Part 3
Non-Tract: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php
If Luke 12:47 were quoted in context, it would be easy to see that Jesus is simply stating what everyone in his audience already knew: a willfully disobedient servant gets beaten. If the parable is "encouraging" anything, it is watchfulness and obedience, not beating.
The editorial insertion of "[slave]" here is interesting. In the King James Version, the only version quoted in the non-tract, the words "slave" and "slavery" are completely absent from the Gospels, but are used in other places. Most other English versions use "servant" here, even though they also use "slave" in other places. I'll speak a little bit more about the use of the KJV later, but I want to note this spot where we are offered enhanced text, as if we wouldn't understand the point if we only saw the word, "servant".
The thing is, we really might not understand. The words have very different connotations for students of American history. A "servant" could simply be a maid, a gardener, or a hired hand. "Slave", however, is a term inseparable from images similar to those presented in Roots and accounts of its kind. The question which must be answered, then, is which of the two words best describes the institution as practiced in Jesus' culture. History shows us that, while "slavery" is technically correct, "servanthood" paints a much more accurate picture.
Slavery in that time and place was not based on racial considerations, nor was it necessarily a lifetime proposition. Slaves had some rights and privileges and were often educated. Most of them were indentured as a result of poverty and debt and could work their way out of servitude. We see from the passage just preceding this (v. 42-44) that these "servants" were given many responsibilities and rewards, and were trusted to run the estate in the master's absence. This is far different than the picture most of us have of "slaves". Of course, there were abuses and, of course, we would not wish a return to those days, but many slaves were much better off in terms of basic human needs than the free poor.
As for the parables, again, making a point by using easily understood illustrations is not necessarily an endorsement of anything. Many of Jesus' listeners were servants. They could relate to and understand the situations described in the parables, often better than we could. Even so, it is a requirement of the genre that we pay more attention to the lessons behind the parables than to the literal descriptions. These stories are not about slavery. The masters and servant/slaves in the parables were intended to be symbolic of something else. Generally, the master/lord/king represents God and the servant/slave/subject represents a type of follower. The servants vary in their attributes. They are wise or foolish, obedient or rebellious, trustworthy or dishonest, reflecting the many ways people relate to God and each other. It is fruitless and misleading to attempt to connect these parables to Jesus' position on slavery.
Finally, we don't know that Jesus "never denounced servitude". We only know that it's not reported in the Bible. But, such a denunciation could only result in increased violence, increased poverty, and increased resistance from Roman and Jewish authorities, the consequences of which could have been fatal to many people besides Jesus and his followers.
To say that Jesus did nothing to alleviate poverty is not only to make a false statement, but one that is inconsistent with the later assertion that Jesus told us to sell everything we own and give it all to the poor (also false, but we'll deal with that later). He healed the blind, lame, and leprous, turning them from beggars into able-bodied workers. In Matthew 25:31 - 46, Jesus laid out a list of good works that we are to do to the "least of these":
The non-tract inaccurately describes the events of Mark 14:3 - 7 and mangles the context while doing so. Not only does the full story continue through v. 11, the quote of v. 7 is incomplete and cuts Jesus off in mid-sentence! Let's again go verse by verse to see what really happened. First, in v. 3 we may note that the non-tract has again neglected to mention that anyone other than Jesus was involved. We see that the woman owned the ointment, not Jesus, and that the ointment was poured out by the woman, not Jesus. These facts alone should be enough to disprove any accusation that "Jesus wasted it on himself". Also, there is no indication that Jesus or the disciples had a chance to prevent this so-called waste. Even if they had been able to do so, I doubt that anyone would be in favor of this group of men forcing the woman to sell the ointment against her wishes. After she has poured out the contents, the disciples start grumbling and scolding the woman (v.4 and 5). If the people who first complained about this "waste" did not attempt to blame Jesus for it, it seems quite unreasonable for the non-tract to do so. Jesus, for his part, recognizes that this was a sincere act of devotion and graciously accepts it in the spirit in which it was given. He rebukes his disciples for troubling the woman and praises her (v. 6). Now, here's where the full text of the v. 7 becomes important. Jesus is continuing the thought from v. 6 and that same thought continues through v. 8. He's saying that what the woman has done is good because she has done something for him while she could. He says that the disciples can spend the rest of their lives helping the poor (and strongly implying that they should) but that he won't be alive for much longer. That's the real point of this passage. It's not about Jesus' attitude towards the poor, which is well established by many, many other verses. It's about Jesus preparing the disciples for his death and burial. In response to that message, we see that Judas Iscariot loses heart and decides to betray Jesus to the chief priests (v. 10 and 11). There is a poignancy to the thought that this prediction of his death hastened his death, and made it true that the woman had anointed him "aforehand" for his burial (again, v. 8).
It is false to say that "no women were chosen as disciples". Certainly, the "Twelve" were all men, but there were women who traveled with them, learned with them (Luke 10:39), and supported them (Luke 8: 1-3). And, while there is no mention of women in the Last Supper accounts, we have no way of knowing whether any were invited or were present. If these are the strongest arguments concerning Jesus and women, we are left with little to criticize. Jesus uniformly treated women with a respect and compassion far beyond normal social custom. We have just seen a case where Jesus scolded his own disciples when they did not match his example. At the time, it was not socially acceptable for an unmarried man to speak directly to a woman in public, yet Jesus regularly did so, Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, "clean" and "unclean". He healed them, counseled them, defended them, and taught them. The first witnesses to his resurrection were women. While there are many people in the Bible who mistreated women, Jesus is clearly not one of them.
Again, it seems that these assertions do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. The strongest argument offered here is that Jesus didn't address these issues the way some of us would were we able to sensibly present our 21st Century Global Village views to a 1st Century Near East culture. Any attempt by Jesus to promote such views would only have created a volatile sociopolitical situation, quite possibly leading to violence and further oppression. I admit I'm only speculating, but I suspect that Jesus' approach to correcting social inequity, treating everyone with respect and compassion without regard to gender, ethnicity, occupation, economic standing, condition of servitude, or social convention, is just as effective as any scheme found today.