Gender relations and slavery at the time of Jesus?

[johncmcleod]

I got into an argument with someone the other day about Jesus. I just wrote a paper on Jesus' concepts of social justice in the Gospel of Matthew, and I found this wasn't what he intened at all. In this Gospel he is simply a spiritual teacher, trying to show people how to enter the kingdom of God (whether that is a spiritual state of mind or the afterlife is open to your interpretation). Social justice seems irrelevant to him in this gospel. Anyway, one of my minor points was that Jesus mentions slavery several times in this Gospel but does not once say it is wrong. If social justice was an emphasis of his, he would at least once say that slavery was wrong. But he never does, and he doesn't say anything about the patriarchal gender relations of the society either. I'm not arguing that he likes these things. All I'm arguing is that if he were about social justice, he would've told us they are wrong. Instead he doesn't comment on them, and he just teaches about the kingdom of God.

He responded by saying that Jesus didn't challenge slavery or gender relations because at this time they weren't bad. He said that slavery was much milder than the form it took in the 19th century and that it was more like indentured servitude. He also said the gender relations weren't that bad either. Here's a quote from an email he sent me:

...you don't put Jesus's words into its historical context, and judge the value and implications of Jesus's statements with modern presumptions.

For example, your arguments regarding slavery and gender issues cannot apply, because they are premised on anachronistic presumptions. Your perception of slavery and gender roles today is not the correct understanding of slavery and gender roles in the Bible. As I have said in our coversation before, slavery during Jesus's time was not like slavery now, in fact, it could not even be called slavery by today's standards, rather, it would be called something like servanthood, not too different from having nannies at home. Also the patriarchal system does not espouse gender inequality, only a recognition of gender differences and roles. My belief about gender roles and the biblical stance on gender roles, are controversial in this liberal atmosphere at Williams College, however, I believe they are tenable positions. No matter how hard people try to deny it, men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically, thus naturally they are more fit for certain roles within society than the other sex. This is all that the patriarchal soceity says. The fact that men are supposed to be the heads of the family does not mean that women are inferior, only that that is the structure of society that is most conducive to harmony and effective function. For a more detailed perspective, visit this website:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/men-mars.html

I didn't look at the website. Now I'm not asking for people to do the argumentation for me. I basically need to know the history to respond correctly. Is what he's saying true, was slavery not so bad at Jesus' time? What about the gender relations? What he is saying seems to be incredibly sexist. It seems like he saying that men are designed to rule the family, and that patriarchal society is justified in imposing this role on every family, and I disagree with imposing roles on anyone. I also disagree with the assumption that men are designed to rule the family-the reason this happens is because sexist cultures raise men to do so and raise women to be subservient. I also disagree with the notion that being at the head of the family doesn't necessarily make you better in society, because that is the way things seem to play out. And 'harmony and effective function' seems to mean more that the women aren't allowed any power in the relationship and aren't happy but can't divorce for societal reasons and because there is no husband that would be any better. But that's just me. The point is, how were gender relations in his society? Were they good for all parties involved?

And the gender relations and slavery thing are just part of the bigger question I'm getting at: was the society at this time unjust? Because if it was, than Jesus said nothing (at least in Matthew he didn't) about changing this unjust society, which would prove my point-Jesus was a spiritual teacher trying to help us get close to God, not a social leader who was trying to change and get us to change an unjust society.

[MRT144]

he has it half right. at the time of jesus slavery was common and it would have been very radical (even more so than jesus was) to preach against it.

was it more harsh? how would he (the person responding) know? does he have a magical jesus wayback machine?

the society at jesus' time was unjust by our standards. holding people 2000 years ago to our standards is absurd though.

[johncmcleod]

But if our standards are correct, than why didn't Jesus make statements that would align with these standards more?

And what do you mean 'would have been radical?!' Jesus was a radical! If social justice were an emphasis of his, don't you think he would have at least pushed for more equality? He wouldn't necessarily have to ask them to have the same standards as us, but don't you think he would asked for an improvement? Any type of improvement? I think he would've if social justice were a concern of his. But he doesn't seem to be concerned with this type of change at all, he seems concerned with spiritual matters.

As for slavery being more harsh or not, I don't know how he knows this. He just said in a conversation that slavery back then worked like indentured servitude, that you only had to work a certain amount of years. I think he's probably just misinformed, but I can't tell him no unless I have historical evidence that tells me that slavery back then was bad.

[Traianvs]

Well there's slavery and there's slavery. For sure, many slaves could rise to important positions even though their entire being was bound to their respective owners. Mind you I'm talking about imperial Roman time now, which is when Jesus lived. Also note that in Palestine and the east this was probably not exactly like in Rome. In any case slavery was accepted as Common Law.
Especially house slaves had the possibility of having a decent treatment, even being granted certain privileges - such as de facto having property, which is in theory not one of their rights of course. However those privileges were not protected since a slave had no right, so in the end it all depended on the whim of the owner, or his employees (which in large households or firms was possible if the number of slaves was high).

So, like MRT144 said, slavery was pretty common then, and generally accepted as a part of life, and not necessarily as something evil albeit slavery was not really anyone's goal in life of course.

On the other hand, State owned slaves that worked in the mines, rowers in the navy, or slaves on large estates working for an exploitative owner were off badly. I think their situation resembled much the life of a black slave brought to America during its colonisation by the Europeans, except maybe that they were treated better because they had some value since not all the time slaves were readily available unlike in Africa. In any case, a slave miner didn't make it to old age.

If Jesus did not pity their situation or condemned this, he was having double standards imo. I thought his point was that social rank or class did not matter at all, and that all should be loved and treated equally? So it's pointless to say that we're looking at slavery in Jesus' time with our own views in the back of our minds. Although slavery was socially accepted, that doesn't make it a good thing; just like female circumcision in the horn of Africa can't be excused by the argument of culture etc...

Diversity is not good or bad per sé, but like we got rid of our bad habits of slavery, other cultures at some point also have to get rid of their bad traditions since a tradition is merely something that is being passed over from generation to generation; doesn't mean it's 'good', since all they do is improve the social cohesion of one group or another. Likewise, the ancient culture with their slavery can't be excused. And even though it would be radical as hell back then, if we value Jesus for what he said or supposed to have said according to the Gospel objectively, he should have said that slavery was a bad thing.

So in a sense I think our culture is 'better', not because of our traditions or our particular history, but because at least we are more aware that human rights are better than not having them. If slavery was accepted, then they are wrong. The argument that slavery was necessary for the economy is bs since it isn't; you only need to make (drastic) adaptations.
=> Naturally this can't be defended, because other people might hold a similar logic. I'm looking at it with the current values obviously, but I'd like to point out that people learn from their ancestors. Even the ancients accepted that everybody learns from older times, and we've had lots and lots more time, great minds and opportunities to do so.


Ps: What he says about gender relations is just crap A division of roles in the household could perhaps be defended according to the physiological/physical differences, but in practice the woman is oppressed by the dominant man, especially in the ancient world (although Roman women had greater liberties than Greek ones, and in other places it would differ again etc...). Besides a woman can execute most of the work that men do as well, but it's just social pressure preventing them from doing that. So in that sense, males usually decide what's happenin. If that guy thinks that organizing these discrete roles in the household were a way of trying to achieve a harmonious society fine, but one could also argue on whether that society really was harmonious or not.
It's not because it simply was there that it was effective or harmonious. It worked, yea of course, but all the side-effects and consequences of such a policy should also be examined

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
But if our standards are correct, than why didn't Jesus make statements that would align with these standards more?

And what do you mean 'would have been radical?!' Jesus was a radical! If social justice were an emphasis of his, don't you think he would have at least pushed for more equality? He wouldn't necessarily have to ask them to have the same standards as us, but don't you think he would asked for an improvement? Any type of improvement? I think he would've if social justice were a concern of his.

Maybe he wasn't radical enough, and maybe his teachings were filtered so we might not know about those (cf. infra)

But he doesn't seem to be concerned with this type of change at all, he seems concerned with spiritual matters.

Don't forget that the Gospels are interpretations of Jesus' life, and that the church in the Middle Ages banned many others containing different information, perhaps less focused on the spirituality, but more on social matters. I don't know since I know nothing about those, never having read them but it's a possibility.
You know, see for example the elimination of the gnostic movement. If that carried through, we might look at the whole thing differently, so the church has had a great role in the view on what Jesus was trying to say after all; good reminder.

As for slavery being more harsh or not, I don't know how he knows this. He just said in a conversation that slavery back then worked like indentured servitude, that you only had to work a certain amount of years. I think he's probably just misinformed, but I can't tell him no unless I have historical evidence that tells me that slavery back then was bad.

Bleh, social acceptance of slavery doesn't mean it's worse or better. We didn't care much about slavery too some centuries ago.
Oh and being a slave meant, in theory, that you'd be one for life, unless the owner released you => pretty obvious ey

[Jon Miller]

Among the Jews he was right. Slaves were supposed to be freed every 7 years (or what have you).

An additional issue with the 19th century is that slave and black meant about the same thing. There was this whole idea of them being less human.

Earlier.. like around the time of Christ, slaves could become freed. And afterwards reach high rank (up to 2nd in command of the nation). Slavery then was something that could happen to anyone with ill luck. It would often happen to people whose debts grew too large, or who were captured by pirates or raiders. Also, often, people were allowed to buy their freedom. Afterwards, they would be a normal part of society.

I know there were many abuses of slaves as well, though.

In the Bible, there is instruction to treat your slaves well. As well as the 7 year thing.

I am also inclined to think that it was something else than the institution we saw in the 19th century. Not as good as we have now, of course, but better than African Americans were treated then.

Also, most Christians consider that Christ's mission to be spiritual. The abuses found in slavery in the 19th century, and the abuses found earlier, aren't what a good Christian (or Jew) would engage in.

Jon Miller

[MRT144]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
But if our standards are correct, than why didn't Jesus make statements that would align with these standards more?

thats absurd! you cant apply ad hoc teachings to jesus because of societal evolution.

[Jon Miller]

The central question is would slavery have lasted long if people had followed Christ's teaching.

I am inclined to say no...

Jon Miller

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The central question is would slavery have lasted long if people had followed Christ's teaching.

I am inclined to say no...

Jon Miller

i say it lasted as long as it naturally would have. people dont follow the teachings of jesus despite claiming to be christians, in any capacity at times

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The central question is would slavery have lasted long if people had followed Christ's teaching.

I am inclined to say no...

Jon Miller

In fact, slavery was dieing out, for economical reasons mostly, but not only.
Constantine made killing a slave equal to killing a free man I recall...
But slaves were less and less common, and I have an impression, I never deepened into this subject, that in medieval times they were non-existant in christian world (while they played a big role in muslim world) except for that Italians (esp. Genoese) were transporting slaves from Kipchak to Egypt in Mamluk times.

[Heresson]

oh, yeah, Arabs had a lot of slavic slaves, from around Bohemia and Poland, and this trade stopped with introduction of Christianity

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Among the Jews he was right. Slaves were supposed to be freed every 7 years (or what have you).

Supposed, but in reality there wasn't much regularity there. I've read an article on it some years ago, and iirc it just depended on the political situation, and it didn't happen that frequently in the end...

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Heresson


In fact, slavery was dieing out, for economical reasons mostly, but not only.
Constantine made killing a slave equal to killing a free man I recall...
But slaves were less and less common, and I have an impression, I never deepened into this subject, that in medieval times they were non-existant in christian world (while they played a big role in muslim world) except for that Italians (esp. Genoese) were transporting slaves from Kipchak to Egypt in Mamluk times.

Yes, slaves were less common because the late-Roman empire could not expand much longer, so it wasn't able to bring in new hordes of slaves. It's seems trivial, but it's an important factor anyhow.

[Heresson]

yes, that's what I've ment (You could always buy slaves, but they wouldn't be as cheap as the ones from war, so a better choice was to have peasants, especially tied to the ground)

[Dr Strangelove]

Jesus asked that masters treat their slaves as brothers and that slaves treat their masters likewise. One then only has to speculate whether it is 'brotherly' to treat someone as property, to refuse him autonomy, to make him work beyond the limits of endurance, to use him or her as a sex toy, or to compel him to undertake tasks almost certain to result in his death. (In those days in order to crack ore bearing rock mineshafts would be heated with fires, then the entire shaft would be flooded with cool water while the slaves were still tending the fires. ) The problem is that given the power that the head of a family had over everyone else in the family in those days the answer might well have been 'yes', but given all else that Jesus said concerning how people ought to treat each other I think that the answer hoped for is 'no'.