Was Jesus Rich or Poor?
Was Jesus rich or poor? This issue was discussed in an article published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on October 22. Several reasons are offered to prove that Jesus was rich and several reasons are presented to prove that Jesus was poor.
JESUS WAS RICH
The following are some of the reasons people believe Jesus was rich:
The wise men from the East made Jesus wealthy at his birth: The Rev. Creflo Dollar, senior pastor of World Changers Church International in College Park, says the Gospel of Matthew proves that Jesus was the recipient of wealth at his birth.
"In the book of Matthew in Chapter 2, the kings came to him, and they bought him gold, frankincense and myrrh."
Jesus had so much money that he needed a treasurer: The New Testament describes Judas as the "treasurer" for Jesus' disciples. "Why would a band of 12 men need a treasurer if they didn't have some treasures," says Bishop Johnathan Alvarado of Total Grace Christian Center in Decatur. "You need a treasurer when you have surplus."
Jesus wore expensive clothes: In the 19th chapter of John's Gospel, the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus are depicted gambling for his "seamless" undergarment. Alvarado says Jesus wore garments that were a "nobleman's garments." "If his clothes were a poor man's clothes, why would centurions gamble for it?" Alvarado asks.
In a sermon titled “Jesus Was Not Poor,” published on the Web page of Harvest Church, it is written:
I call your attention to Mark 14:3-7. Jesus is dining in the home of Simon the leper in Bethany when a woman came with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure spikenard and broke the vial and poured the contents over His head. There were some that were indignant and said, “Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred pence, and the money given to the poor”. Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to me. For the poor you always have with you , and whenever you wish, you can do them good: but you do not always have Me.” Jesus did not count Himself among the poor because Jesus was not poor! He was not necessarily wealthy (in natural terms) but Jesus Was Not Poor! — The Disciples Were Not Poor!
JESUS WAS POOR
The following are some of the reasons people believe Jesus was poor:
Roman soldiers gambled for the clothes of many condemned criminals.
"It was ordinary for prisoners to be stripped naked and looted by soldiers," says Sondra Ely Wheeler, an ethicist at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., and author of "Wealth as Peril and Obligation: The New Testament on Possessions" (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, $20). Wheeler says the soldiers also were gambling for the robe Herod placed on Jesus to mock him. "I'm sure that was expensive — he got it from Herod.
The text doesn't say that Judas was a treasurer, only that he held the common purse: Neither the King James nor the New International Version of the Bible calls Judas the "treasurer." The NIV calls him the "keeper of the money bag," and the King James says he "had the bag." Scholars say he held the money not for Jesus but for all the disciples, a common custom of the time for itinerant preachers. "To call Judas a treasurer is like looking at two kids who go to the movies and calling the one who holds the money the treasurer," Wheeler says.
Jesus did not have a lucrative occupation: Crossan says the Greek word in Matthew for Jesus' occupation has been translated into carpenter, but a more accurate translation would change the word to a laborer.
Jesus and his disciples were poor, according to archaeological evidence: Eric Meyers, a professor of archaeology at Duke University and editor of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, says he has personally excavated the village of Nazareth where Jesus lived. He pointed out that the Bible says Jesus was so poor that he couldn't afford his own tomb for his burial. "There is no way to speak of wealth in that context," he says. “This is living at the margins of society, eking out an agricultural existence.”
Read the complete article published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution by clicking here.
There is no doubt that the New Testament teaches that Jesus was poor and that he came from a family with limited wealth. At the time of his birth, Jesus was born in a cave. This may or may not indicate how wealthy Joseph and Mary were. However, when Jesus was presented in the temple, his parents sacrificed two turtle doves which, according to the Book of Leviticus (Leviticus 12:2-8), was the sacrifice offered by poor people.
When a scribe came to Jesus and declared his intentions to follow him, Jesus said to that man: “Foxes have dens to live in, and birds have nests, but I, the Son of Man, have no home of my own, not even a place to lay my head” (Matthew 8:20). Jesus did not have a home to call his own. As an itinerant preacher he probably depended on people like Lazarus and his family and well-to-do admirers to provide for him and his disciples.
In 2 Corinthians 8:9 Paul wrote that Jesus, “though he was very rich,” yet for our sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty he could make us rich. However, Paul is not speaking about finances but of spiritual matters. Jesus became poor by leaving his riches in heaven and by humbling himself and by becoming a servant of all.
The desire to prove that Jesus was rich is just an effort to justify a gospel of wealth and prosperity: If Jesus was rich then he desires his followers also to be rich.
Many years ago, one of my seminary professors said in class that Jesus was rich, or at least he was someone who belonged to the middle class. The reason for his view was that only someone who is rich or middle class could care and fight for the poor.
The idea that only the rich can liberate the poor and oppressed people represents an idealistic view that oppressed people are incapable of rising up to liberate themselves and others. A quick review of acts of liberation in history, I believe, will prove this theory wrong.
I think the text speaks for itself: Although Jesus was not destitute, he did not belong to the rich class of people who lived in Israelite society of the First Century A.D.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Jesus, Rich,Poor
posted by Dr. Claude Mariottini @ 10/25/2006 07:54:00 AM
8 comments
links to this post
8 Comments:
Jesus chose to be poor. He could have been rich if he wanted to. But you are right that was not his desire whatsoever! But people have been manipulating Christ from the day of His birth. So I am not surprised this people say that. We're all gonna be in for a lot of surprises on judgement day.
Because we (Americans) ourselves are rich, we have a subjective view of who is poor or not. Jesus was homeless, but not traditionally homeless. He commanded to sell everything and give to the poor. Wouldn't that seller become poor then? But Jesus said that whoever did so would gain many partners in the Gospel and that keeps them from being "poor."
Nicole,
Because Jesus chose to identify himself with us, he also chose to identify himself with the poor. Many people today tend to use the name and the person of Christ in order to promote their own agenda. You are right: Many people will be surprised when they realize that their preaching about wealth and prosperity was contrary to the teachings of Christ.
Thank you for your comment.
Claude Mariottini
Ephilei,
I agree with you: people who live in America tend to interpret the New Testament from an American perspective. Many followers of Jesus today (and in the past also) are poor but they are happy and blessed. To equate wealth and prosperity with faith and blessing is to misinterpret the teachings of the New Testament.
Thank you for your comment.
Claude Mariottini
To be rich does not neccessary mean to have money, just as being very wealthy does not mean that you are rich.
Jesus was poor as far as how much money he had in his possession. He was rich although in many ways and was worthy and wealthy in many ways but not rich of the world (Material possessions). He was not of the world and was not rich in the world. To be rich in the world could mean that you are spiritualy in poverty. I'm not rich but I do consider myself wealthy because of the blessing that god has given to my family and I. God has taught me to recognize the wealth that he has blessed my family with. He has given us a home, a job, a trasportation method, good children and too many things to list that has made our lives more enjoyable. We are not rich with money or material items of the world, but it is the relationship with god that has made our lives rich!
Dr. Mariotinni, it appears you did not actually read the Harvest Church site you mentioned in your post. It quotes Luke 9:50 and following, which makes the context of Jesus' remark about having no place to "lay his head" much clearer. You decided to quote the Matthew 8:20 reference, which does NOT make the context clear. Unless you believe these to be two separate quotes, from two separate times, which just happen to have the same text (unlikely, don't you think?), then the text you cite doesn't make your argument... and also doesn't really make you appear to be one who is faithfully handling his sources.
You appear not to engage with the notion that "there was no room in the inn", as opposed to Joseph being unable to afford a place to stay, which the text does not say.
It's critical that people in positions such as yours use the text carefully and thoughtfully.
Dear HarmonicMiner,
Thank you for visiting my blog and for posting your comment. First, let me say that I read the article published at the Harvest Church site. The problem with that article is that the article does not reflect much knowledge of the social realities of first century Palestine. I wish I had the time to address the many fallacies promoted in that article, but I don’t. I have already addressed some of the issues in my article, even though you may not be willing to accept some of the facts I presented in my post.
The article published by Harvest Church says that Joseph had a “fairly rewarding occupation.” But look at the reality as seen in the biblical text. First, here is the the regulation for a woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. Leviticus 12:8 says: “If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.”
Luke 2: 24 says that when Joseph and Mary presented Jesus in the Temple, to offer the sacrifice according to the laws in Leviticus 12:8, Joseph and Mary brought “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” Why? Because, according to Leviticus 12:8 they could not afford a lamb.
I thank you for your concern. I also recommend that you do some real study of the social realities in Jesus’ time before you accuse someone of not handling the text carefully.
Claude Mariottini
Dr. Mariottini,
I didn't defend each and every aspect of the Harvest Church site. You may be correct that Joseph and Mary were "poor"... although I don't think the doves observation is adequate to make the point. Your notion is that conforming with a religious practice as specified 1400 years earlier (time of Moses) is determinative for economic status in N.T. times. Joseph had an animal. He was healthy enough to walk 100 miles. He was prosperous enough to marry. He bought food all along the way... they surely didn't CARRY that much food with them. He was looking for an INN, implying he could afford to pay. They were just full, and he was in a last minute predicament. I"ve slept in my car because no motels were available, and I was tired...
They weren't rich... but may not have been poor.
However, you didn't address my main criticism of your post: Harvest Church quoted Luke 9:50 and following, which provides necessary context not present in Matthew 8 for interpreting the "lay his head" comment. Surely you don't really believe Jesus had no home at all? He had family, and had been a carpenter, so it seems. But he was "on the road", and couldn't seem to find a place to stay, and he was pointing out the cost of discipleship.
What was your reason for quoting Matt and not Luke in this context?
And would you respond to the apparent fact that Joseph sought an inn, implying he could pay?
I'm well aware that there was not a "middle class" of any significance (as we understand the term middle class) in Palestine N.T. times. That doesn't mean Joseph and Mary were "the poor" to whom Jesus referred in his preaching, however.
That seems a pretty romanticized view of the nativity, and not one supported by the facts in the text.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home