More like Zaccheus

Biblical images for thinking about poverty alleviation

Disparity of wealth and increasing poverty in America has been in the news.  There has been a tendency of many, even Christians to blame those in poverty for being poor.  Recent tax cuts have resulted in an increase in wealth for the one percent of the wealthiest, very slight increase for those in the middle and almost no increase for the poorest. The poorest have difficulty are having difficulty finding housing due to cuts in subsidized housing.  Cost of medical care has driven many to bankruptcy.  To understand what to do about this situation, I realized I needed to understand how the Bible portrays the poor and the rich. ‡

“Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.” Proverbs 14:31 (ESV)

Three images in the First Testament (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) can be used to characterized a good number of human responses to helping the poor and/or oppressed.  They are the Pharaoh’s daughter’s approach, Moses’ approach and the Exodus approach (God’s?).

Pharaoh’s daughter “finds” baby Moses and with the help of Moses’ mother, raises him as her own.  What she does is remove one child from the oppressed situation (and poverty).  She provides for his basic needs and apparently beyond that. This has happened and continues to happen as a means of rescuing children.  Orphanages are part of this approach.  There is no question that many children have been helped by their removal from settings of abuse, abandonment and homelessness.  A long-term solution must include families and groups.  Pharaoh’s daughter intent was not to do poverty alleviation, but the image is suggestive of one way people have sought to limit the effects of poverty.

Did Moses’ response to the abuse of Hebrew workers grow out of what he saw growing up in the Egyptian palace? Was his killing of the overseer his first act against oppression? We do not know.  But, we do know that the use of violence to deal with abusers of the poor and oppressed has been justified by many champions of those who are at the mercy of the rich and powerful.  The oppressors, though, usually have been able to counter lower class violence.  There have been some instances of successful revolt by lower classes.

After a 40 year “re-education” period in the wilderness, God had Moses nearly ready to be the leader of the Egyptian slaves.  And, he had the children of those slaves, ready to move ahead.  God had a method for raising them out of oppression and poverty.  The journey to a place where this new life could happen took a generation.  That could be instructive.  Maybe those who have lived in poverty and oppression would have difficulty with a new kind of life. The description of distribution of land in Joshua and Judges underscores the importance of “God’s way” of poverty alleviation:  giving families control over the what they needed to provide for their own food and other needs.  This model is followed to some degree by what the Mennonite Central Committee and other organizations do in providing enhanced work skills, animals for labor and food, training in better agricultural methods or loans to permit financing of new enterprises.  (See the MCC publication Common Place Magazine for some examples, online at https://mcc.org/stories/acp/winter-2019 (Accessed 7/16/19)

Deuteronomy has many instructions for protecting the poor from those in power and ensuring them fair treatment and access to resources.  These guidelines were intended to prevent the poverty often results from bribery of officials, unjust weights used by merchants and by judges showing favoritism. These instructions underscore the Hebrew Bible perspective that the primary reason for poverty is those in power taking advantage of others.

⁴ However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, Deut. 15:4

“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.” Deut. 10.18.

 The Prophets

In the prophets, we find critiques of Hebrew society for failing to follow the rules for caring for the poor and undefended given in the Torah/Pentateuch.  Ezekiel 22:29, Ezekiel 22:12, Hosea 12, Isaiah 10:2, Isaiah 25:4, Isaiah 3:14, Isaiah 3:15, Isaiah 5:23, Isaiah 33:15, Micah 6:8-12, Isaiah 1:23 .  There are a number if images negatively portraying the excesses of the rich, such as the “ivory couches” and eat “choice lamb” (Micah 6).  The message of the prophets is that some people have taken advantage of others to become wealthy and use the wealth of continue to take advantage of the “fatherless and widow”.  People taking advantage of others by bribery, manipulation of property lines, use of unfair scales and sometimes violence results in wealth for some and poverty for others.

 New Testament images

In the New Testament, four images are useful in understanding Jesus’ view of poverty alleviation (and wealth)”: the “rich fool” parable, the “young ruler” of Mark 10, the Lazarus’ parable and Zacchaeus (Luke 19).  In the parable traditionally called “The rich fool” or the “wealthy land owner” (or perhaps the successful farmer), a farmer rejoices in a good harvest. (Luke 12:13-21) He imagines how he can use the bounty for his pleasure.  Not too long after his rejoicing he hears God’s word that his life will end.  This parable is sometimes used to speak against self-indulgence and about the uncertainty of life. That is part of the parable. However, Jesus’ encounter with the wealthy young man helps us understand what Jesus meant in the “rich fool” parable.  (Matt. 6:20-21) In the first, Jesus talks about riches, treasure in the other.  In the case of the wealthy young man or “young ruler” (Mark 10:17-27), he asks the seeker to sell his possessions and give them to the poor.  Giving to the poor was probably what God expected of the wealthy landowner (before he became the “rich fool”).  Jesus did not criticize him for being a good farmer that God had blessed with an exceptional harvest.  In the parable of Lazarus, we see Jesus again pointing to care of the poor.  The rich man did not share his wealth with the beggar whom he saw on a regular basis.  This is not simply a parable of final judgement.  It clarifies Jesus call to share one’s abundance with those needing help.  The parable was a reminder to Jesus’ listeners (“the brothers” of the rich man), that they had ready help in the “law and the prophets” to avoid the rich man’s end.

The story of Zacchaeus helps us understand the above events and parables.  He was a rich man whose repentance resulted in giving much of his wealth to the poor.  Some teach that the important truth about the wealthy young man is that he loved his treasures more than he loved God. The truth in that interpretation would have clear confirmation if Jesus had said something like “Love God more than your possessions”.  But, Jesus said, “Sell all you have and give to the poor”. What is the key difference between the wealthy young man/rich young ruler and Zacchaeus?  He stands in contrast to the rich fool, the rich young ruler, and the man who neglected Lazarus. First, Zacchaeus got rid of possibly tainted wealth.  Then, he gave half of his wealth to the poor.   Zacchaeus, Jesus declared, was “a son of Abraham” and to his house salvation had come.

In his first recorded sermon Jesus spoke of bringing release to the captives and prisoners. (Luke 4:18-19) If the “rich fool” shared his acreage and his excess crop harvest with the poor, there would be fewer debt prisoners and fewer poor sold into slavery due to their inability to pay rent or high taxes.  (In Jesus’ parable of the unmerciful slave, the fellow slave and his wife and children are to be sold to pay a small debt. The “unmerciful slave” is to be put into jail until his debts are paid. This tells us the practice in the first century that the poor might expect.)  Good news to the poor, of course, includes a new relationship with Jesus.  But, Jesus’ parables and responses to the “young ruler” and Zaccheus tell us that the good news includes resource sharing.

From archaeological and other evidence, it becomes apparent that peasants were being forced from their lands in Jesus’ time.  Taxes were high with temple tax, collected by the Pharisees and the Roman taxes were sometimes collected by the Pharisees.  Increasingly, crops that were planted that were more suited for export, than those typically planted by the farmer for his family.  Related to this was an increasing size of fields.  Natural disaster and tax indebtedness forced small landowners off their holdings.  They had to move to the city where they had no means to feed themselves.  The rebellion forty years later considered an equitable distribution of land a key issue.  Those in power were not “good news to the poor”.

While many of the people of Jesus day would have identified Romans as the primary oppressor, the people who profited from their connections with the Romans (priests/Pharisees) through taxation and other power benefits would be included.  This included the leaders of the Jews who helped the Romans with Jesus’ state-sanctioned murder.  Jesus certainly knew of this disparity of wealth and the oppression of the peasant by the large landowners and the Pharisees.  Even though Jesus’ Mother said: ^“He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones . . .” (Luke 1:51-52) She understood the First Testament belief that poverty was usually a result of the powerful taking advantage of those without power.  But, Jesus’ parables and other teachings showed no encouragement to those who wanted to drive out the Romans and their collaborators.

As they were regrouping in Galilee, Jesus told them, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed to some people who want nothing to do with God. They will murder him—and three days later he will be raised alive.” The disciples felt terrible. Matthew 17:22-23 (Message)

Jesus tells the disciples who criticizes the woman washing his feet: “The poor you have with you always.”  (Perhaps “You still have poor with you”.)  This saying of Jesus reflects Deut. 15:4 quoted above. With Theoharis,** I understand Jesus to say that there continues to be a failure to deal with the root causes of poverty rather than only think of a one-time gift to the poor. (It is important to note, too, that Jesus intended to stop the disciples belittling the woman’s honoring of him as his death approached.)  What do the events and parables above tell us that Jesus recommends we do about poverty?

Conclusion

What would I do with the rich farmer’s abundance?  As the “rich young ruler”, how would I manage distribution of my wealth or live without it?  As a brother of the one who neglected Lazarus, what will my response be to the beggars of the community?  As Zacchaeus, how do I distribute my wealth (ill-gotten or otherwise) and live on what is left?  Do I consider action of any kind against the Pharisees of my day who “devour widow’s houses”? Do I encourage and participate in activity to end tax cuts, housing supplement cuts, education assistance and similar provisions that increase poverty?

 

Much of my understanding in this essay was developed by reading Theoharis and Hoppe.

 

*(Psalm 62:10). (Proverbs 11:24).  (Proverbs 3:9–10).   (2 Corinthians 9:6–15). 

** Liz Theoharis, Always with us?  What Jesus really said about the poor.  Eerdmans, 2017.

See also:  Hoppe, Leslie, there shall be no poor among you, Abingdon Press 2004.

‡

https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/     accessed 1/30/2020

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrodacosta/2019/05/29/americas-humungous-wealth-gap-is-widening-further/#7589302942ee  accessed 1/30/2020

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-make-inequality-worse-11572561280

accessed 2/3/2020

https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/1223577742618300417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1223627543783198720&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2F2020%2F02%2F01%2Fwatch-news-anchor-shows-americans-real-size-wealth-gap-using-american-pie

 

 

Daniel and the wisdom prophet, Part 3: Reading Daniel today

How do we read Daniel?

Many Mennonites have preferred the “calendarizer” -Vernard Eller’s term- approach to the book of Daniel and its “prophecies”.   In doing so they have emphasized the chronological connection between events in the fashion of the diviners and astrologers.  This approach neglects the ethical connection between events in prophetic utterance:  good deeds will bring blessing, evil deeds bring curses.  Others have joined the modern trend of casting the wisdom prophet into the ivory tower of apocalypticism and throwing away the key.  By declaring Daniel “apocalyptic”  the prophetical/ethical dimension has been of the book has been blunted.

The “proto-constantinianism” of the Maccabees has been the key to interpretation of the political relevance of Daniel for both protestants and Catholics. (see Harrington, The Biblical Model for Revolution).  These interpreters agree with the book of the Maccabees that revolutionary violence and state violence are necessary to protect the people of God and punish evil.

Although Mennonites have focused on the ethical dimension of the Christian faith, they have not given much attention to this dimension of Daniel.  The Mennonite Encyclopedia. does not contain an article on Daniel, in spite of the importance of Daniel to many of the era of the editors of ME.   [There is mention of Daniel in the article on “chiliasm”.]  That Daniel was of importance to the early Anabaptists, such as the Munsterites, has not increased the appeal of Daniel.  The disputes between the premillennialists and amillennialists and their use of Daniel to create timelines has detracted from viewing the ethical aspect of the wisdom prophet’s ethical teaching. There have been no interpretative articles on Daniel in the Gospel Herald/Mennonite since at least 1960, if my research is correct.  I have searched the indexes back to 1960 and talked to former editors, Dan Hertzler and John Drescher.  (The Believers’ Church commentary on Daniel was published after I began this study.)

This essay proposes that we expect the wisdom prophet, as other prophets, to provide practical guidance on a current issue of the day, not simply children’s rescue stories or timetables for the distant future.  For our day also, when evil people arise, the wisdom prophet’s stories can encourage us to faithfulness to God and trust in him.  In the face of oppression and persecution, many have chosen the Maccabean way of violent resistance, rather than the wisdom prophet’s way of faithfulness and suffering.  From the Münsterites of the Anabaptist era to the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas and liberation theologians today, people read the book of Daniel as if it supported the Maccabees, rather than opposed them.

Many followers of God have insisted that God’s people need the state and state violence for their preservation of Christian values.  Christians rooted in the Cold War era saw the United States’ nuclear weapons as a necessity for the survival of Christianity.  Christians have encouraged the Israelis to believe that only by military superiority will they be spared another Holocaust.  In the post-9/11 world, Christians have insisted that the evil of terrorism will only be overcome by violence.  How can people of peace encourage others to let the angel Michael (Dan 10:13) and the Son of Man deal with the enemies of the people of God?  Following Daniel’s example, we can choose the way of suffering, prayer, and the wisdom of trusting God.

——————————————