Here is a post where I raise a fundamental question that I find very hard to answer. I will not be able to respond to all your reflections, but I will read them all and am very eager to see what you have to say.
In connection with my next book I’ve been reading a lot of writings by the church fathers from the 2-5th centuries to see what they have to say about giving away wealth. A big issue for some of these writers was whether committed Christians should give away *everything* to the poor, or rather keep most of their wealth but still be generous in their giving.
Throughout history, of course, most Christians have been (and still are) attracted to the second option. I’ve argued in previous posts, however, that Jesus appears to have taken the first, urging his followers to divest completely and live lives of abject poverty. It’s not an attractive option, and very few see the point of it – to the extent that most people simply say that Jesus didn’t mean it.
But some of the church fathers I’m reading argue that it is what he meant. One argument in particular strikes me as interesting, and it’s one I’ve wrestled with for many years, even before I had any idea about what church fathers had to say.
Many people – even those who aren’t Christian – think that the core of Jesus’ message is in fact the core message of the entire Bible: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (see Mark 12:31; Matthew 22:39, etc.). Jesus did not come up with this idea himself, of course; he was quoting the law of Moses, Leviticus 19:18 (I first typed: Leviticus 18:19, but I’m glad I checked; that’s a very different commandment).
In the book of Leviticus, loving your “neighbor” meant loving your fellow Israelite. Israelites were decidedly not expected to love the non-Israelites; in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua they are ordered to slaughter them. But fellow Israelites were to be treated as equals to oneself. What you do for yourself, do as well for others in your community.
Jesus broadened this view beyond the Israelite community. For him, a person’s “neighbor” was not only a fellow Jew, but any human, even one you don’t know, even one who is unlike you, even who is your enemy. That’s the point of a number of Jesus’ teachings, most famously the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).
The idea as I understand it is actually very simple. Provide for others what you provide yourself. If you’re hungry, you give yourself food; if you need shelter you provide yourself housing; if you need clothes you go get them; if you are sick, you get medical help and take care of yourself – etc. And so you should do to those who have similar needs: feed the hungry, house the homeless, cloth those in rags, tend to the sick, etc.
Fair enough. But as some of these early church fathers argued, this “simple” understanding of Jesus’ injunction is very difficult on the practical level. Some of them point out that if you have surplus food when others are hungry, you have not fulfilled Jesus’ command. If you have more clothes, a bigger house, and excess of any kind when others have nothing, you are actually NOT “loving your neighbor as yourself.” You have a surplus, and they are completely without.
I find this logic hard to refute. If any of us truly loved others as ourselves, we’d be living barely at the subsistence level to allow them to do so as well. And so I think (virtually) none of us (even committed Christians) actually follows the central teaching of Jesus.
What do you think?
Most Christians would say if god tells you to sell all that you should. But I don’t know. Those verses haunt me. Who wants to be poor?
I’m still struggling trying to figure out if Christianity is true or not because of Paul’s vision and the Isaiah prophecy of Jesus.
Or Christians will say you have to be obedient if god wants you to sell all. But they’ll mention verses about Zacchaeus giving away half or when Paul says to that it’s okay to be rich if you’re generous
If Paul contradicts Jesus, who are you going to go with?
I don’t know. I’m struggling if Paul really had visions or not. I’m really lost. Are you Christian?
Isaiah never mentions Jesus, he’s refering to Israel nation and not about Jesus, Dr Bart has some articles about that issue.
Both Paul and Jesus were first century Jews.. I’d go back to the mainstream of first century Jewish thinking. Or what we know of it.
I can’t tell you because I don’t have a clear idea of what the teachings of Jesus were.
The NT is full of contradictions and it is very evident that several teachings and assertions of Jesus are in conflict with what Paul says that Jesus himself inspired him.
Many of the teachings and mandates of Jesus are contrary to any theory of justice (retributive and distributive) and to pure common sense and morality in our real world.
A very clear example is the instruction that Jesus gives to his disciples in Luke 6:29-30.
It is a very naive moral recommendation, which “do-gooders” and “feel good” enchanters like very much, and is typical of an Aesop’s children’s fable, whose moral is that evil must always be returned with good and thus reward the wicked, with which they will end up enslaving the good people who do not even think that there is a retributive justice without which human societies cannot exist.
There are many times in the history of human societies in which “in dubio pro reo” must be transformed into “in dubio pro sociĕtas”
I think you are correct. I also think that for most empathetic, kind, and generous people, the issue is complex.
Who are the needy? A lot of people don’t know any personally. Who is going to use what you give for their real good and who is going to squander it? There is also the issue of selfishness. I don’t mean in the way we usually think of it, but in the most benign, caring, and considerate people. I think it is human nature that many good folk internalize what Jesus said as “You shall love your neighbor a little less than yourself”. Take you for example. In your last couple of webinars, from your solitude in your getaway home, it was clear to me that your second home put my only home to shame. Yet, before I start waxing envious, I also know that you have helped others more than I have through your charitable work. I would call you a model for humanity in spite of your material possessions. I think Jesus would be happy with each person, each day, resolving to be a little more generous today than they were yesterday.
IMO
(which is often wrong – just ask my wife!)
Certainly not all (humans often are too focused on material possessions) but some of NT Jesus more extreme teachings on wealth have been so heavily colored by his apocalyptic mindset as to make them impractical at best and sometimes even simply wrong in a world one thinks (hopes) will continue. Raising children is very expensive and requires savings, thrift, planning.
Jesus more extreme teachings about wealth/money fall into the set of his heavily apocalyptic teachings and examples that almost all modern Christians simply (rightly in my view) ignore. Eg: Also I know of no Christians who would refuse to go home and help bury a dead parent just because Jesus said to a follower who wanted to do exactly that he should not and to “let the dead bury their own dead”. Luke 9:59-60
There are more of these teachings and examples of Jesus in this set of the heavily apocalyptic mindset that are also simply ignored. (for more see Steve: https://ehrmanblog.org/more-member-publications/ )
All Christians pick and choose which teachings and examples of NT Jesus to follow. Most I know pick the best.
I thought it fairly simple. J said the end was near. Give it all away and thereby punch your ticket for judgment day. Why would he have worried about the next 20 or more ( maybe) centuries?
1. No wonder some were outraged at him getting his feet washed.
2. For those who were clearly in a position to keep what they had (masters) why encourage servants to continue to benefit them?
Could it be that Jesus was “commanding” others to give away everything to follow him because he “thought” the end was coming soon? Time was of the essence to “save” as many as possible in the time left before the rapture, so he said love others as yourself. On the other hand, if he was omniscient, would he not know the end was not immanent?
I think that’s the problem with Christianity. There are too many of his “sayings” that have led to so many divisions within the church. As a kid growing up in an ultra-conservative Christian home (my parents left the Mennonite Church because they thought it was getting too liberal) I was totally confused about the very subject (and lots of others) under discussion. So… I’ve rejected all of them but strive to live an exemplary life.
“committed Christians should give away *everything* to the poor, or rather keep most of their wealth but still be generous in their giving.
Throughout history, of course, most Christians have been (and still are) attracted to the second option. I’ve argued in previous posts, however, that Jesus appears to have taken the first…”
Jesus was poor and lived a hand to mouth existence. I am sure as a poor person, he thought that anyone who had more than him was “rich” and should therefore give to the poor! I believe most of the people he talked to were also poor so this was a message that they liked to hear.
Some poor today may think the same thing but in practice, to give everything away does not make sense. Not even for the poor.
A Christian speaker I was listening to was describing the lifestyle he felt like he was supposed to live, a simple lifestyle. He repeated this saying a number of times regarding his lifestyle. “I live simply so others may simply live.” The more I learn about the historic Jesus, the more I see this perspective in His teaching. (I don’t follow this, to be honest about my own lifestyle.)
Thank you for the thought provoking and interesting post, Dr. Ehrman. I think that a lot of Christians want to help the poor, feed the hungry, etc., but don’t for a plethora of reasons. Mostly though, in my not so humble opinion, they water down Jesus’ teachings out of selfishness and fear. They twist the words of their Savior and justify their actions based on their interpretation of those words.
As I interpret them, Jesus’ teaching state that we are to keep what we need to care for ourselves and to give away what is left over to help the less fortunate. I can imagine that some Christians don’t trust their messiah enough to do that which he commanded. They keep more than they need, have excess wealth and provisions stashed away for a rainy day while many in their communities are living, sleeping, relieving themselves outside and unsheltered on those same rainy days. Then at Christmas they drop an extra fiver in the offering plate and donate a toy to Toys 4 Tots and say to themselves, “I helped.” Then they go back to their warm house, passing and ignoring their “neighbors” by the onramps who are starving.
Other than those like the Franciscans and the Trappists, there seem to be very few who follow Jesus as he instructed.
Bart, what would be the first thing you’d say to an Evangelical Pastor who loves to post Bible verses on social media about God’s words will never fail. Luke 1:37 NIV. My words will never pass away. God’s word is steadfast and true. etc.
May the Lord be with you. 🙂 (Seriously: you will never ever change someone like that, so you’re better off reading other social media)
One of them is my son, an Evangelical Pastor.
Ah, yes, that always makes it even more interesting. There are some things far more important in life than agreeing on religoius views. (As my family and I eventually realized)
Jesus’s radical teachings must be evaluated in the light of his beliefs that the Kingdom of God would be manifested soon. God would be intervening in society, punishing the wicked and raising up the faithful. Giving away one’s possessions was really just a temporary measure until the appearance of God’s Kingdom, when everyone would have what they needed. As the years went by and the Kingdom never appeared the church pragmatically came to the conclusion that generosity was more important that complete divestiture of one’s goods and money.
If I correctly understand the apocalyptic prophet, his teachings were predicated on conditions soon to occur in his supernatural God’s Kingdom on Earth. Failing that predicate, time put those teachings largely in the realm of the unrealistic (without supernatural help) and forced later Christian thinkers/leaders to ameliorate them for a supposed longer wait for his return. To hold on to his strict teachings was to risk much of the flock giving up on the whole thing and say that the Jews were right.
Always curious, are you convinced “Jesus broadened this view [Leviticus 19:18] beyond the Israelite community” in light of Matthew 15:21-28 (Canaanites =dogs)? The Good Samaritan could be an exception for a Galilean living relatively near Samaria who no doubt knew Samaritans whose only “crime” would have been to worship in their own Temple?
I’m not sure the Passage in Matt 15 is historical. It seems to presuppose a situation where some Jewish bellievers in Jesus are needing to be convinced that it is OK to offer what they have to gentiles. See, even Jesus did it. (If reluctantly)
disabledupes{ef9e46f1751271a79ae76e6a3a800c83}disabledupes
Jesus’ teachings r largely irrelevant as to how one should lead one’s life. Jesus was teaching based on a false assumption, namely that the old world order was about to end and that the Son of Man would soon arrive to establish God’s kingdom on earth. Jesus was teaching his followers how to get ready for soon to arrive judgement day and to be allowed into the new kingdom and not caste into the fire.
Unless u believe the world is about to end, forget Jesus’ teachings on how to live your life. His teachings r not practical for an on-going world and Jesus never intended them to be.
Lots of reactions … I don’t have a lot of money (no savings account, living paycheck to paycheck). But it isn’t because I’m following Jesus’ commandments. I just made some bad decisions in my past.
2 things really come to mind:
1.) do we REALLY know that Jesus said these words? Maybe we do. But I’ve read so many articles saying how this or that story was made up by the authors & inserted later. I’ve come to doubt almost everything the Bible says that Jesus said/taught.
2.) I’ve read that Jesus was an apocalypticist, that he expected the Kingdom of God to come within a few years, that they were all living in the “end times”. So why store up for yourself treasures “where moth & dust doth corrode”? What good will all your saving be when the end comes? Wouldn’t it be better to give it all away to the poor so everyone can be comfortable with the little time we have left?
I think, if Jesus taught this at all, he taught it with an eye toward the coming of the kingdom and the end of this world.
1. Given how widely the sentiment is expreseed in our sources and how well it coincides with his apocalyptic message, it seems likely that he said these things. 2. Yup, if the end is coming next month, no reason to invest in the market/.
Some Christians can do this. With the help of the holy spirit, Ananias was able to give up all he had and as a bonus he required very few possessions for the rest of his life.
Well, for Acts if he *had* given it all up at least he wouldn’t have to be killed by God’s apostle….
I think that if the God of Jesus actually existed, he would provide for the less fortunate and not call on his people to do it for each other – he has far greater power and is supposed to be all-loving and compassionate. He is also supposed to be all-knowing so there would be no need to test our charitability. The “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” principle is one of evolutionary pressure and not a divine characteristic. It ensures the survival of one’s tribe. Having said that, I do appreciate that Bart is looking for the scriptural take on the subject and not the secular philosophy, but I just can’t get past the “moot point”. The authors of this and all scripture are looking at the humanist view without knowing it. And yes, I do give to charity.
Tom Aquinas said, famously, that loving someone is just wanting the best for them. So that is possible at an intellectual level without having any good feelings for anyone.
I am also pretty sure that the bible said that you should treat “sojourners” (foreign residents) the same as you would yourself because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
So even while the love your neighbour commandment might apply to other Israelites there is another strain of thinking in the bible.
(Exodus 23:9) “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”.
(Leviticus 19:34) “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God”.
(Exodus 22:21) “You must not exploit or oppress a foreign resident, for you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt”.
It’s also well know for instance that Ruth was not an Israelite and, yet, she is portrayed as a wonderfully loyal person.
I used to be a mormon. They tend to be at the conservative end, also in Denmark. I used to ask about this and it would always be explained away. I believe that we could all easily take care of each other. No person can do it alone and can therefore not follow this command as they may end up needing help themselves. But as the human race, we can easily do it.
wasn’t this commandment made in the context of the imminent kingdom. so it was probable in jesus’ context but now it;s impractical because of the delay of the parousia.
Yup. And it may have been impracticable then, if “near” did not mean “this coming Thursday.” But obviously most of Xty changed its eschatological message and the message of giving it all away at the same time.
Jesus believed the world was coming to an end, imminently. With this mindset, giving up everything to benefit others (and one’s own soul) makes perfect sense.
But the world did not end. Most of us live in a much different reality than did Jesus and his followers. If I give away everything, I will then be on the dole, taking taxpayer-funded assistance to eke out a meager survival. And if I did that – how many problems have I solved? I’m far from rich; I can’t fix the world. If I liquidated everything and gave it away, it would evaporate instantly into the great chasm of need that is our world, leaving barely a ripple.
Or…I can hold on to what I have, manage my resources intelligently, live a decent life without taking assistance, and have enough extra to give away. I can also afford to take action: do food-salvage runs for my local food-bank, shop at local businesses, have a computer to communicate with my representatives and educate myself to vote progressively…be a member of this blog! None of which I could do if I gave everything away.
Am I justifying my existence? Of course. But I think it’s a valid justification.
I visited countries behind the Iron Curtain.
Everybody was poor. Except state officials. As we well know, the experiment failed. But it was tried. Presumably, Jesus would have approved, in principle.
Everyone was clothed, fed, their healthcare amongst the best, everyone had access to culture ( as long as they stood in line for tickets, for hours on end in the snow, in the freezing cold, like my grandmother did. They stood in line for hours also for bread, only to be told when their turn arrived that there was none left).
Ironically, the Soviets prohibited religion, so whilst following Jesus in many respects, they’d never acknowledge it. And then there was the horror of the regime’s inhumanity.
From this I jump to the larger question of how much Jesus could be followed in this ( poverty) or other matters ( divorce?).
Trying in good faith to literally follow Jesus’ pronouncements, we must realise that for everyone selling all their goods there need to be others with sufficient wherewithal to buy them. And so on.
Capitals are needed to build institutions of all kinds. A democratically elected government will do much, but not sufficiently. Wealthy generous donors will always be needed.
FYI…REALLY difficult to comment on this one in 200 words or less!
I think Jesus believed the New Jerusalem would be here any day, so the logical thing was to share with others during the short wait. In this context his decree makes sense, even give away the seed corn!
Then and now, only a small fraction of the world’s goods is composed of things that help the poor; namely food, water, shelter and clothing. Tesla is worth about $1 trillion for example, but most of its assets are of no use to the poor. You can’t eat a car and it’s not sufficient for shelter.
And what about slaves, who comprised a significant amount of wealth in Jesus time? Give them to poor people, adding another mouth to feed? Free people, such as widows, who may well have become slaves to avoid starvation?
Then and now, the emphasis needs to be taking care of the poor with life essentials and worthwhile jobs, not an obsession with useless goods.
No, Jesus words were never followed, and it would be silly to do so.
I enjoy the old psychoanalytic joke that we do love our neighbors as ourselves it’s just that we hate ourselves.
Richard Elliott Friedman has a different take on the “love your neighbor” commandment. He argues that it was originally intended to apply to everybody, not just Israelites. It’s worth checking out his argument if you haven’t yet.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/love-your-neighbor-only-israelites-or-everyone/
Thanks. Well, it didn’t apparently apply to the Moabites and the Canaanites. Think, Jericho.
Too true! Looking at a difference in perspective between authors may go some of the way toward reconciling these. Another consideration is the stark discrepancy between the rules of civil society and the rules of war. Even today, you kill someone in your neighborhood and you’re a “murderer,” but you kill someone on the battlefield and you’re a “hero.”
You know, in spite of all the anecdotal evidence of greed in our culture, especially displayed by people with significant wealth, I find everyday people to be disposed toward the teachings of Jesus. The average person in the US is not overly wealthy with respect to our fellow Americans, who are obviously far better off than most of the world. But on a personal, practical level, almost everybody I know would stop and do anything to help anybody in trouble out. People in my experience are very generous with their money, time and skills, when friends or neighbors are in trouble. Perhaps I am skewed in my views because I grew up and have mostly lived around simple country folk, who felt it was their duty and privilege to help their neighbors. I always remember what my grandfather, who was an elder in a small country church, once said to me. He said, “Even if I found out there was nothing to all this Christian stuff, I still think this is the right way to live.”
I would suppose missionaries would be the closest to following Jesus’ teachings? They tend to leave essentially everything.
Lots of them don’t!!
Weren’t the Israelites commanded to love non-Israelites just a few verses later in Lev. 19:34? “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the native-born among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”
So long as they lived among the Israelites.
I have thought about this a lot: I have “worked” with and for the “poor”; I have paid attention to biblical texts related to remembering “the poor” (eg. Gal 2:10); and I have become “poor” in the sense of having very limited discretionary income (I even applied for free/charity participation in the ehrmanblog, and was for some reason denied, and so I found a way to raise the funds to participate here).
I find that if you “love” people, and do so without violence, and without substance abuse and with honesty, and you are willing to “work”, it is hard to become destitute, even if you sleep on the street sometimes as the spirit leads.
I can also think that once Jesus established his church, he necessarily delegated his mission to Peter and to all subsequent legitimate heads of that Church, here with capital C. Just like he, Jesus, expanded the dicta of his predecessors, he could have assumed that others in the future would do so regarding his. Besides, what future? The world was going to end just then.
But it didn’t. Perhaps in a second coming Jesus could say more about this and all other things. In the meantime, his Church rules.
This brings to mind an example from Literature, not an easy one. In Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, the Great Inquisitor explains to a mute visiting Jesus that he , Jesus, had given Christendom’s rule to the Church and that, on pain of being burned at the stake, he should leave and never return. The Inquisitor explains that Man is feeble and needs and wants to be told what to do. This vile Earth, therefore, depends entirely on his Church, even if it were following Satan. Granted, Dostoevsky abhorred the Church and his exaggerations are shocking , but the message rings true. Were Jesus to return, Heavens knows what could happen.
Is this the reason many clergy take a vow of poverty?
Yup, pretty much.
I agree, none of us can follow Jesus’ core teachings. I think the reason is because the world never ended and the kingdom of God never came. In my view the reason why Jesus taught not to bury the dead, or sell all our possessions was because he thought people had to prepare for the ending of the world and the coming of the kingdom of God. Rich would be last and the poor would be first.
I think Jesus showed others how far they could really go if they wanted to or tried to live up to the command of loving others as yourself. He became a living embodiment of the command in order to set the ultimate example. For anyone who follows or looks up to him, I think the point is to always reflect on Jesus’ example as we live life. Almost everyone will fail in this task, but I think that’s ok. The God of the Hebrew Bible doesn’t expect perfection (I recall there being verses stating this, perhaps there are some stating the opposite as well!).
On a personal level, I see it as recognizing the excesses that we enjoy in our life. Like do I really need a $500 Playstation when I know there are people starving in Yemen/Ukraine/etc.? If it doesn’t spark a sense of guilt and at least some hesitation or ideally giving up that desire in order to help others, then we have failed as his followers. Living a simple and non-materialistic life is what other religions exhort as well, and I think that’s what Jesus called to as well.
” He became a living embodiment of the command in order to set the ultimate example. For anyone who follows or looks up to him, I think the point is to always reflect on Jesus’ example as we live life. ”
can you show an example where jesus demonstrates anything he talks about ?
1. he says he came to serve, but his body gets a costly service,
2. he trashes the temple
3. he curses fig tree
4. never gives advice to his followers on sanitization
I look at poverty as lack of opportunities. In most countries, the well being of their citizens depends on the collective unity of the republic and the value system being applied. I don’t think,at least in principle, we(most/all?) can love someone else as ourselves. The practical,as you mention, is difficult and hard to apply,because really, we don’t know what someone is going through, unless we know them well. We usually move in neighborhoods where people reflect our values and in essence we feel everyone around is doing well. In a democratic/capitalist system, opportunities are plenty. It’s whenever we see images from countries who lack opportunities, abject poverty hits our conscious. I don’t think the core of Jesus’ message was to love everyone,an impossible task even during his times, but rather how can we follow a common dialogue of values and principles that will result in the efficacy of a nation/world ? Self reliance is a foundational requirement in any society who adheres to good practices. It’s when men,women and children are dying,through no fault of their own and ‘NO’ opportunity, that we must come united to resolve. Unfortunately, It’s becoming more and more survival of the fittest.
Jesus probably wanted ppl to treat their neighbors as themselves pretty literally. But he must’ve realized that few would actually be able to be truly and fully unselfish, holding nothing back. He wanted them to be perfect as their father in heaven is perfect, but he also must have recognized what a tall order that was for most ppl. So if he thought about it in practical terms at all (I’m not sure whether he did so!), he would have just wanted ppl to follow that teaching to the best of their abilities, and to continually work on improving their capacity for generosity.
And, sure, it is quite possible–physically–to give up all of one’s wealth. The problem is that it’s not psychologically possible for most of us. There are people who do it, though, especially in certain monastic traditions of various religions.
”
Jesus probably wanted ppl to treat their neighbors as themselves pretty literally”
he says that non-jewish children dont get to eat the holy bread given to jewish children, he says it isnt right to do so.
I believe in achievement and I believe in hard work. I believe in living within your means and paying yourself FIRST before you think about taking care of others. That being said, I believe in considering others always. I over tip ( 30 dollar tips for 100 dollar service) for instance.
I like directly contributing to anyone that works to support themselves and have done so every single day and often.
As a fellow dedicated to athletics and achievement, that has guided all facets of my life.
I would have never given a thought what Jesus’s thoughts on this were. Don’t mean to sound salty ( no need to print it ha)
I agree. To destitute oneself to contribute to others is not a true example of love. Caring for, loving others should not demand poverty.
Wealth and property have also evolved through history. Did the fishermen own their boats as private property? Were the fishermen wealthy in that they owned their boats, nets, and equipment? Would not sharing their catch with others be more loving than selling it all?
Were properties and homes tracked with deeds and surveyed property lines? Imagine what the real estate market looked like in Galilee. IRA’s? A stock market? Franchised fast food? annuities? Roman Agribusiness monopolies.
I think your conclusion is unavoidable—unless you can show that the right incentives allowing some to have more results in a bigger pie from which the poor get a bigger slice than they would if resources were distributed more or less equally. In John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, a major philosophical work of 20th Century ethics with a strong emphasis on equality, that’s called the difference principle and is justified. A counter argument would be that if people were truly loving their neighbors as themselves they wouldn’t need incentives to make the pie bigger. Or they would simply return to the poor the extra resources they received as incentives—but then they wouldn’t be incentives.
Its also possible that in some situations there’s literally not enough food to go around. If you would starve giving away half the food you have to someone with none, then both of you would starve.
And would the desperately poor themselves, if suddenly they had minimally satisfactory lives, be willing to give away everything?
The best approach I can think of is to just keep giving more until you run into the brick wall of your own unwillingness. And then maybe try another angle.
I don’t find much of interest in the “teachings” of Jesus as described in the Bible. Jesus expected the end of the world to come in his lifetime, and his instructions were based on the idea that nothing mattered but preparing for the imminent transformation of human society. What people who self-identify as Christian seem to be doing, starting with Christian theologians not that long after Jesus’s death, is to create their own “teachings of Jesus” by rewriting, repositioning, or creating from scratch ideas that they feel are the way people should behave. Christianity became a bureaucracy with educated, literate men in charge who developed ideas useful within the Christian tradition to keep the general population subservient.
Why that is still the case ‘lo these 2000 years hence is a mystery to which I have no clues. Give me the scientific method with all its variations and variables any day of the week. A single cross-cultural study in human behavior tells us more than whole books of the Bible.
In short, no, it is not possible to follow Jesus’s teachings because the original ideas and the later modifications make little anthropological, psychological, or social sense.
yessir
If by Jesus’ teaching you mean actually living like him and his disciples (i.e itinerant people with no possessions wondering around preaching the good word and doing good deeds), I would say no, it’s not possible.
I started a draft of this comment last night, and by the time I got to about 2000 words, I gave up (I know the word limit for comments is 200). By the time you spend even 30 minutes trying to figure out the mechanics and the practical implications of giving everything away, it’s a mess, a minefield of options, possibilities etc. that don’t stack up. It is near impossible, IMO, to organize your life and to organize society based on a couple of verses in the Bible. The closest I think we come to his ideas would be something like Communism, where everybody”s basic needs are catered for, or the various Roman Catholic orders, who at least at the rank-and-file level, seem to live a fairly modest and simple life.
Dear Bart, I agree with you wholeheartedly and I think that you have hit the nail on the head. I think Jesus set a bar that no one else has quite been able to live up to. He also said “greater love hath no man than this that he lay his life town for his brother”. I think Jesus knew that most of his followers would not be able to live up to this ultimate high standard of selfless love. This is perhaps why he is unique more than any other holy man or woman in history. I think that he lived a life of ultimate love and eventually ultimate sacrifice. It was an example for us all and I think that is why he has indeed been elevated In estimation above any other single human being. This I think it’s the crux (pardon the pun) of his life. Isaiah talked about a sign that would be lifted up for the gentiles to see. Surely he is that sign as the writer of John’s Gospel saw, whatever one believes about his divinity, his apocalypticism, his miracles, the doctrine of atonement and the resurrection?.
What? We agree?? The End is Near!
Ha! Actually, I agree with you on most things, but it’s much more fun challenging you! Also, arguing with you has made me change my mind on a lot of issues. I have also learned so much from your books, your blog posts and your videos.
If Jesus wasn’t any sort of divine being, but merely a sort of messianic messenger with ethical teachings based on existing Jewish law, perhaps embellished and adapted to an immanent apocalyptic expectation, then it wouldn’t be imperative to follow any of those teachings, but I think if one tried, it might be possible to do a fairly decent job. But at what personal cost, and at what cost to one’s family, and at what cost to one’s very sanity? For those who do believe that Jesus was a divine being, the actual pre-existent “son-of-god” and so forth, then they’ve got a major problem. I think the early church fathers solved the problem by “interpreting” those teachings to make them more practical and more remunerative to the church hierarchy. Jesus didn’t have a business model. He wasn’t very practical. But now there’s a business model! Loving others as ourselves– that seems to fly in the face of reason. Was Jesus reasonable? No.
Bart, on a separate note, I watched your recent YT video with Paulogia, the one rebutting William Lane Craig rebutting Habermas etc. I can see why Sam Harris said the only Apologist that scares him is Lane Craig. A very clever debater. His ability to construct technically compelling, well crafted arguments is quite something. Unfortunately it’s all in the service of justifying the faith and especially supernatural events, which seems a waste IMO.
My question is this : would you say that in your experience, apologists and fundamentalist Christians pay little or no attention to the social gospel aspects of Jesus, and focus almost exclusively on having the right beliefs, proving inerrancy , proving miracles, the resurrection etc. ?
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl4LfBX-8rk
I’d say that’s typically the case, yes. There is, of course, a social and political movement within evangelical Christianity; I was greatly attracted to it in graduate school when I was still in the evangelical camp.
Thank you Bart.
It is very difficult and I have to admit that I fail. I think the reason is that there is a deep fear in the human psyche of not having enough. There are some studies that demonstrate this principle. Take two groups and pay them differently for the same work. Give group A just enough food for subsistance and group B twice as much. Once they are used to that arrangement give then each a raise. Group A now gets 150% of what they need and Group B is raised to 225%.
Group A is still far behind group B in the resources they receive. Despite this, the members of group B are jealous of group A because they got a bigger advance. The study was replicated with monkeys and the results were the same.
I think it is hard to refute furthermore This makes me think of Mat 6:11 -give us this day daily bread- which many of us water down and reduce it to mean Bible study and prayer daily
I believe it is impossible to follow the letter of all of Jesus’s commands. However, devout Christians can commit themselves to what Jesus proclaims are the two most important commands:
28 One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-21, NRSVUE)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40, NRSVUE)
Yup, they are the core of Jesus’ teachings. But the issue is how one can possibly actually DO what is requried in v. 38.
Maybe the difficulty of following Jesus’ commands is one reason why the movement quickly became the religion about Jesus rather than the religion of Jesus; it’s easier just to believe in him than to follow his teachings. Still, if he moves us even a little more toward compassion and generosity that’s a good thing.
Ah, good point!
To be a Christian, it seems to me, is to (attempt to follow) A. What we know of Jesus’ teachings and B. Some combination of what other followers have thought over the past 2000 years (quite diverse interpretations). What we often don’t consider is “if we are following a 1st century rabbi where was he in context of other 1st century rabbis?”
Here are a few cites Gray, Alyssa M. “Redemptive Almsgiving and the Rabbis of Late Antiquity.” Jewish Studies Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2, 2011, pp. 144–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41289131. Accessed 27 Jul. 2022.
See story on pg 150-151.. sounds very NT.
And as to following Jesus’ teachings, why stop at “give away all you have?” How about cutting off your Personal Parts if they lead you to sin? Which sayings are more important to follow to the letter and who decides? Hint, we have 2K years of disagreements on this.
I was just thinking about what it would be like to live a life without “stuff”. Jesus didn’t have “stuff”. I would like to imagine just being… somehow, somewhere… without the addiction and need for stuff. It’s not possible in the world I live in, but I can dream.
It’s not just the poverty part of Jesus life that is compelling. There are other characteristics of his journey that I don’t mind learning from. But he is a tough act to follow. I think that is why people turned him into God. It’s easier to have him as a divine companion, than it is to follow him as a human example.
I would suggest following a Bart principle of not removing Jesus from the Jewish culture he had to deal with where 97% were poor and 3% had financial means. Jesus lived in a very ridged culture where it was impossible to change ones status in life. So I suggest this “saying” that was placed on Jesus’s lips was directed to the 3%. The poor had no extra of anything to give to their neighbor(s). But Jesus was asking the rich to give away everything to experience life like the rest of us. Give away your wealth and walk barefoot as I have to.
Someone should start a church, Christian or otherwise, for people who want to come as close as possible to loving their neighbors as themselves.
There are many reasons why people who are Christian, or otherwise attracted to this principle, don’t truly follow it. But, personally, I’d say one major reason is that we don’t have social support. We don’t have personal relationships with others who are doing the same thing, who are constantly telling each other that they’re doing the right thing. We don’t have leaders giving us “guidelines” about how much we can morally have. We don’t have insurance for ourselves and our families against extreme hardship from which we might otherwise be protected by wealth and savings. We don’t have general lifestyle patterns that we can share with others with the same convictions.
One of the biggest problems has to be concerns about family responsibilities and especially children. I think there’s a saying from South American Christian Marxists to the effect that the marriage bed is the deathbed of revolution. One might choose this principle for oneself but is it fair to choose it for one’s children? Maybe, but very hard to imagine doing.
Hey Bart, I have a question about your views on the Son of Man passages.
Mark 14:62, Jesus distinguishes between himself and the Son of Man, yet you believe this passage doesn’t go to the historical Jesus but is an invention of Mark.
My question: If Mark is capable of putting words in Jesus’ mouth that make him sound like he is distinguishing between himself and the Son of Man, why not think that those other passages which you cite (e.g., Mark 8:38), are also similar… i.e., Mark, who believed Jesus was the Son of Man, simply had Jesus speak in the third person, like in Mark 14:62, instead of these passages representing the real views of Jesus?
I”m not sure I’m following your argument. My view is that the earliest Christian story tellers whose accounts Mark inherited were very happy to put sayings on his lips that that identify Jesus as the Son of Man. If there are saying that appear to assert the opposite view, these are teh ones they are less likely to make up. That would mean they probalby originate with Jesus.
In your books on Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet, you mention that anyone who prospered was in cahoots with evil and sin, and that those who were righteous suffered and would soon be first in the soon-to-come kingdom. All of this was a short-term situation as the kingdom was soon to come and the situations reversed.
If that is the case, isn’t any subsequent discussion about wealth and charity merely a rationalization of the original message of an apocalyptic prophet that never materialized? This means that it is not possible to follow Jesus’s original message as it is not a viable long-term solution. And as it is not a viable long-term solution, we rationalize it all away as a call to charity – which isn’t bad as it has resulted in a lot of good. But it doesn’t seem possible to follow the original teachings.
I agree that later Christians knew full well there was no way to follow his actual teaching given the fact the end wsa not actually coming imminently.
I’ve wrestled with this question for a long time, and I keep coming back to what you wrote in your first trade book about Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet and his ethical teaching being set in that context: life as we know it will suddenly come to a crashing end, so push the law to its logical extremity for this short period of time so you will be judged generously on the imminent day of judgment. I think Schweitzer called it the interim ethic.
As you point out, it wasn’t long after the crucifixion that the apostles abandoned their itinerant lifestyle, reunited with their families, and settled in Jerusalem. The community economy seemed to be a mix of proto-communism and those who kept personal possessions, with some going all in, whilst others kept some of their own property and wealth. I seem to remember the Essenes had a similar setup, with some living in community with no personal property, whilst others lives in towns and cities and kept personal property – perhaps there’s a theological overlap there?
Some Christians, especially Monks and Nuns still follow the extreme ethic by taking vows of poverty and living in community without any personal property.
A thousand times: YES!
I was ‘leading’ an evangelical service. The vicar sermonised The Good Samaritan thus: ‘this is the love Jesus demands of us’. i.e. We should give everything to everyone without issue, especially forgiveness. I stood to ‘link’ the next song & said ‘of course, this is impossible, which is why we are so thankful for God’s grace in Jesus…’ etc.
I was later told several congregation members were frustrated I had taken the edge out of the vicar’s words. They wanted to hear that they were failures in this regard; that they should and could do better, and ‘hard teaching’ was the medicine.
Now I attribute this mainly to cognitive dissonance. And the bizarre, self-flagellatory comfort of believing one can eventually perfect the self, life and others through true & pure reliance on the power of God; ‘perfection is possible, I’m just not good enough yet’. Putting present ‘sin’ & failure in perspective.
It’s very much the same when mission is preached. If spreading the word is genuinely the true & best purpose of Christian life, believers should all be out there self-supporting a glorious proclamation of truth – but somehow most stay put in semi-detached 4-bed houses near good schools.
I tend to agree with Albert Schweitzer; he interpreted the radical and demanding message of the 1st century apocalyptic preacher from Galilee as an “interim” ethic, suitable only for the short time prior to the supposed end of the world.
The NT seems to contradict itself from Jesus in the Gospels to the Apostles in the beginning of Acts; unless Jesus’ teaching about giving up everything and following him was only a command for following him during his earthly ministry (?)
Jesus’ teaching could only be realistic if the one who gave up everything to follow Him was fully sustained by God – [But the Itinerate preaching market would become saturated fairly quickly]
The NT basically tells us that we are not to rely upon our own strength to do anything, but rather, rely upon God; the Holy Spirit to accomplish all things through us; because of our Faith in Jesus. I guess that it is basically prayer/fasting, worship and fellowship with believers while waiting to be guided by the Spirit; lest we become conceited.
Acts Chapter 2 tells us about the Holy Spirit as Teacher and Comforter -Yet there were many teachings and understandings, with strife and division, or right from the beginning.
Then; Acts Chapter 4 tells us that the believers shared their possessions, as administered by the Apostles, to each his need. Does that not go against what Jesus said about relying upon God to sustain you?
Abbreviated due to word count.
Members of many Catholic religious orders take a vow of poverty. I’m pretty sure that in the great majority of cases they still have a relatively high standard of living compared to the vast majority of people in the world—even though they as individuals have no personal wealth. But there must be a few who come close to—or have in the relatively recent past come close to — Jesus’s ideal. Of course Mother Teresa comes to mind. She probably still fell short and there are things about which I disagreed with her, but nevertheless she seems overall to have been pretty heroic with regard to the poor.
Well, Dr. Ehrman, I will quote your famous line, “It depends on which Gospel you read.” That said, as a Roman Catholic, it depends on which Bible you read! Us Catholics and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Christians have different books in our Bible that is NOT in Protestant versions. Enter the Book of Tobit, Chapter 4 that astutely deals with this that is Different from the views of the Church Fathers, “16 Give SOME of your food to the hungry, and SOME of your clothing to the naked. Give ALL your surplus as alms, and do not let your eye begrudge your giving of alms. 17 Place your bread on the grave of the righteous, but give none to sinners.” (Tobit 4 16-17, NRSVCE)
Interesting… Is that like in Acts Chapter 4, where the believers sold everything that they had and laid it at the feet of the Apostles?
Who distributes everything and what is done with the excess that the church collects as alms? – I see that as wealthy as the church is, because of the generosity of the laity, there is still a large percentage of the world continuing in hunger.
Sorry, the above is a rhetorical question. Even what you shared with your comment seems to differ from what Jesus, whom is GOD, taught; as relayed through the Gospels.
Basically; ‘Sell everything you have, build treasure in heaven, where things will not perish and follow me.’
Jesus was a Jewish radical who like others in his time, thought a vengeful god was coming very soon and you better get ready. He demanded strict cult like allegiance to be a follower. This was not along term plan. While it is extremely difficult to determine exactly what he said or meant, he certainly would appear strange to many Christians of this era. We tend to create our own gods and or follow Charlatans. I think he would be unrecognizable to the “modern church.”
Within the Russian Orthodox Church monasteries of the 16th Century there was a controversy between the Possessors and the Non-Possessors, the former (led by Joseph of Volokolamsk) claiming that it was okay for monastic communities to own property and wealth and the latter (led by Nilus of Sora) claiming it was definitely not okay. Both Joseph and Nilus were canonized.
Here’s a Wikipedia stub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-possessors
and another site covering this in much more detail: https://orthochristian.com/51206.html
“I think (virtually) none of us (even committed Christians) actually follows the central teaching of Jesus.
“What do you think?”
Thanks for asking, Bart!
I agree that very few Christians (or, for that matter, non-Christians) follow the central teaching of Jesus to give everything they have to the poor. However, I am not convinced that the historical Jesus actually taught that a person’s “neighbor” was not only a fellow Jew, but any human. I’d be interested in seeing an argument that he did.
The story of the Good Samaritan Is a *wonderful* story. But I’ve long imagined it to be a story more in the service of Luke’s agenda of taking the gospel to the gentiles than a story that truly reflects the views of Jesus.
Again, thanks for asking! <3
Completely agree!
I think the Gospel of the Nazoreans makes this point very clearly in its retelling of Jesus’ conversation with the rich man:
Another of the rich men … said to him: “Master, what good must I do to live?” … He said to him: “Go, sell all that you possess and divide it among the poor and come, follow me.” But the rich man began to scratch his head and it did not please him. And the Lord said to him: “Is it not written in the Law: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself?’ And see, many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are covered with dung, dying from hunger, and your house is filled with many good things, and absolutely nothing goes out of it to them.” (Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, p. 56)
I think it’s also worth noting that Luke puts the same teaching in the mouth of John the Baptist:
And the crowds asked him, “What then should we do?” In reply he said to them, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” (Luke 3:11)
Using your wealth to “love your neighbour as yourself” is but one perspective of Jesus’ teaching on the attitude we should have towards wealth. Monks in religious orders took His teachings to one extreme, divesting themselves of all their wealth and taking a vow of poverty so as to combat the concupiscence of the eyes (greed), with the hope that their dedication to God would allow them to experience His Providence. Jesus’ temptations in the desert; His direction to the disciples when they were sent on their missions; the caution that you cannot serve both God and mammon at the same time; Jesus’ own example of not having even a place to lay down his head; the challenge to the rich man to sell all his goods and give them to the poor as a condition for following Jesus … all these teaching are an encouragement towards greater spirituality and a perspective on the dangers of “possessing”, and less to do with charity and concern for your neighbour.
I do agree with you.
When I was a Christian and was reading the story of Jesus and the rich young man I realised I couldn’t sell all my possessions and follow Christ. Even as a non-believer it’s difficult for me to read this story without making some kind of excuse for not truly ‘loving my neighbour as myself’.
I believe it’s harder than we might think to deserve the title of ‘Christian’. Likewise, it’s difficult to deserve the title of ‘good person’ for non-believers. We could make the world more equal by giving up our surplus but it seems nearly no one does it.
If we can’t truly be good people, maybe the second best thing is to gain a profund humilty and be more tolerant? If we can’t do good things, maybe we can at least try to reduce the bad things we do to our neighbour?
It’s my goal…. And to reduce the bad things our neighbor experiences that we ourselves haven’t caused…
An ideal sets a direction, not necessarily an achievable destination. Of course, almost no one is really going to be able to transform selfishness into generosity . . . but it should make one think.
I view Jesus’s teaching about charity in two ways. First, on an personal level. As many successful people realize, material wealth does not necessarily lead to happiness. Thus, once you’ve obtained your basic sustenance and pursue happiness through more satisfying endeavors, your excess material wealth would be put to better use providing sustenance for others. And that charity may actually prove more satisfying to you because you have helped someone out. Thus, it about your own personal well-being.
The second perspective involves the broader negative social impact of competition for material wealth. When you’re talking in a broader societal perspective you really need buy in from all members of society: everyone needs to agree not to stand up in the boat. And our political systems of either the carrot (capitalism with charitable tax deductions and social pressure) or the stick (socialism with forced equality), don’t necessarily promote elimination of the harmful effects of competition for material wealth. Giving a homeless person all of your surplus, after 8 hours of exploiting the masses at your corporate job doesn’t really fulfil Jesus’s command to give to the poor.
I don’t believe that giving away one’s wealth to be more “Christian like” is the point of first century Christianity. The reason early followers sold their possessions was to further the growth of their fledgling religion and serve the poorest members. Most of them had very little to share to begin with. Do you honestly believe that God wanted them to live a hand to mouth existence? Wealth was a blessing from God!
Christ disciples believed that their risen Messiah was to return for them any moment, not days, weeks, and especially not years. Therefore, no need to hold on to these “earthly” possessions!
Proverbs 13:4 reads, “The soul of a lazy man desires, and has nothing; but the soul of the diligent shall be made rich!” The lazy man desires the things that hard working people have: the comfort of a nice home, food on the table, a nice car, and other refinements that make life pleasant. Yes, we should be willing to help those who are in need but our first responsibility is to provide for ourselves and our families. This is made clear throughout Biblical teaching in both the Old Covenant and the New. (See 2 Thessalonians 3:10)
Would this idea even be practical. An example; Bill Gates recently donated twenty billion dollars ($20,000,000.00) to his his personal foundation. That’s a lot of zeros! If he had given his wealth away twenty years ago, would he have amassed the wealth he has today and therefore been in a position to give such large amounts to the masses. And this of course is not the first time he has given such a large sum of his wealth to this foundation! His previous donation: ten billion dollars! His pledge is to give the majority of his wealth to charity before he dies.
The point is, there is always going to be wealthy people and it is due to their wealth that they can be generous with their personal gains. Although Gates is not a Christian, he demonstrates a conscious effort to help his community. I know many wealthy Christians who are philanthropist and give large amounts of their wealth to help those less fortunate and enjoy this part of their lives. Often, upon their deaths they set up Trust and Foundations to carry on their philanthropist giving! If they were living a hand to mouth existence, this would not be possible.
Is the kingdom of god/heaven/eternal life the motivation for loving your neighbor as yourself? Doubts about the likelihood of that outcome necessarily create doubts about the principle. At least one would be strongly tempted to hedge one’s bets.
I find the principle morally compelling (in theory) because it seems like the basic principle of justice and fairness. By not following it one is literally harming others from whom one would expect compliance with regard to oneself.
From a theistic perspective, I would interpret the principle as meaning we should love ourselves and others in the same way God loves us. That way we can be swept up into the current of and enjoy God’s unconditional love for creation.
Realistically, I don’t think the principle can come into play for people until they begin to exceed some minimal standard of living and degree of security.
My approach is more or less the following. Do something even if you can’t (immediately) get yourself to do everything you should do. Then try to do more. Do more and more until you run into the brick wall of your own unwillingness. After that? Maybe find another angle from which to view things?
I look at this passage in the same light as I do of other passages such as Matt. 6:25-33 – don’t worry even about feeding and clothing yourselves, because the kingdom of God is at hand, and God will take care of you. Such instructions are only practical if the present-day world is indeed just about to come to an end and we’ll all be living in paradise. (Or in hell, where you won’t get food and clothing anyway.)
Other comments above have compared this attitude to communism, which is close to the mark. I’ve often wondered how right-wing Christians opposed to anything that resembles communism or socialism can speak approvingly of these instructions, or for that matter the early Christian communities whose members were supposed to share everything?
Similarly, how can the prosperity gospel promoters square their ideology with the Jesus of the gospels?
They have to be very selective in the passages they select. As I suppose everyone does…
Jesus was preaching for the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, when no material possessions would be required. I also see his instructions as akin to Amanda Palmer’s “The Art of Asking” in that those wishing to hear the good news will provide all you need – as you would do in their shoes.
There is also the flavour of Advaita Vedanta pervading many of his teachings. Thomas is full of Advaita. You look after your neighbour because though you might have different bodies and circumstances, you share the same spirit. As does every entity in the cosmos. By looking after others you are looking after yourself.
As to the practice of giving up everything for the poor, who does this in reality? Even those who profess to follow Advaita do not.
Jesus’ teachings were extraordinary. Hence his long shadow.
Presumably there must be mechanisms for generating wealth in order to redistribute it. On the basis that the poor will always be with us, it could be argued that it is acceptable to have wealth generating capitalism so long as the welfare state which emerged from that state provided more than just subsistence levels to the less well off. As to whether that is possible Would, I couldn’t say but it sounds theoretically possible. The tradition of Christian Socialism seems to me to aim for that ideal.
I don’t think it is possible, and for a simple reason: we don’t really expect the world to end in our lifetime, and Jesus really did. Jesus probably knew that his commands were unsustainable in the long run, and it didn’t matter; everything was going to change imminently anyway. But we’re living in that long run, so it’s different.
Imagine if an asteroid were going to hit the Earth in a week, killing everyone, and everyone was distraught, no one knew what to do. I can imagine a celebrity publicly saying “If anyone asks anything of me, I’ll just give it to them. I don’t care. The world’s about to end, and if it brings you a little happiness, great.” I can imagine this view becoming influential, and sincerely followed by many. But if the comet missed, and the world went on, no one could really live like that long-term, even if they gave lip-service to the idea. Jesus’s teachings feel like that to me.
Well, this raises so many questions for me. Did Jesus & his apostles work while he was going about preaching? Once the apostles followed him, how did they eat & where did they sleep, etc.? Did they give away all of their money & possessions and, if so, who fed & clothed & housed them? Was his movement more political or religious? Did he view the religious leaders of his day as many do the Christian preachers of organized religion today, with a very jaundiced eye? Lastly, most of us pay taxes, probably more than we like, & as this country moves toward more socialistic governance, do our taxes count as charity or giving to those in need? Render unto Caesar what is his & to God what is his, but if there is no God, then that part is all moot. There is definitely a “Caesar”, I think we could all agree. Lots of people give to churches, but how much of each dollar goes to help others as opposed to salaries, building maintenance, etc.? So, I think we have to find a way to help others that works for us individually if we are so inclined.
When I read your post I got a picture in my mind of some catastrophic situation (perhaps a nuclear event) like the end times. If anyone were to survive we would have to act as Jesus taught. It would be the only way for a group or society to survive. To think and act selflessly as one unit or one body of Christ when the time comes. Jesus told his followers the end was near – would come in their lifetimes. Perhaps he was offering a challenge; “How are you gonna live life with nothing – how will you keep your inner peace?”.
It´s really a matter of letting go of ones attachment to the world and ones thoughts of the world. Compassionate detachment I suppose. I choose to think that is what Jesus was trying to teach.
I’ve just been reading the gospel of Thomas. What struck me was the enigmatic nature of a lot of these sayings and the ambiguity about what Jesus indicated the kingdom of God and it’s imminent arrival actually mean. In parts there is a suggestion that the kingdom of God is an internal affair or at least other-worldly, rather than a Bar-Enash baptism of fire break-in to the current world. I think this Kingdom ambiguity can also be seen in the cannonical gospels. It’s made me think that the failed apocalipticist view of Jesus‘s ministry may be an over-simplification. Another possible interpretation is that there was an evolution of Jesus‘s interpretation of the Kingdom of God from his early John the Baptist days to a later more spiritual or other-worldly interpretation – maybe reflected in the term ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ rather than ‘kingdom of God’. There may therefore also have been corresponding change in his preaching about charity. What do you think Bart?
There is a good deal written about it. The common view is that Thomas, written probably in the early second century, shows how some followers of Jesus were decidedly moving farther and farther away from his apocayptic message. The earliest sources for Jesus’ sayings, Mark and Q,are heavily apocalyptic; the later Luke mollifies the apocalytic emphasis; the later John has almost no apocalyptic sayings; the later Thomas has Jesus argue *against* an apocalyptic view (e.g., sayings 2, 113). The trend can be traced over time, and in a way that makes sense. When the expected end doesn’t come, those who report Jesus’ sayings beging to change them so he doesn’t *predict* the end will come.
Jesus was a divine emissary — the “Son of God” so-to-speak — who did not expect, much less demand, that his followers “sell everything you have and give to the poor” OR become devout, ascetic luftmenschen like himself.
Few people actually have the spiritual wherewithal to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. Jesus was one. Perhaps, Siddhartha Gautama. Maybe, Mohandas Gandhi. Such rare, manifestly advanced and enlightened souls radiate an aura that often enthralls people in their immediate vicinity. But they usually don’t attract much media coverage or garner a place in history books.
Jesus never suggested that a life of utter selflessness was necessary for salvation. One can inherit eternal life, he said, by simply following the commandments. Specifically, those that prohibit doing harm to others. (Intriguingly, the ones commanding ritual obeisance to Yahweh are conspicuously absent from his recitation.)
The “sell everything you have and give to the poor” injunction — notably recounted in a single, otherwise unattested, source — was in response to a follow-up question by ONE rich guy — who apparently didn’t only want to know about getting into heaven, but how he could get box seats.
Good answer, JC. Good answer! 😏
Amen, brother. I agree that this guy was trying to be a spiritual overachiever. Maybe the rich man walked away with a little humility. And if we were to follow everything in the Bible literally, there’d be a big market for excision of various parts of the anatomy.
Do you think that, with the appropriate incentives, the poorest can be better off with an unequal distribution than with equality? Can’t the right material incentives, that result in inequality, create a much bigger pie than a system without incentives? And isn’t it often the case that then the poorest get a much bigger slice? Wouldn’t it be much better to use incentives to lift more and more people out of poverty than to equalize poverty for everyone? Insofar as Jesus was against all material incentives that result in inequality, I would argue that he was not proposing the best morality.
There are of course many counter arguments, eg, these ideas being used simply as rationalizations for inequality; what to do when some people are literally starving and the only way to feed them is to infringe on some incentives; if people truly followed Jesus they wouldn’t need incentives to make the pie bigger.
People are both selfish and altruistic. Even the poorest people might prefer a system with the right incentives. Using incentives is more realistic about human nature. But that’s not to say that the current-day incentives and inequality are not obscenely less than optimal.
Yup, these are among the pressing questions. My view is that massive starvation and suffering in extremis are far more important issues than complete (in)equality.
So my question is– if Jesus was God, and if God is omniscient, why wouldn’t Jesus have known when the end would come?
It’s a theological question, so I suppose you need to ask a theologian. What I can say is that many theologians insist that Jesus wasn’t ONLY God but was also human, and to become human he had to relinquish his divine qualities/abilities/aspects, including omniscience. Otherwise he wasn’t human but was just faking it. How he could be both human and divine, of course, is a mind-puzzling dilemma that people have wrestled with for 2000 years, but teh top theologians have always said you can’t compromise his humanity by emphasizing his divinity.
Prof. Ehrman, apart from what later Christians believed about Jesus (he was the son of God, the messiah, etc.) would it be true to say that the reason Jesus actually said, essentially, “Give away all your belongings and help me spread the word,” was precisely because he thought the world was about to end and that none of that would matter anyway? And when the end didn’t come as soon as many expected (hoped?), they were left with a number of theological and doctrinal conundrums based on what actually happened– what to do with wealth, chief among them?
I”d say that’s certainly part of it. But the idea was not simply to give everything away now because it doesn’t matter — you’ll get it all back later. THe idea is that material goods really DON’T matter before God.
It seems that Acts 4:34 -4:37 may be an accurate description of what Jesus had taught his followers. Acts 5:1 – 5:11 was a story told to keep them obedient to the cause?
Yup, probably. Didn’t work too well. But the problem in Acts 5 is not that Ananias and Sapphyra kept some of the money. It’s that they lied about it.
I’ve come to believe that “Belief” is a very dangerous thing. Belief can be anything you want to believe. Believing something doesn’t make it the Truth, yet, we believe what we believe with no proof that what we believe is actually the Truth. In fact, Christians don’t seem to care if their beliefs make sense. How many of them have even cracked the cover of a Bible, yet alone spent hours cross-referencing passages so their understanding of the Truth is accurate? ,,,, Hearsay has become the Truth. Christians have traded the Holy Spirit’s guidance for the belief that Jesus is God Almighty. for this reason Strong Delusion is coming and if you aren’t guided by the Holy Spirit you will be deceived. It’s all justified.
I believe this teaching of Jesus refutes the notion of hell completely. How can you possibly love your neighbour as yourself and turn and condemn him to eternal agonizing pain. I wish the Evangelical fundelmentalists would think about this
This post is a good opportunity to comment on the irony of “prosperity gospel” ministers; only recently a pastor and his wife were robbed of approximately $1 million in jewellery during a service at their church in Brooklyn.
I used to think that “prosperity gospel teachings” were influenced by New Thought in the early 20th century, but one media source posits its origins in some African American Protestant circles- amongst a society that experienced widespread poverty pre-Civil Rights era.
Is there any evidence of “prosperity gospel” teachings in the early church?
Nope. There’s a good book on it by Kate Bowler.