"WHAT WOULD JESUS LEGISLATE?" Part Two

For part one, click here.

To bring you up to date, an essay I wrote nearly two years ago was rerun by a former student on his blog, which elicited a response, which I responded to in the above linked part one, which elicited a second response from the guy who made the first response. Is that clear?

Anyway, here's the response to my response to his response to my essay:

I appreciate your response. I also understand the animosity felt towards Christians, not necessarily towards the religion itself but towards its followers who are often hypocrites (or any number of other unflattering terms). I also don't claim to be such a pious Christian such that I have the authority to speak for all of Christianity. I hope my original article did not imply such an attitude.

The reason for responding again is just a quick FYI since you requested more information about Jesus and the money changers in the temple, calling the argument squirrelly without explanation. I want to preface this by saying that I am not a biblical scholar, but this is my limited understanding of the subject. At the time the Jews were still living under the Levitical Law. Under the Levitical Law Gentiles were only authorized to pray to God at one place, the Jewish temple. (I believe that was the only main temple at the period.) The temple was divided into three sections: The front section was for the Jewish men, the middle for the Jewish women and children, and finally the rear for the Gentiles. When Jesus entered the temple he found that the merchants had taken over that rear space. I also believe that the Law required some sacrifices which meant people entering the people had to buy animals. If business operated then as it does now, it is reasonable to assume that these men were selling their animals at a very high rate. I believe those to be facts (I hope I am not conveying any untruths). From the situation one could still draw the conclusions which you stated, or that he was angered that these people had placed more importance on their business than making room for Gentiles to worship, or perhaps some combination of the two. I do know that the bible speaks to not making money by charging interest, or making a profit without producing anything, and I think that the fact that the credit industry has ruined the finances of so many people shows why this can be destructive. I also think an important point of this story appears in John's telling of the story where Jesus made a whip out of cords and drove everyone out. I think this shows that Jesus did not act out in uncontrollable rage, but rather when he was making the whip (I have no idea how long this would have taken) he had time to think about why this situation was wrong and what an appropriate action would be.

This obviously has very little to do with your first article which is why I did not include it. I just didn't want you to think I was making completely unfounded statements. This is already much more than I had intended to write, but there was one comment in your response I found a little slanted. My quote was "creating a system which rewards poverty level single mothers for continuing to have more children" but I was admonished in your response for "condemnation of welfare for single mothers". I feel that it was clear from my statement that what I don't agree with is rewarding bad behavior, not welfare for single mothers.

I don't know why I feel the need to respond to the Wal-Mart comment even though I don't think it related directly to anything I had said, but my position on that is that it is amoral to pay a man that works for you a wage which is not satisfactory to live on.

I hope this has quenched your thirst for "some right-wing outrage". But seriously, I know that we don't agree, but I did enjoy your original article and the response. It found both to be thought provoking.

Sincerely,
Chris

Now my response:

Thanks for your appreciation. This has been a fun discussion, and it's made me remember how I used to enjoy my Bible study classes when I was younger. For that, I thank you. Your comment about hypocritical Christians also makes me remember something that I used to hear back in my church-going days: everybody's a hypocrite. Indeed, it is extraordinarily difficult to live up to one's own principles; I've only really started to take this issue seriously in the last ten years or so, if only so that my arguments aren't undercut by my own behavior, which is self-serving, I must admit. But then, what's the point in having principles at all if you don't take them seriously? Hypocritical Christians do make me angry, but only because of the double standard that they set by the example of their own lives: how can they tell me how to live my life, if they're not willing to follow their own mandates? But, like I said, this criticism is not exclusive to Christians. This discussion, for my part, doesn't really deal with that, however. I'm trying to show that Jesus has been woefully misunderstood by the conservative fundamentalists.

Don't worry about me or anyone else thinking that you claim to speak for all of Christianity. I think your original email to me makes it clear that you are defending your faith as you understand it. Indeed, your open-minded writing reveals that you are not quite the fundamentalist that I initially imagined you to be; I don't feel preached to at all.

Now, on to the meat of this discussion.

I continue to stand by my assertion that Jesus had a problem with mixing business and spirituality. I must point out, as I did in part one, that I don't think that Jesus felt that business was sinful per se: rather, I think Jesus believed that the profit motive was very dangerous to one's soul, so dangerous, in fact, that business has no place in the house of God.

The background information about Gentiles being crowded out of their place of prayer by price-gouging merchants is quite interesting, but it is important to note that the men who recorded this moment of Jesus' life did not see fit to include this in their writing--remember that Matthew, Mark, and John supposedly wrote their accounts with God's divine inspiration. I realize that it's reasonable to assume that early Christians who were also Jews would understand this event in the terms you've explained; however, most Gentiles outside of Palestine, indeed most Christians, would not understand it that way: nonetheless, the writers of the Gospels did not feel compelled to provide this context; they quite consciously focused on business in the temple. I think it's safe to say that in order to understand Jesus' ire toward the merchants and money changers as something other than what it appears to be requires a great deal of information that didn't make it into the Bible.

In researching this post, I happened upon another interpretation of Jesus' "cleansing of the temple," written by a member of what seems to be a Christian animal rights organization. The writer hits on some of the same background information that you do, but comes to a startlingly different conclusion:

Several hundred years after prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Hosea had denounced the sacrificial slaughter of animals, Jesus carried out what is euphemistically called the Cleansing of the Temple. It was just before Passover and he disrupted the buying and selling of animals that were being purchased for slaughter. (See article "Slaughter of The Innocent" www.HumaneReligion.org). And because Christian scholars and religious leaders continue to ignore biblical denunciations of that bloody worship, they also try to obscure the reason for Christ's assault on the system.

They have done this by focusing on the moneychangers, although they were only minor players in the drama that took place. It was the cult of sacrifice that Jesus tried to dismantle, not the system of monetary exchange. In all three gospel accounts of the event, those who provided the animals for sacrifice are mentioned first: they were the primary focus of Christ's outrage.

Click here for the rest.

My point in referencing this article is the same that I made above: in order to change the plain, literal meaning of this event, one must focus on information that the Gospel writers didn't include. Matthew, Mark, and John didn't focus on animal sacrifice; they focused on Jesus' anger at the merchants and money changers--they pointed out that Jesus called them "thieves."

Let's take a look at what the Bible actually says. From Matthew 21: 12-13

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

From Mark 11: 15-17

And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;

And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.

And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

And 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.

Yes, Jesus does talk about prayer, and, yes, the verses talk about animals. But the one theme that strongly emerges from all three passages is that Jesus is angry about business in the temple. One must use rhetorical acrobatics in order to de-emphasize this theme and replace it with another. As I've said before, it's undeniable: Jesus had a problem with the mixture of business and spirituality--a problem that I consider to be a stern warning to those who deal with large amounts of money; beware the corruption that comes from greed.

Now, having said all that, I'd like to thank you for finding my conclusions to be reasonable, and to acknowledge your statements about the Bible and the carnage wreaked by the credit industry: clearly, you're no nut fundamentalist; perhaps that's why I'm enjoying this discussion so much. I'm sure I would have already gotten bored if you were all fire and brimstone. Also, I agree with your assessment of Jesus' emotional state: his "cleansing of the temple" was clearly premeditated; he was angry, not crazed.

As for "rewarding bad behavior," I'm not sure that I really understand what you mean. Welfare for single mothers is aimed at helping raise disadvantaged children: there is no "reward." Being on welfare sucks in any case. However, for numerous single mothers, welfare is the one thing that keeps them from living in the streets, the one thing that gives their kids any hope at all of not ending up dead, abused, or raped. Calling welfare a "reward" for "bad behavior" is something I just don't understand. If you're so offended by welfare in principle, perhaps you'd join with me in supporting abortion rights, comprehensive sex education in all public schools, and free and easy access to birth control for Americans who are physically mature enough to have sex: this is the only real way to make a significant dent in illegitimacy, the only real way to lessen the welfare rolls.

Sorry if I didn't connect the dots with my Wal-Mart comment. The phrase in your first email, "personal responsibility," carries so much baggage that it's difficult to know where to start responding to it. Suffice it to say, my understanding of "personal responsibility" is that it's a phrase conservatives use to rile up middle and working class Americans against some mythological class of people who collect welfare checks, smoke crack, and drive brand new Cadillacs. In short, "personal responsibility" is a device used to deceive most Americans into supporting conservative reforms which ultimately screw virtually everybody while serving the super rich. I hate societal leeches, too, but as far as I can see, the real leeches are already rolling in cash. Wal-Mart, a corporation that encourages it's workers to sign up for food stamps, is a poster perfect example of what I'm talking about. We all may get some slight, short term benefit from their low, low prices, but in the long run we're the ones who pay. That's not right. (For more info about Wal-Mart, search my blog archives for the phrase "Wal-Mart sucks.")

In closing, my thirst for "right-wing outrage" hasn't been quenched really--I have not been corresponding with Bill O'Reilly; that's for sure. However, this has been a fun exchange. Thanks.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$