Loading...I am returning now to my discussion of understandings of wealth and charity in the early Christian tradition, as I think through how I want to draft my prospectus on a book on that topic for my publisher. If you want to see the earlier posts on views of wealth and giving in the Roman world (which stand in stark contrast with what arose in Christianity), just do a word search for “wealth” on the blog and you’ll see all the recent articles.
Now I move to the views of the historical Jesus and his followers; after that, in subsequent posts, I’ll talk about how these views changed significantly over (Christian) time, and consider the real life practical effects they had in understanding the importance of helping the poor in the Western world.
************************
The later Christian discourse appealed to such traditions as found in the Hebrew Bible, but it found yet greater impetus in the recorded teachings of Jesus. For the purposes of my analysis, it is important to remember that historical scholars can no longer simply quote verses to show what Jesus himself actually said – the Gospels certainly record sayings that were placed on his lips by later story tellers (or the Gospel writers themselves). But there are also certainly sayings that are authentic (the scholarly task is to demonstrate which is which). And among these are numerous teachings about wealth, including some that urge complete divestment. Indeed, those who give away their worldly goods will “receive treasure in heaven.”
In our earliest Gospel, Mark, we find the famous story of
This is a rather key element of Jesus’ teachings. Want to read more? Join the blog! Click here for membership options
Does that mean our 45th President is going to heaven? After all, he was a poor President.
If enough men leave everything it helps to ensure that the poor are with us always.
How do fundamentalist rich folks get around this? I can’t imagine you’ve heard an argument that’s convincing, but have you heard any at least that are somewhat plausible?
The only real way around it is to think that Jesus wanted this one guy to give everything up for the poor but he wanted the rest of us to be filthy rich. (If so: no wonder the guy was upset!!)
“ Jesus must mean that those who leave their own homes and families to follow him will be welcomed into many other homes and so will have hundreds of other people treat them as kin and allow them to share their resources.”
Who are the people with homes and resources? Aren’t they followers, too? If they are, then he must think they’re okay and didn’t expect them to give up everything. I am thinking he was talking about specific types of followers and was talking more about the spirit of a trusting community with different people having different duties. It can’t be literal if he wants some people to share their kept resources.
Yup, it doesn’t make much sense. Apparently, thoguh, the idea is that the REALLY devoted followers will give everything up and be supported by those who are on a second tier level of commitment.
What about later verses when he tells the disciples it’s okay for them to go back to their families? I think I heard someone say that before in regards to these verses.
Which verses are you referring to?
I don’t know exactly. It was like at first Jesus when Jesus sent the disciples out he didn’t want them to bring anything with them. Like their cloak and pair of shoes or whatever was enough. When they came back, he was like they take whatever with them. I think those verses also mentioned that one knife was enough that they didn’t need two.
I’m sure I’m screwing the story up lol. I don’t actually want to look it up because I’ll get sucked back into worrying about those verses.
This is the main thing that has bothered me. Why would someone have to abandon their family and possessions to prove they’re saved? That is just hard.
It’s not to *prove* they are saved but in *order* to be saved. Or at least to be saved and rewarded with treasures in heaven.
It is perhaps fortunate that I do not particularly wish to be a disciple.
You can certainly have more fortune!
When Jesus says “No one who does not give up all his possessions can be my disciple” is he implying that only his disciples will enter the coming kingdom? He certainly preached pro-kindness and anti-materialism but he doesn’t seem to seem to make this specific demand of all the people he encountered, as he did with the rich young man. Would he condemn a poor father struggling to support his family while being as generous as possible within his limited means because he wouldn’t abandon them to be a disciple? I hope not. I don’t want to water down what Jesus said, but there is nuance in every teaching and principle. He spoke on behalf of the poor, I think his main target was people like, well, comfortable Americans driving around in nice cars complaining about the price of gas while passing by people who have to walk to work.
It’s a tough saying. Elsewhere he idncates taht those who help those in need willendter the kingdom, but that only those who give away everyting will have treasures. Maybe he means this one in a similar sense: True disciples give up everything; but they aren’t the only ones to get into the kingdom? (None of the “sheep” in Matthew 25 were his disciples…)
Bart, at what stage in the history of Christianity do you stop being a top-level scholar, even if interested? Is 3rd century already out of your expert range or what?
Ha! Depends who you ask. And what “top-level” means. My greatest expertise is NT. But I publish estensively on the second century and into the third. I’m less of an expert starting with the fourth, though I”ve written a good deal about some aspects of it. After that, it’s a stretch.
Ahhh … but are these really Jesus’ own words or is the historian creating them at a later date, to fill in the story? How can we know? Or, are the gospel writers not really “historians”?
You can be a historian and not be accurate! But they of course do not present themselves as historians but as writers of Gospels (“Good News”)
Not to quibble… but. What difference did that mean to 1.) the gospel authors and 2.) their readers? In context of the time compering them to say Josephus as the historian. Did the authors expect to be believed literally? Did the readers expect to read accurate history or was it just …… stories to be enjoyed? News, some modern media practitioners thereof aside, connotes fact today… what did it mean in Greek 2000 years ago?
I remain eternally poor at 2000 year old context!
Well, we don’t know what was going on in any of their heads, so we can’t say for sure. But normally people in the ancient world who were engaged in writing history had training in what they were doing and had a concern to consult a range of sources and draw conclusions when they found differences. When Mark describes his work he calls is a “proclamation of good news” (= Gospel). He was not writing for a broad audience to inform them about the facts of history, but to his Christian community to proclaim, celebrate, and explain the life of Jesus. I’m sure that both he and his readers thought that what he said really happened. But that doesn’t mean that he went about it the way a historian (as opposed to a preacher or story teller) wold have.
I’ve had long discussions with evangelical friends on this topic. It’s difficult to convince them that what they believe is rooted more in subsequent church tradition than in what Jesus said. Inevitably they will claim it’s more about one’s heart than about how much one possesses. But look at the text: “for where your treasure is, there your heart *WILL* be also.” Your heart *will* be where your treasure is, not the other way around.
The Gospel of Luke is especially insistent on the evils of wealth. Many evangelicals seem unaware that Jesus said in this Gospel, “Woe to you who are wealthy” and “Blessed are you who are poor,” and not “Blessed are you who are poor *in spirit*.”
As a former Bible translator missionary in Niger, I was troubled by such passages. I occasionally heard stories of missionaries (whom I never met) who lived at the level of the people, but it just wasn’t practical for us to give up literally everything, as our family at least needed the funds for medical care and a pickup truck to travel between the town where we served and the capital for official business.
Hi Bart,
I find your post interesting, but can we consider Luke 19:1-10, even though it is unique to Luke?
For example, Jesus commended Zacchaeus for giving away only half of his wealth plus paying back fourfold to anybody that he defrauded:
8 Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” 9 Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. (Luke 19:8-9 NRSVUE)
Best,
James
I’ll be dealing with that one in a later post!
Poor=Good, Rich=Evil and leave your wife for Me. A few pages later, He rants against divorce and so on. Is this a John the Baptist or other sect thing or just crafty verse?
It seems to be a Jewish apocalyptic notion, held by others as well as Jesus.
Professor,
In Mark 10:21 ‘Go and sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” ‘. “treasure in heaven” caught my eye as out of place for Jesus the apocalyptic preacher. He said “in heaven”, not in Gods Kingdom to come. I didn’t think the righteous “going to heaven” was a thing until after Paul and the failure of an early second coming to transpire? So is it then likely Mark 10:21 was put on Jesus lips?
It’s a good question. THere are a number of options. ONe is that the whole thing was put on Jesus’ lips; another is that he said “kingdom of God/heaven” and Mark shortedned it; another is that he was using “heaven” as a shorthand for “the Kingdom of God that is coming from heaven.” I’m not fully sure what to make of it myself.
Bart, this passage is a key part of the Christianity Explored course, an evangelistic course used in England.
It forms part of the session on Gods Grace!
If I remember correctly the course teaches that the rich man cant do anything to get into heaven on his own. He thinks he can keep the commandments but Jesus’ call to give up everything is designed to expose that he is unable to keep the command ‘not to covet’ and therefore is unable get to heaven through his own works. He needs to rely on Gods mercy (although jesus never says this to him, so he needs to be a mind reader too apparently!)
So the command is for him only, to expose his heart, not to all Christians.
Personally I see so many problems with this. Is this the interpretation you used to hold as a Christian?
ARe you sure that’s the way the logic ends? Usually in that way of reading Jesus’ “impossible” demands (You must never lust! You must never get angry – or it’s fire for you!) is that once a person realizes that it just can’t be done, they turn to the cross for salvation. In that case the commands really ARE for everyone; they just can’t be done. I think that’s a completely wrong reading, but it is a common view among conservative Protestants (e.g., of the SErmon on the Mount)
With all those statements about what the Catholics might call a ‘vow of poverty,’ I wonder why so many 21st Century, usually Evangelical/fundamentalist Christians believe in something they call the ‘Prosperity Gospel?’ I don’t see much other than a few statements by Paul with respect to ‘Seek Ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all those things shall be added onto you.’ I believe this is an obvious reference to God may provide if you follow rather than we will achieve material prosperity now on earth.
It’s a very intriguing issue, I agree (the Prosperity Gospel). I’m thinking about devoting a chapter to the issue in my book on charity.
Do you think these are the words of the historical Jesus?
I suspect he said something very much like this, yes. And repeatedly!
The injunction to abandon family is both inhuman and inhumane. If that’s what the historical Jesus actually taught, then I would say that the historical Jesus was a very sick puppy. “Follow me! Abandon everything and everyone and follow me!” Almost a premonitory glimpse of Jim Jones. And that doesn’t seem consistent with anything a “good Jew” of the time would say. So you would have to wonder whether Jesus wasn’t in fact what an orthodox Jew of the time would consider a heretic– or at least some sort of fringe nut case. Much is sometimes made of the Jewishness of Jesus, but he might have been unclassifiable and rather crazy. A charismatic mad man. Out in left field. Way out. Not a savory character at all.
What do you think of the claim that the word “camel” in
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom”
Was actually a misinterpretation of the homophonic Greek word for “rope” which would make the saying far more accessible?
I’ll be talking about that in a later post. One big problem I have is that the passage is written in Greek where the two words do not sound at all alike, but in Aramaic, which the Gospel writers didn’t know. Even so, it’s important ot recognize that the Aramaic word refers to a shipo halter not to clothesline — also impossible!
I read somewhere (you?) that public speakers of the time where valued for their uses of puns. So a ship’s halter and a needle would work. And (same source, whatever it was), the narrow portal of a fortified city was also apparently called a “needle” — and thus 2 puns at once.
Yes, it would be a good pun. The camel is probably a better image. So I’m not sure we can decide on that basis. For me the problem is that the story is written by Greek authors, and there is no similarity for the two words in Greek.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0Fm8aVApk
This is from the Religion For Breakfast YT channel, hosted by Dr Andrew Henry. Bart has been on his channel before, He gives an excellent summary of this issue. Well worth 14 minutes of your time IMO.
I’m ambivalent about this. On the one hand I think the historical Jesus was making a very radical demand which we are strongly motivated to water down. On the other hand, didn’t Jesus often use hyperbole and other rhetorical devices to challenge people and get their attention, to make a point?
Also, would Jesus have made such a radical demand if he didn’t think the Kingdom of God was just around the corner? Given its imminence, divestment might not have seemed like such a big deal.
What about the view that Jesus was not so much talking about literal divestment but more about not being attached to and controlled by wealth, that it was more about putting God and his law first and “using” one’s wealth for the poor?
I think you allude to the possibility that the point of abandoning one’s family was to widen one’s circle of concern to those in need outside of one’s family, in the end to all humanity on the basis of need. And that, if everyone did this, one’s own family would automatically be taken care of? I’d never thought of it like that before. Is that a real possibility?
Also, Jesus’s central ethical teaching in the Great Commandment and Golden Rule points more toward equality, eg, of wealth, rather than divestment and poverty. Of course, at that time, equality might well have been pretty much the same as poverty.
After all these considerations, I think Jesus was most interested in people putting God and his law and his coming kingdom first, far ahead of one’s desire for wealth. I’m not sure he was mainly interested in poverty either for its own sake or for the sake of helping others with one’s wealth. Poverty was a way of ensuring that one was not attached to or a slave of wealth—in place of God. It might have even been a way of shedding one’s egoism in a Buddhist sense. Being devoted to the welfare of others also helps one to shed one’s egoism.
On the other hand, in the parable of the sheep and goats, the main focus does seem to be on helping others and reducing suffering.
I”ve now addressed some of these questions in my next posts. ANd yup, it’s a possibility. But a remote one.
It seems the timeline was short between Jesus’s words and the coming of the Kingdom, as you suggest. With that in mind, your poverty and abandonment of family is only temporary and not for decades.
A couple weeks ago you discussed Deism and why you don’t find it persuasive. I don’t think this quote from the Deist Thomas Paine will or should change your mind. But I think it does capture a lot of the attractiveness of
that Deism can hold for ex-Christians.
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.
It’s consistent with a commitment to reason, science, and a universal, natural religion, and preserves Christian ethics and hope without being obscured by all the superstition, irrational beliefs, inconsistencies in revelation, and trivia of traditional Christianity. It gets to the heart of the matter with clarity and simplicity and good will.
Nevertheless, in the end, it’s just one more blind alley.
Hello Dr. Ehrman & Fellow Enthusiasts. My name is Deena and I am a playwright. I have been hired by my local University to write a play for their theatre students to bring to The Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2023. The working title is “CANONIZED: The Curious Lives & Deaths of the Saints.” It is going to be a comedy, as so many of the factoids are a bit zany, but it is going to be done with gentle irreverence. The overall premise will be that the Saints must undergo ecclesiastical tribunal and must defend their case for their Sainthood when Pope Paul VI removed 93 Saints/revoked feast days in 1969. Would you be so kind as to share with me your favorite funny Saint or Saint story? Or any Saint fact that is particularly odd or interesting? Also, what books or sources would you recommend for me to conduct my research? Thanks in advance!
Wow, this sounds terrific! So you’ll be dealing with ancient as well as modern saints? I’m not knowledgable about modern saints; but for that matter and the whole field of late ancient and medieval hagiography is outside my expertise. But I’m sure you know there is an abundant literature on it — easy to find just on Amazon. So much depends on what you’re looking for: time period; actual historical information; legendary accounts; popular fiction; etc.
I know, no matter what I put here, it will merely be only my opinion. By from what I could gather from Jesus’ meanings, being poor or being fulfilled in spite of how little you have, is all relative in your perspective; in other words, you could have nothing, but if you are complete, then you are rich in the kingdom of Heaven, and/or your state of mind in the presence of God. He was offering them freedom from the clutches of misleading judgements put forth by the religeous leaders. When the Pharisees are becoming unsettled by the attention Jesus was getting and approached him with a request, ‘Master, we would see a sign from you’. His reply was, “An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign and no shall be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet…..” I put a large effort of shuffling all four gospels together into one. Their collective report brought forth many revelations about his wisdom. I get the impression; you disagree with my observations.
Yes, my view is that each Gospel has a different message and needs to be studied on its own. But a good way to go about it is simply to look at all the passages in the Gospels that deal with wealth and see what they all say, since they won’t all be saying the same thing.
These are all ideas that only make sense fully if the end is now and not years/decades away.
Hello Dr.Ehrman,
Unrelated question, but one I’m dying to hear your answer to.
What is it exactly that those who are standing in Mark 9:1 will not die until they see?
The ESV renders it: “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”
I think this should lead us to think it is the kingdom of God they will see, it having come with power. Not just seeing as in realizing it has come or as in seeing its effects, which could be interpreted perhaps as their witnessing the resurrected Jesus (though it’s a stretch).
It seems like the majority of translations agree with the ESV, but there are some who render it slightly differently. One being the NRSV:
“Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
One could read this translation as not them actually seeing the kingdom, but them seeing/realizing the signs that the kingdom of God has come.
Can you explain to me: according to the Greek, what will they see before they have died?
THe Greek indicates that they will see the Kingdom after it has come in power — in other words, they will not die until the Kingdom has arrived. I think that is the intention of both ESV and NRSV translations. It appears he means the actual kingdom coming to earth before the disciples die — not to the day of pentecost or the resurrection of Jesus or the transfiguration, etc.
The “treasures in heaven” line in the Sermon on the Mount is a bit confusing to me. Jesus apparently believed in a coming earthly Kingdom of God, right? But what place would the spiritual and non-material (treasures in heaven) have in an earthly kingdom? Would these “treasures of the heart” be somehow converted into more substantial stuff when the Kingdom arrived?
My sense is that the treasures are spiritual, not crassly material. It’s another way of saying “eternal rewards.”
I seem to recall that Socrates abandoned his family for his pursuit of Philosophy.
Was the neglect of spouses and other family members for the sake of God’s kingdom more likely a product of Greek philosophical influence than any other influence?
His wife and kids were still around in Athens.. He just didn’t spend a lot of time with them. That appears to have been common. He didn’t abandon them to go off elsehwere.
Hello Dr. Ehrman:
This is in response to the question posed by seawoman127 July 11, 2022 at 7:53 pm and your response.
Have you ever read the book by Matthew Alper titled: The God Part of the Brain? In this book based on biochemical/neurological research, Alper contends that the desire for the belief in a transcendent figure: God/deity/whomever has evolved as a complex coping mechanism to shield people from their inherent fear and insecurity caused by their fundamental mortality. If not, I recommend it and would be interested in your response.
No I haven’t read it. But it’s up my alley. I’ve thought something similar for a long time.
Dr. Ehrman…I have been a reader of your writings for years, I feel I understand your offerings and to some extent, your thoughts. Can you direct me to a place where you have explored the devotion that believers have for JC? E.g.Kolbe, other “saints”, as well as everyday believers who say Christ “lives in their heart” and guides their lives, they describe it as “being in love” with Jesus. Has this phenomenon been researched that you know of? All through your writings, I have sensed a deep respect for JC, and I’m wondering what your thoughts are about how he “changes lives”….are the 2.4 billion believers just delusional? Or could there be a mystery there that isn’t yet understood ?
Are you asking me why so many people feel so devoted to Jesus? My sense is that it is for a very similar reason that people feel very devoted to God himself, or Mary, or one saint or another, or Allah, or Krishna, or … or any other object of divine worship. It appears to be very common for people to feel a heartfelt passion and commitment to a transcendant being greater than themselves. I don’t think the fact that this happens in one case or another shows that that being is actually a living presence in their lives, but people certainly *feel* as it is. Each of us has to decide for her/himself where our heart takes us with respect to what we adore, worship, and commit our lives to.
Is there any way to tell how much might be hyperbole and that the main thrust is just not to be materialistic? Or is that just what we tell ourselves?
If he (or the Gospel writers) were being dead serious, is it because they expected the world to end?
As you’ll see I’ll be dealing with these issues. Later readers certainly took it as hyperbole. But yes, the imminent end of the world certainly makes the teaching easier to understand.
I’ve always read this story as the answer to the spiritual overachiever. Who would have asked Jesus beyond “follow the Law”.. wouldn’t you have stopped there? OK well, I’ve done that (followed the law), I’m feeling fine.
There’s always more we could do if we were so inclined. Some of us are called to walk barefoot and preach the Gospel. Some of us are called to be C students at Spiritual University. To my mind Jesus is not asking everyone to do this.
Jesus was after all, a first century rabbi, in the tradition at that time. Judaism has a strong emphasis on the importance of family. Did Jesus mean to throw that out entirely? I don’t think so.
It’s intriguing how many of the traditions about Jesus run precisely counter to what we today think of as “family values,” once you add them up.
I’m not sure anyone can claim with certainty what Jesus really believed about family (as we define it). Going by the Biblical quotes attributed to him, he seems at best indifferent, and at worst, somewhat hostile to the idea. So far as I’m aware, there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible, that states or even implies the modern idea (mum, dad, kids living as a generally self contained social and residential unit) is sanctioned by God, Jesus or anyone else, or deemed to be superior to other arrangements.
Dale Martin has a fantastic lecture on YT – he gives a coherent, concise exposition of the idea of family not only in the Bible but in antiquity generally. By the time you get through the fathers of Judaism with hundreds of wives, concubines etc. (none of which is condemned by the writers) through to the ideas of Jesus and Paul on family, you really have to wonder which Bible the Christian Right is actually reading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eLe5Skmy-s
Maybe Jesus figured the world was ending very soon anyway, so may as well take care of each other during the short wait
I suspect Mark is trying to basically diss Peter who went preaching but kept the wifey and took payment unlike AWESOME APOSTLE (WHO REALLY SAW JESUS) PAUL. Its a tacit kind of an insult. Paul comes across as a kind of disagreeable self praising loner who keeps women apostles around who won’t speak up as much against his ego. And his message heavily embraces demigod lord son of God Jesus sacrificing godhood and all sorts of rank and possession to humbly get nailed for humanity kinda like Marks Jesus whose whole point is to be as miserably and “humbly” betrayed persecuted abandoned and ostracized as possible. Paul-Mark basically predicted Christians persecution complex but were very uppity and self rightious about it. Unlike John of Patmos who totally embraced and really led the persecution complex but was very upfront about the nasty things he hoped happened to everyone he hated. The former group reveled in their own purity the latter group revels in the sadistic vengeance they’ll enact on those they hate. It checks out that John is also more overt about all the riches and goodies he hopes for (and will be depriving the heretics of)
A pride of (self)-pity!
Regarding how the first Christians understood the message of charity and the total detachment of all goods by those who wanted to be a disciple of Jesus (voluntary and permanent total poverty), it is very interesting to compare it with Paul’s attitude regarding fundraising and the way in which that justifies this practice and the procedure to follow for economic collections, much less demanding than the one attributed to Jesus, since Paul resorts to the Hebrew tradition of tithes and alms.
Paul does not mention at all the need to choose total poverty to gain the abundant riches of the afterlife, but instead requires Christians to give what is left over, what they do not need for themselves and theirs, to the Christians. poorer than them.
How do we know what Jesus actually said given there were decades between when he said it and when it was written down by the gospel writers? If Jesus died in 30CE and John wrote in the 90s, it was sixty years lag time. How could the integrity of Jesus’ message remain intact over six decades.
I know the Jesus Seminar had a system using color to indicate how likely they thought gospel matter was original to Jesus.
That’s a major issue in biblical scholarship, and I’ve dealt with it a number of times on the blog (do a word search for things like criteria; dissimilarity; independent attestation; historical Jesus etc.). If you want a fuller discussion, see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of hte New Millennium.
Do you think that the interpretation of Jesus’s crucifixion as atonement was due, to a large degree, to his close followers feelings of guilt for having deserted him when he was arrested and subsequent sense of being forgiven when they experienced him as resurrected?
I sometimes wonder what other interpretations besides atonement and Luke’s that Jesus’s followers might have come up with. They saw atonement predicted in the OT. What other interpretations might they have been able to find in the OT? Or in general what other interpretations might their general worldview have suggested?
Why not give the main emphasis to a huge victory-via the resurrection-by the messiah over sin (ie, the sin of executing an innocent man), suffering, and death? That formed a large part of Paul’s view of the resurrection. And I’ve heard that the Orthodox emphasize that as much or more than atonement.
Just to be clear, I’m not asking what God’s purposes for Jesus’s crucifixion might have been but what other interpretations Jesus’s followers might have come up with in light of their religious worldview? Can you suggest any books or authors that discuss this?
I’d say it’s impossible to determine their pyschological state, but I would say that the crucifixion must have cmpletely disconfirmed what they thought before Jesus’ arrest, since he was teaching that they wuld soon experience, and rule in, the Kingdom of God. When they came to believe in his resurrection they necessarily thought that it was an act of God, which meant that the death itself must ahve been part of the plan, and as Jews who knew the Jewish religion they naturally understood the death of a living being according the will of God to be a matter of sacrifice. Hence the early doctrine of atonement.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I have posted a comment with a question here, but it is still awaiting moderation. I’d really appreciate if you could check it out.
I try to reply to all comments within a day or two of them coming in. Sometimes life gets in the way. And oh boy has it been in the way this summer….
Well thank you for answering it. Have an amazing day sir!
The ideas that Jesus states or implies in the passages above (basically : leave your family, possessions, everything behind, and come follow me preaching the good word to enter the kingdom), appear to be the blueprint for every wacky cult leader that has come down the pike over the last 2000 years. I wouldn’t claim to have any kind of historical overview of cults over the millennia, but most of the ones that have come to the public’s attention have been pretty bad.
I see this as Jesus trying to get people and disciples to release their “exclusivity” to their posessions and families. In Acts we see that Peter and the christians lived communally which I believe was the lesson that Jesus was teaching them. Therefore… by giving up the exclusivity of the family unit one gains hundreds of additional family members. It’s not about loosing their families or their families loosing them, but about expansion of family. So I don’t see where they abandoned their families, nor where Jesus was said to have instructed them to do so.
Interestingly that during the Jesus Movement of the 70’s Christian communal living played a large part of it. I lived communally for years never rejecting my mother, father or sister but rather gained many mothers, fathers sisters and brothers. Nothing changed in my relationship with the family that raised me, other than the addition of many more family members. It was the happiest time of my life. and now 50 years later those additional family members are as close to my heart as my original family..
This is how I interpret Jesus’s message here in Mark.
I’ve commented on similar threads before.
Only Marxism has the perspective within which to create a coherent interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth. You can find such interpretations in F. Engels, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, and others. Jesus was a poor tekton, that is a contract builder, and he saw his world through that class lens.
The wealthy are oppressors in that lens and little more. The kingdom of God is the destruction of domination by the wealthy classes, Luke 6:17-26.
Matthew 25:31-45 is another variation of that same apocalyptic perspective.
As the wealthy had no positive role in the present, they must become poor by choice or be condemned in the age to come.
As for leaving families, it is no surprise to some of us that patriarchy would receive an implicit critique in the teachings of Jesus. His contemporary culture exalted male leaders at the expense of women. Leaving behind families to engage in the mission of Jesus that will culminate in Palm Sunday, arrest, trial, and crucifixion was a temporary necessity, but there are moral lessons in it. Namely that we should value the common good of humanity vs familial and ethnic identity.
Jesus wasn’t a Marxist, but he was a precursor.
I have some very good friends who are Christian Marxist theologians.
I like it, and it does make a lot of sense IMO.
Thanks for posting.
For those of us practicing or lapsed Roman Catholics, we would be very familiar with a modified form of Jesus’ teaching in this post, which have persisted throughout the ages – namely the various orders of Priests, Brothers, Nuns, Sisters etc. They do indeed leave their birth families, and live the rest of their lives in commune with their colleagues, in what could reasonably be thought of as 2nd families, with new elders and siblings.
Of course these orders are not itinerant, and the church caters to their basic needs (shelter, food, clothing etc.). They also continue to have contact with their birth families. Certain orders (e.g the Trappists) don’t really engage in mission work or helping the poor.
Still, even in its modified form, this way of life takes some getting used to.
Very interesting article. I think of the Ebionites, whose very name means ” poor ones”, and wonder if there is something to be learned from them regarding Jesus’ sayings.
It may also be that Jesus’ life experiences shaped his world view.
For example, his difficult view about family. Growing up, Jesus’ might have felt an outcast, not really part of his family. If rumors circulated that Joseph was not the father, that another, unknown man was, on account of Mary’s being with child before her betrothal , Jesus’ childhood and adolescence may have been painful, with children teasing him and shaming him. This conflict, not knowing for sure who his father was,
may have also influenced his intimate need of a Father in Heaven. Lastly, his own poverty and comments against the wealthy may relate to his itinerant life ,where many wealthy doors may have been slammed . Moreover, it is possible
to think, to this very day, that extraordinary wealth could cause the hardening of hearts, and Jesus was perhaps not quite a charity worthy subject. Ironically, it was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who was kind to bury Jesus properly.
Sometimes the recipients of charity have antagonistic feelings towards their sponsors, particularly if the receiving individual is strong, brilliant, in a position of authority and aware of his own worth, as Jesus was.
His realisation that the wealthy were not doing enough to alleviate injustice, misery and the socio-economic appalling gap- isn’t it around us still?- brought additional hard feelings towards the wealthy.
Whether Jesus was a proto-Marxist or not, he saw , perhaps unwittingly, 2000 years too early , that Israel would become a socialist nation. The State of Israel was founded by atheists on powerful Socialist principles. To this day, medicine is socialised and workers are strongly unionised, with frequent strikes and accommodations. The welfare state is strong.
Jesus probably knew the Torah’s top-tiered principle,” Justice, justice you will pursue” ( Deut 16:20) and saw how poorly the higher classes applied it, resulting in hypocrisy , which Jesus resented.
Lastly, Jesus spoke to those who would hear him with a yearning, open, receptive mind, those who needed the good news that the horrible world that surrounded them was about to become a heavenly one. The poor and destitute were his available listeners.
My favourite fiction book is “The Name of the Rose” (Umberto Eco). Read it 3 times, twice in English and once in Spanish, my mother tongue, and also enjoyed the film. I hear there is a TV series as well. It is an erudite, fascinating medieval tale and murder mystery (13- 14th cent) .
One of the most memorable sections of the book is the debate within the Franciscan order about whether Jesus was poor. It is fascinating to read the rival factions ‘ arguments.
The novel also questions whether Christ laughed, which I’m personally sure he did.
I am curious about the process by which the Catholic Church became so fantastically wealthy, and how the prelates’ high living can be acceptable when Jesus’ life and preaching were about renouncing earthly material wealth.
Lastly, I am stuck with this contradiction: Jesus must have understood the necessity of wealth, which, after all, literally sustained him. Wouldn’t it have been hypocritical of him to condemn them just because they were wealthy? I think that perhaps not all wealthy people were in Jesus’ contempt and condemnation, and that there must have been much context to his pronouncements that we still just don’t know._
Wholly agree with the interpretation of scripture… as it is written.
Can you imagine; with all of the congregations of believers in every city in the world… how many homeless there would be, in every park… and car park… under every bridge… etc… all over the place.
Lots of camp fires! 👍 I am envisioning that famous Bart Ehrman “WOW!”
So going hungry and homeless and threadbare is supposed to be a good thing? And one needs to do it in order to be “saved”?
I’ve been fighting these things for other people for decades, as well as avoiding it for myself.
I also live in a part of the world where the winters can be very deadly.
Who can do this?
Can this really be what Jesus said or would have recommended?
I don’t mind living a simple life, without riches and a bunch of extras and so forth, but homeless, hungry and threadbare?
Really??
My view is that some brilliant teachers teach things that are completely impracticable and that we simply can’t say that they didn’t teach something because there’s no way we would want to do it. I think of the Greek Cynics, such as Diogenes and Crates, this way, e.g. I think we have to see what a person taught and then decide whether we want to accept it or not; but if don’t accept it, that doesn’t mean they didn’t teach it!
I’ve known a few guys who have actually done this for a while, that is go homeless and with very few possessions. For a woman however, this can be a lot more dangerous. I don’t think it could be good for children either, especially very young ones, not good at all. Nor would it be good for older people.
If only pretty good sized guys, in good health, can do this, and they are the only ones who can be “saved” in this respect, that doesn’t make any sense. It puts a pretty bleak and uncomfortable perspective on things.
It looks like a roadblock that not many people can actually do or even survive in.
I”ve been long interestexd in the Greek Cynic philosophers. They actually did do it. And they included women. Some of them lived a long time. But it ain’t the kinda life I’m shootin’ for, speaking personally. They, though, had a different motivation from Jesus. They didn’t want to own anything they would be made miserable if they lost it (home, nice clothes, possessions); so to be happy, they chose not to have anything. Seems weird, but they swore by it. Jesus had a different motivatoion. The end is coming VERY soon, so give up everything so you can devote yourself to God. I’ll be dealing with the Cynics and Jesus on this score in my next book.
They must have had very safe streets back in those days.
I’ve also got to wonder what kind of winters they had/have in that part of the world.
Highly unpleasant, but not normally enough to kill you.
A big problem is that we have few quotes from Jesus, so scholars have to guess and fill in the blanks as best they can. Ideally we would have a bunch of explanatory quotes that give context to what is in the Gospels, but we don’t. It falls short of what we moderns would expect in terms of “knowledge.”
You can take those Jesus quotes in several ways – was Jesus behaving like a cult leader ? Was he a crackpot ? Egomaniac ? I’m guessing most of Jesus’ followers were poor to begin with, so giving up material possessions would not be a big issue, but given up family was deeply problematic, as Bart states. Was Jesus behaving badly ? Did he understand the implications of his demands ? Perhaps he understood the divisive problems of tribal identity, and was emphasizing the creation of one global tribe, where everyone sees everyone else as a father, mother, brother sister etc. Perhaps the disciples were a test for everyone else : If you don’t feed them, no kingdom for you !!
The issues that Helen Young raises are very valid IMO. Taken at face value, those quotes are very problematic.
Gee Thanks. I don’t get a complement like that too often.
I’ve heard of things where people who are opposed to a certain movement will create words and ideas and sayings and inject them into a movement, believing that no one will be able to stick with it or follow it, when these ideas are a part of it.
It happens. I don’t know if it could have happened in parts of the bible, but it does happen.