Let us consider, most excellent Liberalis, what still remains of the earlier part of the subject; in what way a benefit should be bestowed. I think that I can point out the shortest way to this; let us give in the way in which we ourselves should like to receive. Above all we should give willingly, quickly, and without any hesitation; a benefit commands no gratitude if it has hung for a long time in the hands of the giver, if he seems unwilling to part with it, and gives it as though he were being robbed of it. (56)
So Seneca was clearly a Roman advocate of the “golden rule.” In addition, Nero’s teacher was also an early critic of Roman slavery:
I do not wish to involve myself in too large a question, and to discuss the treatment of slaves, towards whom we Romans are excessively haughty, cruel, and insulting. But this is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters. And as often as you reflect how much power you have over a slave, remember that your master has just as much power over you. (57)
Seneca the Younger
Statements like these from Seneca make it easy to see why later Christians would invent, as they did, a correspondence between St. Paul and Seneca (which is now rejected as an obvious forgery created at a later date). (58)
Although we have already seen that the New Testament repeatedly commands slaves to obey their masters—even when their master isn’t looking, and even happily—the New Testament is also famous for a doctrine of benevolent treatment of slaves by their masters that echoes Seneca’s policy. Consider this New Testament passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians that reflects his position:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Emphasis added.) (59)
This Seneca-like compassion resembles the paternalistic love and concern of Emperor Titus as we have seen it described by Suetonius.
At their circuses, the Romans, like Jesus, fed the multitudes with bread. The Emperor Titus would take the practice to new heights himself during the opening of the Colosseum.
Roman emperors, especially the Flavians, were keen to advertise themselves as bringers of peace and saviors of the world. One might think there is a paradoxical element in a Roman general associating himself with peace. Yet Jesus, too, commanded peace even as he launched a physical attack on the Temple in Jerusalem. While advocating peace, Jesus states: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (60)
Therefore calling the Jesus of the Gospels a “pacifist” and therefore incompatible with the Romans’ agenda is not credible. His commands for pacifism appear to have been directed specifically at the Jewish rebels of the 1st Century.
Jesus himself went so far as to command his disciples to carry weapons. As we might expect by now, however, the specified context of his instruction is revealing:
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: “‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me, Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied. (Emphasis added) (61)
This is, of course, none other than Isaiah’s “Suffering Servant” prophecy. Here, Jesus draws a connection between himself and this passage from Hebrew prophecy—which was not a prophecy about the messiah himself but only about the sacrificial precursor to the messiah.
Also, Jesus tells his followers to carry swords in order to be “numbered with the transgressors.” They are to have swords, it seems, for the express purpose of getting Jesus into trouble, thus checking off another prophetic requirement we have observed in Isaiah’s suffering servant prophecy.
The same passage from Isaiah also implies that the accusations will be false and that the Suffering Servant is really a man of peace. So, far from justifying the use of weapons in self-defense as some have interpreted it today, this instruction by Jesus seems to rationalize the fact that the first (pre-Pauline) “Christians” were known for carrying weapons and were therefore “transgressors.” Notice how Jesus stresses limiting their weapons.
Finally, while justifying the prophetic consequences, none of this alters Jesus’s perfectly clear instructions to submit to aggressors, love one’s enemies, obey authorities, turn the other cheek, and foster peace. Indeed, Jesus reproves Peter on the only occasion where the disciples actually use their swords in the Gospels. ‘“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”’ (62)
If we take “all who draw the sword” to mean anyone who initiates violence, then Jesus’s prediction is obviously wrong. Of course, everyone knows that many violent killers die natural deaths long after their crimes, including a lot of victorious Roman centurions who killed Jews during the war. Taken in historical context during the late post-war 1st Century, therefore, the phrase would have been heard as a warning against rebellion, a dire prophecy aimed at those who “took up the sword” against the Roman Empire.
Those who rebelled against Rome would indeed pay dearly, so Jesus’s prediction is again absolutely correct. Those who weren’t slain on the battlefield were captured—and many thousands of them were crucified even as their families were enslaved.
Christ’s ideas did not represent any pre-existing “pacifist” branch of 1st Century messianic Jews—no evidence for such a sect exists before the 1st Century. Instead, he personifies the Roman Empire’s opposition to messianic Jews. If Christianity is not Roman propaganda, it must be an extremely strange coincidence that Christ’s story of Jewish guilt and message of transnational peace was written down during the Flavians’ reign in the years immediately after they had crushed that rebellion.
Just like Serapis, Christ seems to be a pacifying combination-god perfectly designed to bridge the fractious cultural divide between conquered Jews and victorious Romans.
In addition to all of the overlapping imperial and Christian values, the Flavian dynasty also appears to have introduced a more conservative sexual morality to Roman society that markedly contrasted with the notorious licentiousness of the Julio-Claudians. We generally equate ancient Romans with the famous debauchery of the previous dynasty. And, undoubtedly, most Roman emperors before the Flavians are renowned for their orgiastic excesses.
However, there is evidence that during the reign of the Flavians some of Pompeii’s pornographic murals were painted over, suggesting a more modest approach by Vespasian or possibly by Titus, who had taken the throne only two months before the eruption. (63)
For his part, after Titus’s death, his younger brother Domitian would restore the traditional penalty of being buried alive for all Vestal Virgins who broke their vows of chastity. This may be attributed to the fact that Domitian took a more conservative approach to traditional Roman religion, in general, than his brother or father. But it also continues the more conservative sexual mores instituted by the Flavians after the sexual excesses of the Julio-Claudians. (64)