Blessed are the Poor

Sometimes the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), on a surface reading, seem to be in conflict. One example is the two different versions of the Sermon on the Mount, one in Luke 6 and another in Matthew 5. In particular Luke says, “Blessed are the poor,” while Matthew says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” As this relates to the theme of wealth, I thought this was a good time to talk about it. 

Normally I quote The Message as my usual translational choice. Let’s begin instead with the NIV from Luke 6:20-22

“Blessed are you who are poor,
    for yours is the kingdom of God.
²¹ Blessed are you who hunger now,
    for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
    for you will laugh.
²² Blessed are you when people hate you,
    when they exclude you and insult you
    and reject your name as evil,
        because of the Son of Man.

The version in Matthew 5 is different. 

³ ”Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
⁴ Blessed are those who mourn,
    for they will be comforted.
⁵ Blessed are the meek,
    for they will inherit the earth.
⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    for they will be filled.
⁷ Blessed are the merciful,
    for they will be shown mercy.
⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart,
    for they will see God.
⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called children of God.
¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

¹¹ ”Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹² Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

While I suppose these could be two different messages, they are so similar that I think they are the same message. It is possible they were given on different occasions. Was Matthew right in saying Jesus said “poor in spirit”? In one sense no. I think Jesus said what Luke recorded. Jesus said “blessed are the poor.” What Matthew has done is added the words “in spirit” to give us a better idea as to what Jesus meant. This fits in well with the Psalmist’s use of the word that means poor, as the hebrew word ’anaw עָנָו has a wide range of meanings including poor, humble, afflicted, and so on. 

Matthew is giving us a different nuance to what Jesus said. But if you look carefully that nuance is also in Luke’s version. Here is how The Message translates Luke 6:

You’re blessed when you’ve lost it all. 
   God’s kingdom is there for the finding. 
   You’re blessed when you’re ravenously hungry. 
   Then you’re ready for the Messianic meal. 

   You’re blessed when the tears flow freely. 
   Joy comes with the morning.

The reason I tend to use The Message is that the translator captures these nuances very well. Not always of course. But when this translation “nails it,” it really nails it. 

Here is an additional selection from Luke 6, again from the NIV.

²⁴ ”But woe to you who are rich,
    for you have already received your comfort.
²⁵ Woe to you who are well fed now,
    for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
    for you will mourn and weep.
²⁶ Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
    for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Jesus must have had a considerable emphasis in his ministry on the poor. Luke makes that explicit. But Matthew adds enough for us to realize that humility is what Jesus is looking for. As a practical matter the rich are typically not very humble. 

Let’s look at this same passage from The Message:

²⁴But it’s trouble ahead if you think you have it made. 
   What you have is all you’ll ever get.

 ²⁵And it’s trouble ahead if you’re satisfied with yourself. 
   Your self will not satisfy you for long.

   And it’s trouble ahead if you think life’s all fun and games. 
   There’s suffering to be met, and you’re going to meet it.

²⁶ There’s trouble ahead when you live only for the approval of others, saying what flatters them, doing what indulges them. Popularity contests are not truth contests—look how many scoundrel preachers were approved by your ancestors! Your task is to be true, not popular.

I think that Jesus is talking about an attitude, often present in the rich, of personal self-satisfaction. This is the theme of the last two posts I did on wealth. Last thursday we looked at the Pharisee and the tax collector who had differing attitudes. But the tax collector was the one who was rich, the Pharisee was the one who was proud. On Friday we looked at Zacchaeus, who although wealthy, had the correct attitude. 

Jesus is talking about the rich in a general way. He understood that not all fit the pattern he was condemning but most did. In particular Jesus is talking about trouble ahead for the rich, the politically well-connected. They are headed for trouble and that trouble came in 70 AD when all the “rich” were washed away by the Roman flood. 

Let me summarize the point I am trying to raise today: God has no problem with wealth, or for that matter with sexuality, or with self-defense. But there is a problem when these natural things are turned into greed, adultery, and war mongering.  

The Great Whore

The beloved editor of the prophecy podcast, Pam Dewey, pointed out as she edited Friday’s post that I had not mentioned an important aspect to Romney’s charitable giving. Romney gives most of his money to the LDS church, better known as Mormons.  I have never met a “bad” Mormon, they all seem quite nice. I even dated one. However, I have said in the past that to join the LDS church, one had to be on LSD. Here is Pam’s Wild World of Religion profile on Mormonism.  

As it usually does, this leads me to ask myself a question. “How does this relate to Babylon the Great?” As my friend Eric commented on Facebook, “Only Dennis could see Babylon the Great in a chicken sandwich.”

But the corporate church world is talked about, in type, in the section of Revelation on which I have been basing a lot of what I do here—chapters 17-18. 

John in Revelation 17 tells us of a woman he saw:

^3-6In the Spirit he carried me out in the desert. I saw a woman mounted on a Scarlet Beast. Stuffed with blasphemies, the Beast had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, festooned with gold and gems and pearls. She held a gold chalice in her hand, brimming with defiling obscenities, her foul fornications. A riddle-name was branded on her forehead: great babylon, mother of whores and abominations of the earth. I could see that the woman was drunk, drunk on the blood of God’s holy people, drunk on the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

The primary reference here is the corrupt religious organization that Jesus talked about in Matthew 23, the leadership in Israel at that time. My approach to prophecy is to understand what it meant when it was given, and then think about how to apply it to our situation. Many churches throughout the ages fit this description well. This is still true today. 

A man I admire very much, Billy Graham, even got caught up in this. He was “court prophet” to many presidents. This was not good. I understand from what I read that he regretted it later, especially with regard to Nixon. When you as a religious leader “ride the beast,” no good can come of it. 

It is like the song my mother taught me. If you ride a beast, it will eat you. 

Sooner or later the religious leader/church will be eaten by the beast. 

Here is one additional piece of data that John gives us:

^9-11”But don’t drop your guard. Use your head. The seven heads are seven hills; they are where the woman sits. They are also seven kings: five dead, one living, the other not yet here—and when he does come his time will be brief. The Beast that once was and is no longer is both an eighth and one of the seven—and headed for Hell.

This tells us several things. First the beast is Rome, and the woman is associated with Rome. The Jewish leadership of the time had such a relationship with Rome. Nero even wanted to marry one of Herod’s daughters. 

But in history there are other cities that have seven hills. Jerusalem, Washington, and even Rome, Georgia! The pattern of false religion in cahoots with government has continued through the ages as sinning people repeat the same mistakes their fathers made. 

In any event, the point I am making is that any church as it grows in size will inevitably risk becoming a daughter of the Great Whore, the mother of all prostitutes. The Mormon Church is one of the largest in America. 

Is it corrupt? 

In a June 2011 cover story, Newsweek magazine stated that the LDS Church “resembles a sanctified multinational corporation-the General Electric of American religion, with global ambitions and an estimated net worth of $30 billion.” The PBS special, “The Mormons” estimated the LDS Church’s worth at over $80 billion. Other estimates have placed it in excess of $100 Billion, as it is the wealthiest per capita religion in the world with annual, mostly tax-free revenues estimated to be $6 billion per year (per Time Magazine in 1997).

Why do people build such buildings? Even in my tradition such monstrosities have been built. Wealth by itself is not proof of corruption, but as we have seen it is a good indication of it. While I am critiquing Romney for his choice of where he gives his money, most Christians who tithe do give it to their church. 

It seems to me that each of us would be better off in our charitable giving if we avoid giving to big churches. There is nothing wrong with a portion of our giving going to churches, but you need to look at the big picture. It would not surprise me at all if Obama giving a much smaller total to charity might be doing more good than Romney’s large contribution to a large church. 

Avoid Babylon the Great by avoiding the Great Whore and her daughters. 

Zacchaeus Was a Wee Little Man

We should not allow our familiarity with a Bible story, especially one sung in Sunday School, to lead us to overlook the message the story gives us. Did you sing this song as a child? I still hear it on occasion as we drive with Stacy in the car. 

What does the story tell us? 

Luke 19

Zacchaeus

My daughter chose this picture! ^1-4Then Jesus entered and walked through Jericho. There was a man there, his name Zacchaeus, the head tax man and quite rich. He wanted desperately to see Jesus, but the crowd was in his way—he was a short man and couldn't see over the crowd. So he ran on ahead and climbed up in a sycamore tree so he could see Jesus when he came by.

 ^5-7When Jesus got to the tree, he looked up and said, "Zacchaeus, hurry down. Today is my day to be a guest in your home." Zacchaeus scrambled out of the tree, hardly believing his good luck, delighted to take Jesus home with him. Everyone who saw the incident was indignant and grumped, "What business does he have getting cozy with this crook?"

 ⁸Zacchaeus just stood there, a little stunned. He stammered apologetically, "Master, I give away half my income to the poor—and if I'm caught cheating, I pay four times the damages."

 ^9-10Jesus said, "Today is salvation day in this home! Here he is: Zacchaeus, son of Abraham! For the Son of Man came to find and restore the lost." 

I mentioned yesterday what a tax collector did at that time. 

The Romans did not want to be bothered with collecting taxes from subject peoples. So they would sell the right to collect taxes to locals. The locals would bid on this right to collect taxes from their own people. Then they would collect from the people. As you might imagine, this profession was not well received. 

This was why the crowd grumbled. No doubt there was also an element of envy. But Zacchaeus was honest, he did not collect more money in taxes from the people than was required. There was a strong incentive for a tax collector to collect more than was required because he got to keep it. Zacchaeus knew what the law said about stealing—paying 4 times back was the standard penalty. He never had to pay that penalty because he was honest. 

He also was generous with his giving to the poor. 

This leads me in several directions. First, I am reminded that Biden and Romney have a little different concept of charitable giving. Both are in the 1% most wealthy based on income. Biden gives 1.6%; Romney gave 16%. Huckabee at the convention got this a little confused. He confused Biden with Obama. Obama gives about 6% a year. I am reluctant to mention the amount I give based on the principle that Jesus mentioned that with regards to giving—to not to let the right hand know what the left hand is doing. But I feel it is needed for the narrative I am building. I gave almost 10% last year. Last year was the worst year I have ever had since graduating college. How much is appropriate to give in your situation? You know best, but somehow I doubt it is 1.6%.  

She must be French.It seems to me that in one way of looking at it the most righteous people must live in France. France's government consumes 50% of the output of the French people. So the average Frenchman must pay almost that much in taxes. Are they as righteous as Zacchaeus? The new tax rate if you earn over 1 million euros will soon be 75%. I suppose this goes to the "poor," and a righteous man needs to give everything to the government to redistribute. It seems to me that since our various governments are the representatives of Babylon the Great, one should avoid paying taxes as much as possible, as long as it is legal. 

My conclusion to the matter is the same as the founder of the Methodist Church—John Wesley. "Earn all you can; save all you can; give all you can." This is biblical. 

Self-Righteous Post

We often lack the background to understand nuances from the first century. Here is an example that relates to my theme of the proper use of wealth. Luke 18:

 ^9-12He told his next story to some who were complacently pleased with themselves over their moral performance and looked down their noses at the common people: "Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, the other a tax man. The Pharisee posed and prayed like this: 'Oh, God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, crooks, adulterers, or, heaven forbid, like this tax man. I fast twice a week and tithe on all my income.'

 ¹³"Meanwhile the tax man, slumped in the shadows, his face in his hands, not daring to look up, said, 'God, give mercy. Forgive me, a sinner.'"

 ¹⁴Jesus commented, "This tax man, not the other, went home made right with God. If you walk around with your nose in the air, you're going to end up flat on your face, but if you're content to be simply yourself, you will become more than yourself."

There are several things here. First, I have seen these verses used to justify self-righteousness. That was not what the writer thought he was doing. The writer was saying that since the Pharisees observed the Sabbath, that anyone who observed the Sabbath was self-righteous. This ignores the point that both men in the story were Jews who followed the customs of the Old Testament—remember, they were observing rituals in the Temple. Luke 18 does not provide us with any information on the subject of the continual validity, or non-validity, of the Sabbath command. 

That point aside, how does this story relate to theme of wealth I am exploring? 

The man who God forgave was wealthy, among the most wealthy of that time, the 1%. 

We know this because he was a tax farmer. The Romans did not want to be bothered with collecting taxes from subject peoples. So they would sell the right to collect taxes to locals. The locals would bid on this right to collect taxes from their own people. Then they would collect from the people. As you might imagine, this profession was not well received. 

The point is that one can be wealthy, and be a true worshiper of God. In our unfortunate desire to use Luke 18 to condemn others, we overlook this. The wealthy can be condemned by the self-righteous. 

Tomorrow I will continue talking about wealth by talking about another tax farmer mentioned in the Gospels, a wee little man. 

Jesus and the Bankers

I mentioned Saturday one group of people that Jesus was displeased with—the religious bureaucratic hypocrites. But there is another group he was not too happy with. Matthew 21 tells us of one time that Jesus was in the temple. This is from the translation The Message:

^12-14Jesus went straight to the Temple and threw out everyone who had set up shop, buying and selling. He kicked over the tables of loan sharks and the stalls of dove merchants. He quoted this text: 

   My house was designated a house of prayer; 

   You have made it a hangout for thieves.

Now there was room for the blind and crippled to get in. They came to Jesus and he healed them.

 ^15-16When the religious leaders saw the outrageous things he was doing, and heard all the children running and shouting through the Temple, "Hosanna to David's Son!" they were up in arms and took him to task. "Do you hear what these children are saying?"

   Jesus said, "Yes, I hear them. And haven't you read in God's Word, 'From the mouths of children and babies I'll furnish a place of praise'?"

 ¹⁷Fed up, Jesus turned on his heel and left the city for Bethany, where he spent the night.

In this case Jesus made the religious leaders, the religious bureaucracy, upset. Why were they upset besides the obvious fact that their offices were in question by the popularity of Jesus?  

There were several rules designed to implement the principle that when one offered a sacrifice, the animal should be without blemish. So you would select one of the better animals of your flock to sacrifice. The priest would then examine the animal to determine if it was suitable.

For some reason, in the time frame we are talking about here, the second temple period, the animal was usually “not good enough.” That meant if you wanted to offer a sacrifice you had to then purchase another animal.  Naturally, right there was the solution! You could sell your lamb and buy a dove, right there in the temple. How convenient! The religious leaders really cared for their "flock."

Not exactly. Since there was limited space at the temple, who do you think got the space to sell the doves? The answer is, whoever gave the biggest bribe to the religious leaders. Of course this meant that an approved animal was a lot more expensive than it should have been. The public was being ripped off by their leadership. As Jesus noted, they were thieves. 

While I like the translation in The Message, I feel that the term “loan sharks” might be misleading. I am sure The Message wanted it to be clear that they were crooks, but no loans were taking place. What was happening was that if you wanted to make a contribution of coins toward the temple you could not use the normal coins of the time. They were “dirty.” You had to use special coins from Judah's past. So you would go to the "loan sharks," the money changers, and exchange money. Naturally the cost of the special coins was greater than the value of the normal coin in precious metals. So this increased the cost of making an offering. Naturally, as the temple bureaucracy had no need for the special money, they would sell it back to the money changers, and so the process continued with each side getting their cut from the faithful. As Jesus noted, they were thieves. 

Jesus was not happy with these bankers, as they were crooks. 

I do want to make one thing clear. There is nothing wrong with the supposed banking model. (I say supposed as the traditional banking model is not used by the big banks.) A well-run bank is designed to be an intermediary between savers and borrowers. I have known, and continue to know, reputable bankers. But our large money center banks have long abandoned that model. They live only to plunder. They fix rates. They sell securities they know are trash. Then they retire to warmer climates. Yes, they may very well be headed for a very warm climate.  

So there are two categories of people Jesus has been known to get angry at—the religious bureaucrat and the crooked banker. I do not think I would want to work for the Vatican Bank!

Here is one cinematic interpreation: