Who Would Jesus Protest?
Want a quick test to see if someone knows the Bible? Ask them if Jesus would be out protesting at Occupy Wall Street (#OWS) today. The contention from some religious authorities and media outlets is that Jesus would be right there among the unwashed masses clamoring for free college tuition and a unicorn in every backyard.
That is simply not true.
Jesus cared not one whit about government except insofar as its officials abused their positions to assume positions of religious power. Even then, Jesus didn’t call out the Pharisees for their abuses of secular power but for how they used their power to mislead the people on spiritual matters. Jesus’ famous “Render unto Caesar…” comment was both an utter refusal to play the political game and a reminder to his followers of his true mission. Jesus did not come to Earth to bring political revolution, but spiritual.
When Jesus chased the moneylenders our of the temple, he didn’t do so because they lent money but because they corrupted His Father’s house. Here is the account, from John 2:13-16.
And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
Again (though some scholars believe this and the accounts in the other two gospels describe a second incident), from Luke 19:45-48:
And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Let me toss in a few questions at this point. If Jesus truly detested the moneylenders, why didn’t he continue to pursue them all the way to their places of business? Why didn’t he gather his followers — a considerable number, by the way, since this incident happened right after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem — and protest outside the exchange houses? In short, if Jesus was angry at the moneylenders for their predatory usury practices, why didn’t he #OccupyJerusalem?
He didn’t, because that wasn’t his goal. It’s not the goal of the Bible either to build large government institutions to advance social equality or “social justice”. There is, in fact, no Biblical basis for government-based charity for the poor. Every instance of charity you see in the Bible involves individuals or the church. Remember, when Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, he did not tell him to give the money to the government but directly to the poor.
Further, Jesus specifically endorsed profit with the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30. In the parable, a rich man gave money to three of his servants — 5 talents to one servant, 2 to the second, and 1 to the third — and went out of town. When he returned, he demanded an accounting from his servants. The servant with five talents had invested it and made five more. His master was pleased and rewarded him. Likewise the servant who was given two talents made two more and was also rewarded. The third servant, however, took his one talent and buried it. He did not lose it, but he did not increase it either. What happened to that servant? His boss called him “wicked and slothful”, took away his money and gave it to the servant who has earned the most. The lesson from Jesus? Those who have will get more and have abundance. Those who have not, and make not, will have theirs taken away. Note that Jesus did not condemn the rich man for rewarding his profitable servants and punishing the unprofitable one. On the contrary. He even had the rich man scold the unprofitable servant for not giving that one talent to the moneylenders so that when he returned, he could have at least gotten his talent back with profit from the interest.
Again, Jesus did not take a choice opportunity to condemn profit-making, even the rather harsh methods used by moneylenders of his day.
But did Jesus talk about government? Not directly, though he did provide a model for how a person should conduct themselfes. In Mark 10:42, Jesus specifically pointed out earthly authorities who “excercise lordship” over those they governed. In the following verses (43-44) Jesus then turned that model upside-down and said that the greatest in his spiritual hierarchy must serve all. In other words, Jesus eschewed those who exercised power and told his followers that the “great” should “minister” to those under them. Is this a specific statement about government? No as such, but Christians used it as a model for representative democracy.
So if Jesus didn’t eschew profit, can we find some passage where the Bible does have something we can apply what has happened on Wall Street and elsewhere these last few weeks? As it happens, it does. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessolanica: “…if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.” Disorderly? Working not at all? Busybodies? Sure sounds like the Occupy Whatever protesters to me.
Throughout Jesus ministry he taught each of us to give as we have received, but never, ever to demand what we have not earned. That is a worthwhile lesson for all of us, but it is not one that we can compel by governmental force or mob rule.
Note: This originally appeared as a “Twitter rant” on Saturday. A couple folks suggested I expand it a bit into a blog post. You can read the original tweets in sequence right here on Storify.
Other Posts of Interest:
- The Camping Heresy: Why the World Won’t End This Weekend
- It Helps To Read The Bible Before You Write About What’s In The Bible
- Biden: I’m Going to Raise Your Taxes Because My Church Told Me To
Category: Gimme that Old Time Religion, The Economy and Your Money
Great article. The only downside that I want to comment on is not what you said, but that we agree with it and do nothing with our agreement.
I AGREE that it is the job of the church/individuals in the church to help the poor, the outcast, the orphans, and the needy.
I am a missionary living in Bolivia, the poorest country in North, Central and South America. I see poverty firsthand every day. Unfortunately I have to testify that the church, and individuals in the church of North America are doing little to nothing to help the poor in the world. They shouth “IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PURSUE SOCIAL JUSTICE OR TO HELP THE POOR!!!! IT IS THE JOB OF THE CHURCH!”
Then go back into their gluttonous lifestyles of rank consumerism, and avoid making eye contact with the visiting missionaries, and skip the missions banquet at church in case someone asks them to give some of their money not just their assent.
It is the job, calling, and duty of Christians to help the poor. So, lets start doing it.
Joe
Joe, I’m with you. It would be nice if we could bring the moral arguments for charity, along with the pressure of public shame, back to the public circle. Unfortunately, the same folks who want to compel people to “give” are the same people who won’t let you bring morality to the discussion. We either use one argument or the other and when we’re limited to one, guess which wins?
Spot on writing! I’ve had similar ideas floating around in my mind, but had not been able to articulate them anywhere nearly as well as you did. Thanks for the great read!
I completely agree with Jemison Thorsby – thanks for posting your accurate interpretation so succintly. Love the tweets too!
[...] Who Would Jesus Protest? : The Sundries Shack. Share and [...]
I disagree.
The parable of the Talents was supposed to demonstrate the importance of making the most of what one is given (not hoarding/hiding your wealth) – it is not specifically a promotion of money lending, money just served as a specific example. The parable comes again in the form of the “Parable of the Ten Virgins”, only this time, lamp oil is used to represent the importance of taking proper preperation (it isn’t a promotion of the benefits of modern lighting).
Throughout Jesus’ life, he regularly discouraged wealth and financial exploitation. You attribute his scourging of the money lenders to his anger over their disrespect of the temple (not the act of usury); that might be a fine inference in that situation, but he repeatedly criticises other such figures. He convinces Zacchaeus, a greedy, self-serving tax collector, to hand over all his wealth (Luke 19:1-10). It was Jesus who proclaimed
(in Matthew 19:21) “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” and later (19:24) “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.
Clearly Jesus feels that the wealthy have a duty to society, in that they should hand over their material wealth to those who need it. Though, yes, Jesus does not hold an “Occupy Jerusalem” movement, he repeatedly demonstrates through his parables and individual interactions that he is opposed to the idea of money hoarders, exploitative bankers/taxmen, and excess wealth. I don’t necessarily believe that Jesus, if he were here in the flesh, were to take part in the occupy movements. Jesus did not exactly endorse that many organisations outside of the Church, except on a small scale, symbolic level. But would he think it is acceptable for the wealthy to lack accountability or recompense? I certainly doubt it.
Sorry, but you’re entirely incorrect. Like I wrote, if Jesus had real problems with profit, he wouldn’t have used a parable in which the character who represented God — the rich businessman — judged his servants based on how profitable they were for him. Likewise, every person Jesus told to sell what they had and give to the poor was someone who valued money above Jesus himself.
Ironically, Zaccheus was a corrupt government official who had been abusing his power to take more tax money than he should from the people.
But, like I said, Jesus never obliged his followers to have any duty to society beyond the ones specifically given by the commandments of the Old Testament. At no point does he ever endorse government welfare programs nor did he require his followers to form charitable organizations. never happened.
Jimmie: “At no point does he ever endorse government welfare programs nor did he require his followers to form charitable organizations. never happened.”
The Matthew 19:21-24 quote I provided shows that this is untrue. “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” He said that to an otherwise good person who specifically mentions that he obeyed all of the 10 commandments. Jesus unambiguously states that it is very unlikely for wealthy people to get into heaven (“eye of the needle”) at all. If you want a chance of salvation, you MUST give your wealth to the poor. I can’t think of a stronger denouncement of individual wealth, or as strong a promotion of sharing and giving.
“…if Jesus had real problems with profit, he wouldn’t have used a parable in which the character who represented God — the rich businessman — judged his servants based on how profitable they were for him.”
I’m not saying he is against profit. He is just against people who, as you say yourself, prize profit above god (I would also add “other people” too). It doesn’t matter if the avarice comes from corrupt government tax officials or successful business men; if they are keeping their wealth to themselves, they are (literally) bad in His book.
As for Jesus not endorsing government welfare programs: well this was 2000 years ago, and I doubt “government welfare” as we know it existed beyond the Roman “bread and circuses”. But more importantly, I don’t really understand the argument your making. Just because He didn’t explicitly endorse government welfare or charity doesn’t mean He would necessarily be against it. I argue that, from his emphasis on giving money to the poor, he would almost certainly prefer welfare programs and such charities.
1) He gave that direction to someone who was quite obviously lying. The rich young ruler had not perfectly kept the Ten Commandments. Jesus did it to demonstrate to him that his love for his riches was greater than his desire to follow Jesus. The statement about the needle’s eye speaks directly to that, in that those who amass great wealth too often place the wealth they earn above God himself and they find it exceedingly difficult to regard it as less than they do. I’ll also point out that Jesus did not require the rich young ruler to give the money to the government nor form any sort of organization with his money. He told him to give the money directly to the poor himself. You didn’t actually rebut the statement I made.
2) You might add “other people” but Jesus did not. Indeed, Jesus was quite pro charity, but there is no evidence at all he favored government charity. Those who say he would have do so out of their own imaginations.
That is the entire problem, isn’t it? Jesus never explicitly mentions whether he is for big or small government. It is exactly as you say: we have to rely on our “own imaginations” to decide whether He would support or denounce a government program. I personally don’t see why He would have any problem with government (or private) schemes, as long as they demonstratably provide help to the suffering. It can be safely said, I think, that Jesus would be fond of the fire service. But that is only my inference and not a definitive truth.
Going back to that original article picture; what do you think of its message? The plackard alleges that Jesus demonstrated a number of stereotypically liberal attitudes – the ones which conservatives often disagree with. Do you think He would support free health care, or be against death sentences, or wars? He doesn’t explicitly discuss these issues, so what conclusion might you come to?
The problem with the placard is that many of the platitudes on it are not true. He wasn’t a socialist nor was he anti-war. Indeed, I shows that he did not condemn profit at all. And he has no problem resorting to violence himself either. He didn’t give away “free healthcare”. He provided miracles to prove his bona-fides, and healing some sick people was a very good way of demonstrating his power.
My conclusions are as I wrote in the post. Jesus’ ministry on Earth dealt very little with government (which job, by the way is not to “provide help to the suffering” but to provide essential services the people are unable to provide for themselves). He did encourage his followers to take care of those who could not care for themselves and to help those they had the opportunity to help. But, as I wrote, he preached that we should do that ourselves. I have no doubt that he would strongly disapprove of the use of forcible coercion.
Certainly the lenders were thrown out of the temple because of the lending, as well as the corruption. Which was, most likely, the real reason why Jesus was betrayed and killed. The betraying and corruption of the lenders, however, has stayed and has evolved and grown until today. Jesus at that time could threw them out of the temple easily, as opposed to the Occupy Wallstreet people, who can only choose peaceful protest and achieve nothing but being removed from the police.
I wonder if this lending scheme might be the reason why the jews have been chased in so many countries over the course of history? And history is said to repeat itself. So metaphorically speaking, there might come another jesus one day and drive the lenders out of the temple.