Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

I appreciated your comments. I consider them to be accurate descriptions of the times. Christ came to set people free, not by force or war but by a change of the heart within. It has taken many generations to make slavery illegal. And yet, even now, there is people in the world who are enslaved by others.

Contrary to a previous post regarding Paul, as it states, Paul Appealed to Philemon to free Onesimus. Appeal is a strong word here.

The gospel is to cause a change within the heart of a person and so it has after many generations, God has his will done, slavery is illegal.

He proved by taking the Israelites from Egypt that he does not condone slavery.

He has proven by releasing the western slaves from bondage that he does not condone slavery, but still, mankind continues to have slaves.

Rev 18 is the last book of the Bible, about the end of the age and it appears to take an act of God to completely wipe out the practice of slavery, for it is still spoken of in the end of the age.

10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and SLAVES, and souls of men.

When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deut 24.21)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. (Deut 15.15)

39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deut 15.12f)

This is a question I asked over in Abuzz a couple years back. Thought I'd give it a try over here.

No need for an extensive preliminary discussion of why I ask the question. In fact, no need to clarify or justify the question any more than simply to ask it.

Why do you suppose Jesus didn't condemned slavery?

Why do you suppose he never spoke out against it?

This is a question I asked over in Abuzz a couple years back. Thought I'd give it a try over here.

No need for an extensive preliminary discussion of why I ask the question. In fact, no need to clarify or justify the question any more than simply to ask it.

Why do you suppose Jesus didn't condemned slavery?

Why do you suppose he never spoke out against it?

First - the Apostle John says if everything about Jesus was written down, "...I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." How many hundreds of thousands of words did He speak that did not make it into this tiny little book?

Moreover, take the words Slave and Servant. These words are sometimes used interchangeably, but more correctly should imply against self will (Slave), and willing (Servant). -Israel's utter malcontent toward Slavery being inherent from the years in Egypt.

But, as for Servants, although a Servant may become so willingly, once bound to this contract they were pretty much regarded as property. God gave Israel explicit laws concerning the handling of Servants, including setting them free after 6 years of service.

Additionally, there would be no reason for Jesus to recap laws God had already given Moses, who in turn had given to the people.

This is a question I asked over in Abuzz a couple years back. Thought I'd give it a try over here.

No need for an extensive preliminary discussion of why I ask the question. In fact, no need to clarify or justify the question any more than simply to ask it.

Why do you suppose Jesus didn't condemned slavery?

Why do you suppose he never spoke out against it?

Frank Apisa wrote:

This is a question I asked over in Abuzz a couple years back. Thought I'd give it a try over here.

No need for an extensive preliminary discussion of why I ask the question. In fact, no need to clarify or justify the question any more than simply to ask it.

Why do you suppose Jesus didn't condemned slavery?

Why do you suppose he never spoke out against it?

Because he would be wasting his time and breath. Slavery will be with us until the end of the world. That's why!

You ask a question that you're certain can not be answered...

...yet if it is, you have predetermined that you will never accept an answer…….any answer at all.

This fact can be proved if it's determined you do not understand my answer.

Proven.

The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context.

It was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.

In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population was comprised of slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable.

To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order.

Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery's existence, instructing both Christian masters and slaves in the way they should behave.

The gospel first had the practical effect of doing away with slavery within the community of the early church. It also carried within it the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the Western world.

Why do you suppose he didn't?

Here's your answer Frank. Please don't respond by asking the question again.

Reading all of your comments in this thread, Frank, you've gone two directions:

1) You've asked why doesn't Jesus speak out about how "debasing" slavery is.
ANSWER - Preaching to the choir. These people have holidays celebrating their release from bondage. They know first-hand.

2) You've also asked why couldn't he have said something that would have led to an earlier end to slavery.
ANSWER - He couldn't. That would be interfering with the 'free will' theme inherent since the Garden of Eden. Slavery is a curse created by a man, and it will always be with us.

Again, please don't just restate the question, again. And please don't fly off topic. Debate the answers if you wish.

He did....I'm sory you're ignorant of this Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do you suppose he didn't?

I may be ignorant of what Jesus' answer would be, but to me the following answers your question:

In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population was comprised of slaves. If the writers of the New Testament (or Jesus) had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order.


And perhaps because Jesus knew that the gospel would have the practical effect of doing away with slavery because it carried the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the western world which may be why he did not openly condemn it however, the gospel did declare the spiritual equality of all people.

That is really the best I can come up with.