore they seized only virgins. This is why it says “virgins in the cities of Judah.”

 

Even if this seems somewhat forced in the translator’s interpretation, since the first war was by the Chaldeans and Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the First Temple, while the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, one might ask why the order is reversed. One could say this is not difficult, because the exile of the Second Temple in which we are living is worse and more bitter than the first, which lasted only seventy years. Therefore he begins his lamentation at the beginning with the more severe matter, even if it is later in time. Moreover, the greater and harsher evil he wanted to lament was sleeping with married women; therefore he began with “women in Zion were humbled.”

 

Palgei Mayim on Lamentations 5:12:1
“Were hanged by their hand.” They hanged themselves with their own hands and destroyed themselves deliberately, because in their prosperity the faces of elders were not honored.

 

John Taylor (June 24, 1883) on God Testing Abraham

  

I speak of these things to show how men are to be tried. I heard Joseph smith say—and I presume Brother Snow heard him also—in preaching to the Twelve in Nauvoo, that the Lord would get hold of their heart strings and wrench them, and that they would have to be tried as Abraham was tried. Well; some of the Twelve could not stand it. They faltered and fell by the way. It was not everybody that could stand what Abraham stood. And Joseph said that if God had known any other way whereby he could have touched Abraham's feelings more acutely and more keenly he would have done so. It was not only bis parental feelings that were touched. There was something else besides. He had the promise that in him and in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; that his seed should be multiplied as the stars of the heaven and as the sand upon the sea shore. He had looked forward through the vista of future ages and seen, by the spirit of revelation, myriads of his people rise up through whom God would convey intelligence, light and salvation to a world. But in being called upon to sacrifice his son it seemed as though all his prospects pertaining to posterity were to come to naught. But he had faith in God, and he fulfilled the thing that was required of him. Yet we cannot  conceive of anything that could be more trying and more perplexing than the position in which he was placed.

 

Source:

John Taylor, “Truth Always the Same—Duties of the Saints—Officers Present—Where the Principles of the Gospel Originated—Character of Abraham—How He Was Tried—His Progeny—Duties of the Priesthood—Trials of the Saints—Charity Required— How Transgressors Should Be Dealt With— Exhortation to Righteousness.,” June 24, 1883, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: John Henry Smith, 1884), 24:264

Marcus B. Nash (December 2015) on The New and Everlasting Covenant

  

The new and everlasting covenant “is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations” given anciently and again restored to the earth in these latter days. This is explained in Doctrine and Covenants 66:2: “Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old.” Because the covenant has been restored in the last dispensation of time, it is “new,” and because it spans all eternity, it is “everlasting.”

 

In the scriptures the Lord speaks of both “the” new and everlasting covenant and “a” new and everlasting covenant. For example, in Doctrine and Covenants 22:1, He refers to baptism as “a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.” In Doctrine and Covenants 132:4, He likewise refers to eternal marriage as “a new and an everlasting covenant.” When He speaks of “a” new and everlasting covenant, He is speaking of one of the many covenants encompassed by His gospel.

 

When the Lord speaks generally of “the” new and everlasting covenant, He is speaking of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which embraces all ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation and exaltation of mankind. Neither baptism nor eternal marriage is “the” new and everlasting covenant; rather, they are each parts of the whole. (Marcus B. Nash, “The New and Everlasting Covenant,” Ensign [December 2015])

 

Robert Alter on Ezekiel 8:17

  

reaching out the vine branch to My nose. The Masoretic Text says “their nose,” but this is an explicit “scribal correction,” introducing a kind of euphemism in order not to say something offensive relating to God. But the meaning of the expression is elusive. The attempt by some to link zemorah, “vine branch,” with a homonymous root that means “strength” is far-fetched —the clear meaning of the word is “vine branch.” Some have imagined, perhaps fancifully, that it reflects the worship of a phallic deity. But, as Greenberg observes, the prophet at this point has moved on from pagan rituals to a condemnation of moral turpitude—“they . . . fill the land with outrage.” The most reasonable assumption is that the branch extended toward the nose is some sort of insulting gesture. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1074)

 

Early Christian Interpretations of Luke 1:41 and the Leaping of John the Baptist in Elizabeth's Womb

  

1:41 The Baby John Leaps in Elizabeth’s Womb

 

John’s Leap a Miraculous Sign of Faith. Augustine: We see instances of leaping not only in children but even in animals, although certainly not for any faith or religion or rational recognition of someone coming. But this case stands out as utterly uncommon and new, because it took place in a womb, and at the coming of her who was to bring forth the Savior of humankind. Therefore this leaping, this greeting, so to speak, offered to the mother of the Lord is miraculous. It is to be reckoned among the great signs. It was not effected by human means by the infant, but by divine means in the infant, as miracles are usually wrought. Letter 187.23.

 

John Prophesies from the Womb. Maximus of Turin: Not yet born, already John prophesies and, while still in the enclosure of his mother’s womb, confesses the coming of Christ with movements of joy—since he could not do so with his voice. As Elizabeth says to holy Mary, “As soon as you greeted me, the child in my womb exulted for joy.” John exults, then, before he is born. Before his eyes can see what the world looks like, he can recognize the Lord of the world with his spirit. In this regard, I think that the prophetic phrase is appropriate: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came forth from the womb I sanctified you.” Thus we ought not to marvel that after Herod put him in prison, he continued to announce Christ to his disciples from his confinement, when even confined in the womb he preached the same Lord by his movements. Sermon 5.4.

 

The Vivified Womb of Elizabeth. Ephrem the Syrian: John jumped for joy to make an announcement concerning his future preaching. The infant of the barren woman exulted before the infant of the virgin. He sought out his mother’s tongue and desired to pronounce a prophecy concerning the Lord. Therefore Elizabeth’s conception was kept hidden from Mary for six months, until the infant would have limbs sufficiently formed to exult before the Lord with his jumping and become a witness to Mary through his exultation. Moreover, that he exulted in the womb of his mother was not of himself, nor because of his five months, but so that the divine gifts might show themselves in the barren womb that was now carrying him. It was also so that the other womb, that of the Virgin, would know the great gifts given to Elizabeth, and that the two soils might believe in the seeds they had received through the word of Gabriel, cultivator of both grounds. Since John could not cry out in his exultation and render witness to his Lord, his mother began to say, “You are blessed among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” Our Lord prepared his herald in a dead womb, to show that he came after a dead Adam. He vivified Elizabeth’s womb first, and then vivified the soil of Adam through his body. Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 1.30. (Luke, ed. Arthur A. Just [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005], 21)

 

Notes on Origen's Non-Trinitarian Theology

  

I should say to this that if Celsus had considered the saying, ‘I and my Father are one’, and the prayer uttered by the Son of God in the words, ‘As I and thou are one’, he would not have imagined that we worship another besides the supreme God. ‘For the Father’, he says, ‘is in me and I in the Father.’ (Origen, Against Celsus, 8.12, in Origen: Contra Celsus [trans. Henry Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953], 460)

 

If, however, anyone is perturbed by these words lest we should be going over to the view of those who deny that there are two existences (hypostases), Father and Son, let him pay attention to the text ‘And all those who believed were of one heart and soul’, that he may see the meaning of ‘I and my Father are one’. Accordingly, we worship but one God, the Father and the Son, and we sill have a valid argument against the others. And we do not worship to an extravagant degree a man who appeared recently as though he did not exist previously. For we believe him who says, ‘Before Abraham was I am’, and who affirms, ‘I am the truth.’ None of us is so stupid as to suppose that before the date of Christ’s manifestation the truth did not exist. Therefore we worship the Father of the truth and the Son who is the truth; they are two distinct existences, but one in mental unity, In agreement, and in identity of will. Thus he who has seen the Son, who is in effulgence of the glory and express image of the Person of God, has seen God in him who is God’s image. (Origen, Against Celsus, 8.12, in Origen: Contra Celsus [trans. Henry Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953], 460-61)

 

 

This translator’s trinitarian bias may be reflected in his placement of the comma: he has “one God, the Father and the Son” instead of “one God, the Father, and the Son.” But it is the latter that best fits a careful reading of Origen’s extant writings. However, Origen does argue that despite their numerical distinctness, God and the Logos/divine Son can be called “one God” (Origen, Dialogue, 58-60 [1-3]). (Dale Tuggy, “How to Be a Monotheistic Trinitarian,” in Monotheism, Heresy, and the Bible: Essays on Biblical Unitarianism [Nashville: Theophilus Press, 2026], 241 n. 60)

 

The person of Jesus holding “the second place of honor” after God the Father:

 

Then next, as if it were his object to fill up his book with padding he wanted to regard Jonah as a god rather than Jesus; he prefers Jonah who preached repentance to the single city of Nineveh before Jesus who preached repentance to the whole world and had more success than Jonah. He wanted us to regard as a god the man who performed the portentous and incredible feat of spending three days and three nights in the belly of the whale. But him who accepted death for mankind, to whom God bore witness by the prophets, Celsus would not regard as worthy of the second place of honour after the God of the universe, the position given to him on account of the great deeds which he did in heaven and on earth. (Origen, Against Celsus, 7.58, in Origen: Contra Celsus [trans. Henry Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953], 442-43)

 

 

We have learnt who the Son of God is, even that he is an effulgence of his glory and the express image of his person and 'a breath of God's power and a clear emanation of the glory of the Almighty', and further 'an effulgence from everlasting light and an unspotted mirror of the working of God and an image of his goodness';1 and we know that Jesus is the Son come from God and that God is his Father. There is nothing in the doctrine which is not fitting or appropriate to God, that He should cause the existence of an only-begotten Son of this nature. No one would persuade us to think that such a person as Jesus is not the Son of the unbegotten God and Father.

 

If Celsus misunderstood certain people who do not confess that the Son of God is Son of Him who created this universe, that is a matter between him and those who agree with this doctrine. Jesus, then, is not an author of sedition but of all peace. For he says to his disciples: Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.' Then as he knew that the men who are of the world and not of God would make war on us, he went on to say, Not as the world gives peace do I give peace to you.' And although we may be troubled in the world, we take courage because of him who said: ' In the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.' We affirm that this person is Son of God—yes, of God to whom, if we may follow Celsus' words, we pay very great reverence; and we know His Son who has been greatly exalted by the Father.

 

But we may grant that some of those among the multitude of believers take a divergent view, and because of their rashness suppose that the Saviour is the greatest and supreme God. But we at least do not take that view, since we believe him who said: ' The Father who sent me is greater than I.’ Consequently we would not make Him whom we now call Father subject to the Son of God, as Celsus falsely accuses us of doing.

 

. . .

 

Here again he takes these notions from some unknown and very undistinguished sect, and bases on them an objection to all Christians. I say ' very undistinguished' since it is not clear even to us who have often taken part in controversy with heretics which is the opinion from which Celsus has taken these ideas—if, at least, he did take them from some source, and did not invent them or add anything as an inference of his own. It is obvious that we, who maintain that even the sensible world is made by the Creator of all things, hold that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but subordinate. And we say this because we believe him who said, 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.'

 

None of us is so idiotic as to say, The Son of man is lord of God. We affirm that the Saviour, especially when we think of him as divine Logos, Wisdom, Righteousness, and Truth, is Lord of all that has been subjected to him, in so far as he is these things, but not that he is also lord of the God and Father who is mightier than he. And since the Logos is not master of those who are unwilling, and as there are still some bad beings, not only men but also angels and all daemons, we maintain that he is not yet made master of these, since they do not yield to him of their own free will. However, if we take 'master' in another sense, he is master even of them— just as we say that man is master of the irrational animals without making their mind subject to him because he tames and masters certain lions and beasts which have been broken in. Yet he does all in his power to persuade even those who do not now obey, that he may be master of them also. Therefore in our opinion Celsus' words are false when he attributes to us the saying Who else will overcome that God who is mighty?

 

. . .

 

We who belong to the church named after Christ alone say that none of these things is true. He seems to be attributing to us sayings which are nothing to do with us in order to be consistent with what he said earlier. It is our purpose not to worship any merely assumed God, but to worship the Creator of this universe and of all else which is not sensible or visible. (Origen, Against Celsus, 8.14-16, in Origen: Contra Celsus [trans. Henry Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953], 462, 463)

 

 

Like other second and third century theologians, Origen does call the Son “God,” as he does so often, in striking contrast to the New Testament. But unlike many later theologians, he’s careful to explain his use of terms. He thinks this Son is eternal, and that he is divine and in a derived way. But he never says that the Son’s divinity makes him the same god as his Father. (Dale Tuggy, “How to Be a Monotheistic Trinitarian,” in Monotheism, Heresy, and the Bible: Essays on Biblical Unitarianism [Nashville: Theophilus Press, 2026], 242)

 

 

The difference between “the God” and “a God”

 

(12) But since the proposition, “In the beginning was the Word,” has been placed first, perhaps it indicates some order; in the same manner, next, “And the Word was with God,” and third, “And the Word was God.” Perhaps he says, “And the Word was with God,” then, “And the Word was God,” that we might understand that the Word has become God because he is “with God.”

 

(13) John has used the articles in one place and omitted them in another very precisely, and not as though he did not understand the precision of the Greek language. In the case of the Word, he adds the article “the,” but in the case of the noun “God,” he inserts it in one place and omits it in another.

 

(14) For he adds the article when the noun “God” stands for the uncreated cause of the universe, but he omits it when the Word is referred to as “God.” And as “the God” and “God” differ in these places, so, perhaps, “the Word” and “Word” differ.

 

(15) For as the God who is over all is “the God” and not simply “God,” so the source of reason in each rational being is “the Word.” That reason which is in each rational being would not properly have the same designation as the first reason, and be said to be “the Word.”

 

(16) Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father.

 

(17) Their problem can be resolved in this way. We must say to them that at one time God, with the article, is very God, wherefore also the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, “That they may know you the only true God.” On the other hand, everything besides the very God, which is made God by participation in his divinity, would more properly not be said to be “the God,” but “God.” To be sure, his “firstborn of every creature,” inasmuch as he was the first to be with God and has drawn divinity into himself, is more honored than the other gods beside him (of whom God is God as it is said, “The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and he has called the earth”). It was by his ministry that they became gods, for he drew from God that they might be deified, sharing ungrudgingly also with them according to his goodness.

 

(18) The God, therefore, is the true God. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is the Word with the God, who was “in the beginning.” By being “with the God” he always continues to be “God.” But he would not have this if he were not with God, and he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depth of the Father. (Origen, Book 2, in Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10 [trans. Ronald E. Heine; The Fathers of the Church 80; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989], 98-99)

 

 

Origen’s language is not like that of Muslims, nor like that of later catholic Christians who reserve the term “God” for the one god or the fully divine “Persons” somehow “in” that god. Earlier in this book Origen says, citing biblical texts, that “There are certain gods of whom God is god,” (Commentary on John, 76 [1.12]) and elsewhere he says that “we do not hesitate to speak in one sense of two gods, and in another sense of one god.” (Dialogue, 58 [sec. 2]) His looser god-talk certainly fits his Hellenistic milieu, but it is not radically different than the Bible, which uses god terminology for humans, Satan, idols, the alleged gods of polytheistic religions, and angels.  (Dale Tuggy, “How to Be a Monotheistic Trinitarian,” in Monotheism, Heresy, and the Bible: Essays on Biblical Unitarianism [Nashville: Theophilus Press, 2026], 243)

 

 

 

Finally, let’s look at Origen’s On First Principles. In a passage discussing his view that the Holy Spirit is eternal, he says that

 

the Holy Spirit would never have himself been in the unity of the Trinity, the is, along with God, the unchangeable Father, and with his Son, unless he had always been the Holy Spirit. (On First Principles, trans. Behr, 1:73 [1.3-4])

 

Conditioned by Nicene concerns, we might think Origen is assuming the Spirit to be equally divine with the Father, and to be one god with him. But Origen later writes that

 

the God and Father, holding all things together, is superior to every being, giving to each, from his own, to be whatever it is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone, for he is second to the Father; and the Holy Spirit is still less, dwelling with the holy ones alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is greater than the Holy Spirit, and again, the power of the Holy Spirit differs greatly from other holy beings. (Origen, On First Principles, trans. Behr, 2:598 [text no. 6])

 

The Son and Spirit here are beings other than God, beings in addition to him, and they are lesser beings, depending on God for their existence, while he depends on nothing. Nor, as we’ve just seen, are the Son and Spirit equal to one another. In an uncorrupted, mature work Origien teaches

 

that the Holy Spirit is the most honored of all things made through the Word, and that he is [first] in rank of all the things which have been made by the Father through Christ. (Commentary on John, 114 [2.75]. For Origen being the greatest creature is compatible with being “a god” who has a degree of divinity from God [via the Logos/Son])

 

In sum, for Origen there is a Trinity, but it is not a god. Rather, the one true god, the Father, the ultimate source of all else, is the founding member of that triad (group of three beings). The Son and Spirit are divine in lesser ways, since they eternally emanate from and “participate in” God. Of the two, the Son is greater than the Spirit. God, that is, the Father, is greater even than both Son and Spirit, and there’s no way to construe this, as so many recent theologians do with the New Testament, as being a mere matter of function, that is, as functional subordination without any difference in kind or degree of divinity or greatness. (Dale Tuggy, “How to Be a Monotheistic Trinitarian,” in Monotheism, Heresy, and the Bible: Essays on Biblical Unitarianism [Nashville: Theophilus Press, 2026], 243-45)

 

 

Were Tertullian and Origen “trinitarians”? Yes, in the sense explained above: they believed in the reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit spoken of in the New Testament. Did they believe that the one most high God is tripersonal, that God somehow “is” three eternal and equally divine “Persons”? No. They were not, then, “trinitarians” in the more specific, post-fourth-century sense, the sense which has been mandatory for catholic Christians since 381. (Ibid., 245)