Then Jesus turned to his disciples and said, "God blesses you who are poor, for the Kingdom of God is given to you (Luke 6:20 NLT).
So who were the poor? Luke describes them as needy people who followed Jesus. They were people tormented by demons, lepers, the lame, people with withered hands, and people ruined by sin. They came to Jesus for healing, forgiveness and deliverence.
ECONOMIC SEPARATION
Injustice or God's Will by Steven J. Friesen (A People's History of Christianity, p.243)
According to Friesen the world of Jesus' day could be broken down into these catagories:
0.04% Imperial elites
1.00% Regional and provincial elites
1.76% Municipal elites
7.00%? Moderate surplus resources: some merchants, traders, freepersons, artisans and military veterans
22.0%? Stable near subsistence level (with reasonable hope of remaining abouve the minimum level to sustain life): many merchants and traders, regular wage earneres, artisans, large shop owners, freedpersons, some farm families.
40.0% At subsistence level and often below minimum level to sustain (especially those emplyed by others), wage earners, most merchants and traders, small shop/tavern owners.
28.0% Below subsistence level: some farm families, unattached widows, orphans, beggars, disabled people, unskilled day laborers, prisoners.
80% to 90% of people worked in agriculture and like some poorer 3rd world countries of today there was no middle class.
Here is what is important in all of this. The vast majority of the people that heard Jesus were poor.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Sermon on the Plain - The Setting
The people that came to Jesus came to be healed and to listen to him. Matthew said that the people liked to listen to Jesus because he taught them with authority. While the Religious leaders argued about minor details of the Law, Jesus preached boldly and decidedly what the Law taught...and the people liked that.
The Sermon on the Plain like the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) were framed like an Israelite covenant which leads some scholars to conclude that the sermon was a renewal of the covenant of Moses. More of that can be found in my blog about Politics and the New Testament.
More than the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain addressed class division. The Sermon on the Mount focused on the poor in spirit, the meek and the persecuted. The Sermon on the Plain focused on the poor, the hungry and the hated. Matthew is palatable to middle class of today that sees little connection between poverty and spirituality. Luke is offensive and virtually ignored by 21st Century Christians who live in the West, who although they may struggle from paycheck to paycheck, have enough to eat three meals a day and have enough to live in houses and accumulate things such as televisions, computers, pictures, nicknacks, and so forth.
To understand this better, let me design a chart.
BASIC NECESSITIES OF SURVIVAL which include food, clothing and shelter
CULTURAL NECESSITIES which may include a telephone, a car, cleaning materials, and work clothes.
SURPLUS which includes games, beer, and most of our possessions.
Somewhere around 90 - 95% of Jesus' audience struggled to obtain and to keep the basic necessities of survival. Most of who read this blog will never in this life struggle for the basic necessities of life. Our struggles will be in the surplus zone.
This is why we tend to ignore the Sermon on the Plain and focus on the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount addressed people who struggled with fitting in and had a hard time dealing with life in general. The Sermon on the Plain on the other hand addressed people who struggled with something we know little if anything about. They struggled for basic survival.
The Sermon on the Plain like the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) were framed like an Israelite covenant which leads some scholars to conclude that the sermon was a renewal of the covenant of Moses. More of that can be found in my blog about Politics and the New Testament.
More than the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain addressed class division. The Sermon on the Mount focused on the poor in spirit, the meek and the persecuted. The Sermon on the Plain focused on the poor, the hungry and the hated. Matthew is palatable to middle class of today that sees little connection between poverty and spirituality. Luke is offensive and virtually ignored by 21st Century Christians who live in the West, who although they may struggle from paycheck to paycheck, have enough to eat three meals a day and have enough to live in houses and accumulate things such as televisions, computers, pictures, nicknacks, and so forth.
To understand this better, let me design a chart.
BASIC NECESSITIES OF SURVIVAL which include food, clothing and shelter
CULTURAL NECESSITIES which may include a telephone, a car, cleaning materials, and work clothes.
SURPLUS which includes games, beer, and most of our possessions.
Somewhere around 90 - 95% of Jesus' audience struggled to obtain and to keep the basic necessities of survival. Most of who read this blog will never in this life struggle for the basic necessities of life. Our struggles will be in the surplus zone.
This is why we tend to ignore the Sermon on the Plain and focus on the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount addressed people who struggled with fitting in and had a hard time dealing with life in general. The Sermon on the Plain on the other hand addressed people who struggled with something we know little if anything about. They struggled for basic survival.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Forsaking All to Follow Jesus
In the fifth chapter of Luke, 5 people left everything they had to follow Jesus. The first 4 were fishermen (Peter, Andrew, James and John). The fifth was Matthew the tax collector.
I would like to note 2 things here:
1. There were no land owners who followed Jesus (none that we know of). Owning land made it harder to abandon all to follow someone. As far as I know, Barnabus was the only person in the Bible to sell everything to follow Jesus. Ananias and Saphira did as well but held back some of the money. Their hope was to become part of the inner circle of Christian leaders and for that they devised a scheme to sell their land and give a part of it to the Apostles and so win their honor as Barnabus did. Unfortuneatley, their scheme backfired.
2. There were 2 different types of rich people in the NT. Those who made honest money earned from a noble career and those who had collected wealth from socially hated work. The tax-collectors came from the second of these - their work was hated by the people.
Jesus called several to give up and follow, but out of the two types of rich people, only the socially hated rich (ie: the tax-collectors) could easily give up all. Those who could not give up their money for the kingdom of God were the rich young ruler and the religious leaders. These wealthy people got their money in socially acceptable ways.
I would like to note 2 things here:
1. There were no land owners who followed Jesus (none that we know of). Owning land made it harder to abandon all to follow someone. As far as I know, Barnabus was the only person in the Bible to sell everything to follow Jesus. Ananias and Saphira did as well but held back some of the money. Their hope was to become part of the inner circle of Christian leaders and for that they devised a scheme to sell their land and give a part of it to the Apostles and so win their honor as Barnabus did. Unfortuneatley, their scheme backfired.
2. There were 2 different types of rich people in the NT. Those who made honest money earned from a noble career and those who had collected wealth from socially hated work. The tax-collectors came from the second of these - their work was hated by the people.
Jesus called several to give up and follow, but out of the two types of rich people, only the socially hated rich (ie: the tax-collectors) could easily give up all. Those who could not give up their money for the kingdom of God were the rich young ruler and the religious leaders. These wealthy people got their money in socially acceptable ways.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Temptation (Lk 4)
The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness follows the temptations that Israel faced in their 40 year wandering in the wilderness. They were tempted with food (as Jesus was); they were tempted into testing the Lord (as Jesus was); and they were tempted with idolatry (as Jesus was).
In all three temptations, Israel failed their trials, but Jesus overcame.
In the first temptation Jesus was tempted to turn a rock into bread. Earlier John the Baptist told the common people to share the food they had with those who had none. Is there a connection? Only that bread was the staple of their life (and survival impulses would have the people horde bread and not give it away or not take advantage of an opportunity to use God's power to get it. We could say that in this 21st Century people are tempted to use God's power for money. It is a shame.
We in the 21st Century accumulate things - lots of stuff. They did not have anywhere near the amount of wealth we do and so food was far more coveted for them. Those who study the 1st Century have suggested that people in Jesus day may have had meat once a year because they could not afford it more than that. In all likelihood bread was the most common food for most people.
Then the Devil took him up and revealed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. The Devil told him, "I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them--because they are mine to give to anyone I please. I will give it all to you if you will bow down and worship me (Lk 4:5-7)."
Food, fame, power, and wealth - what more can someone want? The tempter offered Jesus the world (literally). These cravings are central to human nature, stemming from the need to survive. Because these cravings are so endemic to human nature they pose a strong temptation for anybody. None of these are bad in and of themselves, but people do bad things to acpuire and accumulate these, as the American writer Logan Pearsall Smith said: “Those who set out to serve both God and mammon soon discover that there is no God.”
In all three temptations, Israel failed their trials, but Jesus overcame.
In the first temptation Jesus was tempted to turn a rock into bread. Earlier John the Baptist told the common people to share the food they had with those who had none. Is there a connection? Only that bread was the staple of their life (and survival impulses would have the people horde bread and not give it away or not take advantage of an opportunity to use God's power to get it. We could say that in this 21st Century people are tempted to use God's power for money. It is a shame.
We in the 21st Century accumulate things - lots of stuff. They did not have anywhere near the amount of wealth we do and so food was far more coveted for them. Those who study the 1st Century have suggested that people in Jesus day may have had meat once a year because they could not afford it more than that. In all likelihood bread was the most common food for most people.
Then the Devil took him up and revealed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. The Devil told him, "I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them--because they are mine to give to anyone I please. I will give it all to you if you will bow down and worship me (Lk 4:5-7)."
Food, fame, power, and wealth - what more can someone want? The tempter offered Jesus the world (literally). These cravings are central to human nature, stemming from the need to survive. Because these cravings are so endemic to human nature they pose a strong temptation for anybody. None of these are bad in and of themselves, but people do bad things to acpuire and accumulate these, as the American writer Logan Pearsall Smith said: “Those who set out to serve both God and mammon soon discover that there is no God.”
Friday, January 7, 2011
The Message of John the Baptist (Lk 3)
John warned the people that a day of reckoning was coming. In response they asked John what they should do. His answer was that people needed to let go of the things and the wealth they sought after or had accumulated. 2/3 of what John told the people to do (in the book of Luke) addressed money or possessions.
He told the common people to share what they had with those who had less. He told tax collectors not to take more than what people owed and he told soldiers to be content with their pay.
There are two points to note: First of all, it is interesting to note that most of the people of the first century struggled to get by, and the vast majority had little more or less than the bare necessities of life and yet John wanted them to share what little they had with others who had less.
Secondly, as in other societies there were different world views between different groups. Soldiers would have looked down on the common people of the land (sometimes with discust), while the people hated the soldiers for being abusive, arrogant and forcing them to carry their baggage.
It was the same with the tax-collectors and the people being taxed. Tax-collectors were hard on the people because so many of the people cheated and refused to pay the right amount of taxes. They lied and hid what they could from the tax-collectors. But the people saw the tax-collectors as cruel and demanding. In both cases, with the soldiers and with the tax-collectors, John took the side of the people.
If John the Baptist were here today, I think he would not let people get easy baptisms. Before people could get baptised they would have to show signs that they have repented. He would tell us that if we had a savings, give half to those who had none. He would tell us to work ethically, not taking advantage of other people in business. He would tell us to be content with our wages and stop complaining about our work.
To put it all simply John tells us to put others' survival needs and prosperity equal to our own.
He told the common people to share what they had with those who had less. He told tax collectors not to take more than what people owed and he told soldiers to be content with their pay.
There are two points to note: First of all, it is interesting to note that most of the people of the first century struggled to get by, and the vast majority had little more or less than the bare necessities of life and yet John wanted them to share what little they had with others who had less.
Secondly, as in other societies there were different world views between different groups. Soldiers would have looked down on the common people of the land (sometimes with discust), while the people hated the soldiers for being abusive, arrogant and forcing them to carry their baggage.
It was the same with the tax-collectors and the people being taxed. Tax-collectors were hard on the people because so many of the people cheated and refused to pay the right amount of taxes. They lied and hid what they could from the tax-collectors. But the people saw the tax-collectors as cruel and demanding. In both cases, with the soldiers and with the tax-collectors, John took the side of the people.
If John the Baptist were here today, I think he would not let people get easy baptisms. Before people could get baptised they would have to show signs that they have repented. He would tell us that if we had a savings, give half to those who had none. He would tell us to work ethically, not taking advantage of other people in business. He would tell us to be content with our wages and stop complaining about our work.
To put it all simply John tells us to put others' survival needs and prosperity equal to our own.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Mary's and Zechariah's Celebration
1:51 His mighty arm does tremendous things!
How he scatters the proud and haughty ones!
1:52 He has taken princes from their thrones and exalted the lowly.
1:53 He has satisfied the hungry with good things and sent the rich away with empty hands.
Mary's confession here prepares us for Luke's view on finances. God will give good to the hungry but the rich will leave empty handed and God brings down the high and powerful and lifts up the lowly. Note: This does not say that God will prosper the hungry with money. In fact, what God is giving to the hungry is not stated.
1:74 We have been rescued from our enemies, so we can serve God without fear,....
Zechariah's prophecy which was given immediately after Mary's song, said nothing about the rich and the poor, the hungry or the full, but rather focused on God's work for Israel in destroying their political and military enemies so that Israel could serve God without hinderance from their enemies. This concern on military and the powerful was passed on to John the Baptist, however John the Baptist included money in his messages as well.
How he scatters the proud and haughty ones!
1:52 He has taken princes from their thrones and exalted the lowly.
1:53 He has satisfied the hungry with good things and sent the rich away with empty hands.
Mary's confession here prepares us for Luke's view on finances. God will give good to the hungry but the rich will leave empty handed and God brings down the high and powerful and lifts up the lowly. Note: This does not say that God will prosper the hungry with money. In fact, what God is giving to the hungry is not stated.
1:74 We have been rescued from our enemies, so we can serve God without fear,....
Zechariah's prophecy which was given immediately after Mary's song, said nothing about the rich and the poor, the hungry or the full, but rather focused on God's work for Israel in destroying their political and military enemies so that Israel could serve God without hinderance from their enemies. This concern on military and the powerful was passed on to John the Baptist, however John the Baptist included money in his messages as well.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Blessed Are Those Who Weep - Elizabeth's Story
God blesses you who weep now, for the time will come when you will laugh with joy (Lk 6:21 NLT).
Even though this blog is about money, those who are poor are akin to those who weep. Luke begins his adventure with Mary's cousin Elizabeth who was old and had no children. This was a common story in the bible beginning with Abraham's wife Sarah and Samuel's mother. It was a story of a wife who had no children which in ancient times carried with it much more shame than it does today. Women were expected to bear children for their husbands and if they didn't it was always considered the woman's fault. In our culture we look to the physical and to the scientific reasons for why a woman can or cannot give birth. We know that the husband's sperm count may be the reason. But the world that Jesus lived in looked at things in a whole different way.
A barron woman lived a life of tregedy and shame before her husband, his family and all of society. People wondered what she may have done to deserve such a curse, the husband was never at fault. Even though Elizabeth spent most of her life in such shame, the day finally came when she bore a child in her old age. This was a complete revearsal of fortune. Overnight her reputation in the surrounding area went from horrible to amazing. People no longer wodered what evil she may be hiding or how she deserved her misfortune. When she became pregnant people saw her as blessed by God and they knew that her child was going to be special.
Even though this blog is about money, those who are poor are akin to those who weep. Luke begins his adventure with Mary's cousin Elizabeth who was old and had no children. This was a common story in the bible beginning with Abraham's wife Sarah and Samuel's mother. It was a story of a wife who had no children which in ancient times carried with it much more shame than it does today. Women were expected to bear children for their husbands and if they didn't it was always considered the woman's fault. In our culture we look to the physical and to the scientific reasons for why a woman can or cannot give birth. We know that the husband's sperm count may be the reason. But the world that Jesus lived in looked at things in a whole different way.
A barron woman lived a life of tregedy and shame before her husband, his family and all of society. People wondered what she may have done to deserve such a curse, the husband was never at fault. Even though Elizabeth spent most of her life in such shame, the day finally came when she bore a child in her old age. This was a complete revearsal of fortune. Overnight her reputation in the surrounding area went from horrible to amazing. People no longer wodered what evil she may be hiding or how she deserved her misfortune. When she became pregnant people saw her as blessed by God and they knew that her child was going to be special.
Are Only the Poor Saved?
This is so radical, but Luke is built on the premise that the Kingdom of God has come and it belongs to the poor. Furthermore it does not belong to the rich for what they already have is all their ever going to get. To be sure the rich can get into the kingdom of God, but only with great difficulty and only with a costly price tag.
This is radical to most of us and doesn't sound right. But I assure you that what I say is exactly what Luke says throughout his writings as I will domonstrate.
This is radical to most of us and doesn't sound right. But I assure you that what I say is exactly what Luke says throughout his writings as I will domonstrate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)