I thought the thread was about Jesus?
Anything is possible but when you read the parables they don’t contain any hidden meaning. Nothing has to be translated verbatim to understand.
Why are you posting the question in the first place? Are you having a crisis of faith or in need of a personal revelation.
Only if the slaves were fellow Hebrews. Anyone else could be raped, beaten to death (as long as they lingered in agony for 24 hours- Exodus 21:21) or sold as prostitutes. And notice that the supposed “kind treatment” of “wives” taken as booty only exists if the master wants them as “wives”; if he wants the woman as a concubine or slave, all bets are off.
It is, but several posters have claimed Jesus didn’t need to condemn slavery outright because it was obvious that what he did say made it clear to all that slavery was bad. Apparently, however, this “obvious” message didn’t seem all that obvious to any of his followers because, although they pontificated and expanded greatly on what they heard him say, touching on many subjects both major and minor, they didn’t go anywhere near a condemnation of slavery.
I’m not sure I follow. Imagine a Bible where Jesus does address rich slaveowners:
“First off, you shouldn’t be rich in general or own slaves in particular; you should give all your possessions away. But let’s shelve the bit about camels and needles for a moment to consider a hypothetical question: what should you do if your slave decides to smack you upside the head? Why, you should let him do it again, of course. And if he decides to take your cloak? Well, (a) don’t stop him, and (b) if anything, give him a nice tunic to go with it. What’s that? Ah, good question. No, I don’t much care what they were doing; unless you’re without sin, you can’t go around throwing rocks at people. If you forgive men their trespasses, then your heavenly Father will also forgive you; if you don’t, He won’t. So resist not evil, and judge not lest – hang on a minute, I’ll write this down.”
What changes, exactly?
Maybe Jesus made mistakes.
So why not send Jesus 2.0 a generation or two later to correct the mistakes?
The general answer I’ve been told is that slavery wasn’t that bad a thing back then. Being a slave was much closer to being an indentured servant, or even a live-in employee. There were harsh masters, sure, but being one of those was forbidden.
As for a Christian master being told to free his slaves: think about it. What good is a freed slave? What in that society could they do? They’d have no education, no skills that aren’t already being taken by a slave. It’s not like America where there were places where slaves were uncommon, and a former slave could use his abilities as a freedman. It would be far better to keep them as a slave, but treat them like a brother, like Paul commands Philemon.
The first point is that much of Christianity can be easily understood as really useful marketing. I’m not saying that Paul was a deliberate master marketer, holding meetings and cackling evilly, but either by choice or intuition it came out that way. Those pagan religions? Believe or not, they don’t care. Our religion? Don’t believe, and suffer in hell eternally. How do you want to bet?
And then of course, as good salesmen do, remove all deal breakers. Circumcision. The kosher laws. These were in force for a long time, and Jesus didn’t even remove them, but poof they were gone in seconds to sign up the chumps.
I had the advantage of growing up without drinking the kool-aid, even when I believed in God.
Well, that’s jolly dandy. Your house is burning? Tough, I’m teaching fire prevention over here. Not to mention that the fire engine is nearly 2,000 years late.
We’re not talking about whether anyone would have listened to him - we sure know that didn’t happen. Be mean to the poor, take revenge. be rich, and it is all okay so long as you pray for forgiveness. So, if Jesus had just said “free your slaves” very likely people would find something in the Bible permitting it, but just maybe slavery would have been easier to abolish. Anyhow, his audience would read in “free men” for those who weren’t supposed to be hit back, not slaves. That’s crazy talk. Remember Spartacus!
He’s still in beta.
Here is a quote from page 88 of my version of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States:
Point being there are several reasons mentioned to explain why slavery ended. ‘Just not needed anymore’ = ‘the lack of powerful economic need for slaves’. The Bible isn’t mentioned (but then again Howard Zinn isn’t the only historian).
If this is how slavery ended in the North, and then you consider that at a later date the North was wearing the pants, it seems to make good sense.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.
Nah, I think the product got canceled and all the saints got laid off. The damn website hasn’t been updated in 1800 years.
Yeah, but why not preach equality and personal freedom? God wants a class society?
It is…but someone brought up the fact that some of the things Jesus said were meant to convey the idea that slavery was wrong…to be condemned. And they said the message was very clear.
I was saying that if the message didn’t work for Paul, it wasn’t much of a message or was not very clear.
Well, since Christian scholars from the very beginning have been suggesting that the parables do have to be considered carefully because they do contain hidden meanings…I would prefer to stick with them rather than you.
No crisis. I ask questions because I want to hear answers…and when I ask for suppositions, I want to hear suppositions.
Thanks, Czarcasm.
That is exactly the point. Paul is in this because the discussion took us there.
Thank you to everyone who has participated so far.
Nearly as I can see…the reason Jesus did not condemn slavery is because he did not think there was anything wrong with slavery. The god he worshipped assured him that there was nothing wrong with it…that it was moral and ethical to own and trade in slaves.
Same goes for Paul. Same goes for all the early Christians.
The god Paul worshipped…the god of Abraham…the god of the Bible…said there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying, selling, and owning slaves. It is, in the eyes of that god, an allowable thing.
There is no reason to assume they thought it to be wrong…and that they couched their condemnation in parables.
The question that arises (and which arises at the end of each of my threads is): Why do the theists here choose to worship this particular god as the GOD they suppose exists?
I am an agnostic. I am not suggesting there is anything illogical about guessing or believing or estimating that a GOD exists. I am not suggesting that assuming or believing there are no gods is more logical or more likely than assuming there is a GOD. I am not suggesting that the evidence favors “no gods”…nor am I suggesting that the logical position should be “in the absence of evidence, one should simply assume no gods.”
But I am asking: If you want to “believe” there is a GOD…and that the god is a loving, kind, just god…
…why in the name of everything you consider Holy would you choose this god to worship?
If the discussion goes on, fine!
But that underlying question really should be answered.
Share with us how they “expanded” on Jesus’s message, please, on “many subjects both major and minor.”
You say that “just maybe slavery would have been easier to abolish” if he’d said something else – but all the stuff you copy-and-pasted me putting in his mouth for a hypothetical address to slaveowners is what he already says in the Bible, and I thus don’t figure it’d be any use to further duplicate what he’d repeatedly spelled out. What else could he have said? Why do you figure additional words that make the exact same point would maybe make things easier?
Not hitting back is crazy talk period. You can find oodles of Christians who hit back against free men. You can find oodles of Christians who hit first against free men. You can find oodles of rich Christians who don’t (a) give all their worldly possessions to charity, or even (b) come close. You can even find Christians who honestly believe it’s their solemn duty to kill that there sinner by picking up these here stones. Why do you figure that hearing one more disregardable injunction would get the job done given that they heard and disregarded him just fine when he addressed the subject before?
It seems to me that people today simply view the concept of slavery in terms of the southern US experience. The only justification for slavery of that time was racist, and at no time required the consent of the slave.
During the Jesus era slaves were simply either the spoils of war or their servitude was contracted.
Back in the day, people who wished to ensure security could sell their lives to a wealthy landowner who in turn would house, clothe and feed them in perpetuity. That’s how it was supposed to work.
The more independant soul would hire himself out for wages, but only when the work was available. You want security? You have no land ? You have no wealthy family. Become a slave. It is better than being a beggar.
Those of us who have been afraid to quit our jobs and subject to mortgages and monthly bills may have some idea as to the quality of the plight of a first century slave.
So, if you feel that Jesus should have spoke out against slavery, you might also propose how you would have provided for the ex slaves.