But I kind of feel like what that says about Jesus is more meaningful if He wasn't poor Himself. It's easy for a poor person to say you should care about the poor, the problem is too many rich people, even ones who formally were poor, lose that empathy as they live in luxury. This is my greatest self doubt about myself, if I'd still maintain the values I have now if I became wealthy in the future.
Jesus mostly lived like a poor person during his ministry, of that I have no doubt. But he did so by choice just as he took on mortality by choice.
Even if Jesus family wasn't well off before He was born, at His Birth they received some very expensive gifts from the Magi.
We also know Jesus descended from Royalty. We tend to assume this branch of the House of David must have been impoverished for generations due to the Captivity. But my post on Misconceptions about The Magi and The Census shows that Joseph was at least a Land Owner. They were not turned away by any Innkeepers, that's all extra Biblical fan fiction.
Tekton, the Greek word translated Carpenter in reference to Joseph and at least once to Jesus himself, can also meant Architect. Tekton is also possibly being used here as the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Charash used in Zechariah 1:20.
The whole argument between Jesus and Judas in Bethany after Mary Anointed Jesus for Burial in John 12, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 makes the most sense as being between people who were not poor themselves. Mary of Bethany at the very least was not broke if she could buy ointment that expensive. Judas here comes off as one of those rich people who pretends to care about the Poor but really doesn't.
And then there is my argument that Joseph of Arimathea was most likely Jesus' Brother Joses.
Luke 2:24 is what gets cited to argue Mary and Joseph were poor. All this verse tells us is they offered Two Turtle Doves or Two Pigeons in accordance with The Law, Luke doesn't directly mention the presumed conditionality of that. We have to go to Leviticus 12 to read the context that ideally this offering should be a Lamb and one Turtledove or Pigeon, but if you are unable to offer a Lamb you replace it with a second bird. However the passage not only doesn't limit poverty to being the cause of that but doesn't even mention poverty, it implies nothing about why. It could be Lambs good for Temple offerings weren't available at all, even to the rich, since they had to be a Year old and without blemish. It could be this tells us more about the time of year then anyone's financial situation.
I realize that we have traditionally valued the Poetic contrast of the true Ruler of The Universe incarnating into the most humble circumstance imaginable, imagining Him to be born in a smelly barn. But nothing in The Bible ever actually tells us to think of it that way.
The core difference between Capitalism and Feudalism is that Capitalism in theory doesn't respect ancestry, the irony of some Superhero stories being called Randian is that Rand hated the idea of specialness being something one is born with, or given by luck, Capitalism is about alleged "Merit".
Under Feudalism a "rags to riches" story is not something to celebrate, a commoner becoming a rich or powerful person was abhorrent. And a story like that was only tolerable if the person in question was secretly royalty all along.
So really the whole narrative of Jesus as being dirt poor actually serves to make Him the ultimate version of the "American Dream", it plays into Capitalist ideology..
No comments:
Post a Comment