God and Mammon

A most basic problem of our present age is that of wealth and poverty. It confronts the Christian not only as a problem of his or her relationship to others in the same culture, but also as a world problem, as a response to the situation of brothers and sisters in the developing World. The problem touches each of us wherever we live and whenever we purchase or consume. It is a necessary problem of life, for we have a lifestyle, conscious or unconscious, which is either created according to Christian values or pre-packaged by our culture. This article cannot handle all the problems of creating a Christian lifestyle, but it does intend to set out, in condensed form, the relevant biblical material with special emphasis on the economic side of lifestyle. This data should enable one to dialogue with the biblical writers and thus discover the application of these principles in the modern world. We hope that out of this dialogue a conscious, fully-Christian lifestyle will become the goal of each reader.

Most of the themes expounded in the New Testament have their roots in the Old Testament. To begin with the Old Testament will also enable us to demonstrate that there is no real conflict between the Old Testament and the New; that, in fact, the tension which many Christians perceive is often the result of mistaken exegesis. We shall develop this Old Testament teaching as a series of five theses.

1) The Old Testament does not value asceticism for its own sake, but rather looks towards the collective well-being of the people of God as the ideal.

Any study of Old Testament teaching on lifestyle must keep this thesis in mind. We observe in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, for instance, a cycle of belief and blessing (Genesis 12:1-13:4,26:1-17,28:13-14,30:43, and 31:5-13). And even though the poetic section of Job wrestles with just the opposite problem, this theory is evident in the prose section. Thus at numerous places in the Old Testament, one observes God's approval of the righteous being expressed in material terms (Proverbs 3:33).

We also observe that the Old Testament does not glorify poverty. These writers lived too close to the starvation and suffering of the poor to romanticize the situation. The author of Proverbs 30:7-9 does reject wealth as a good way of life, but he also rejects poverty just as strenuously. Likewise, Amos and the other prophets picture the poor in a miserable state, helplessly exploited by those with wealth. There is no desire that all become poor even if the ideal lifestyle is a modest one.

The two observations above lead to a third: the major goal of the Old Testament connection of piety and prosperity is the collective well-being of the whole people of God. The promise given to Abraham becomes a promise for the whole people of God. It is the whole group which will now inherit a "land flowing with milk and honey" (Exodus 3:8) and which must plunder the Egyptians (Exodus 3:22--there is probably a deliberate parallel here to Abraham's stay in Egypt).

The whole nation receives the blessings in Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:1-8:20) and the whole assembly will be blessed or cursed according to their righteousness (Deuteronomy 28). The people of God are a corporate whole, and this corporate entity ought not to be thought about in Western individualistic terms. The ideal is that the corporate unity will receive enough economically for their needs.

This prosperity, as the historical books of the Old Testament argue in detail, is not related to the strength of their political institutions or military forces (if anything, the reverse appears to be the case, with the insecure period of the Judges being the ideal), but rather to their collective trust in and dependence upon God.

2) Since (a) collective prosperity is the ideal, and (b) all property belongs to God, the Law contains regulations tending to minimize capital accumulation and actualize relative social equality.

God did indeed bring the people into the land, but he did not cede the land to them. The land remained a trust from God, so that the people were not free to dispose of it as they wished.

Leviticus 25:23, for example, states, "The land is mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with me." This means that no Israelite has a "right" to his property, but rather each administers it under God as God grants it to individuals or families. Since God can void or change purchase agreements, or set the limits of land tenure and usage, the "landholder" turns out to be a tenant farmer subject to the will of his Lord. Sovereign ownership did not exist (at least in the Law).

Now when we speak of land, we are talking about the main form of capital in Israel. While manufacturing (copper and iron) became a part of Hebrew life under Solomon, land remained the most important investment. (This fact remained true even into the rabbinic period; a Jew might become wealthy in trade but would have to acquire landholdings to gain the social position of "prosperous.") Since land also limited the ability to keep livestock, there was very little ability to accumulate capital without it.

God had, however, decreed three provisions which together limited the ability of an individual to accumulate land or wealth from agriculture: (1) a percentage of the produce of the land (3.4 percent) must be given directly to the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28-29; notice how this apparently replaced the "religious" tithe every third year); (2) the produce which grew from spilled seed every seventh year must be left for the poor (Exodus 23:11; thus another 14 percent of the possible profit from the land was not available to the landowner); and (3) every 49 years each piece of land would revert to the family which originally possessed it (Leviticus 25).

Thus every generation or so the landholder would lose his accumulated property, and, conversely, poor families would suddenly regain long-lost property. On top of this, all debts and bondage must be cancelled every seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:1-2, 31:10). (Remarkably, the wealthy are forbidden to take this fact into consideration when making a loan.) The result of these laws could only be the periodic redistribution of wealth and a tendency towards economic equality in Israel.

Archaeological investigation appears to demonstrate that the theory did function at least to some degree in practice. During the pre-monarchial period, Israel was collectively of modest means and culturally "inferior," but the houses showed an equality in standard of living.

It was the introduction of the monarchy which changed the pattern. Apparently the earlier legal patterns changed, a class of non-agricultural professionals arose (mainly soldiers and administrators), cities took on new importance, taxes produced concentration of wealth, foreign trade began in earnest, and large land areas not included in the tribal districts (and thus not part of the tribal redistribution pattern) were annexed through conquest. As 1 Samuel warns, the model for this change was not the ancient tribal law, but the legal and social forms of the surrounding nations. The resulting social upheaval produced the situation of inequality and concentration of wealth which the prophets condemn.

Defending the Poor
3) God presents God's self in the Old Testament as one who is especially upon the side of the poor and oppressed.

This fact is an important theological perspective in Israelite history. Notice, for instance, the picture of the ideal monarch. This perfect ruler must not only defend the people from external danger but also establish justice within the kingdom (Psalm 45:3-9). In particular, the king must defend the poor and oppressed (these are assumed to be related groups in the Old Testament: the oppressed become poor and the poor are easily oppressed because of their lack of means), using his strength to bring a balance of power between them and the rich and mighty (Psalm 72:1-4, 12-15; cf. 2 Samuel 12:1-6).

God is of course both the greatest and best of monarchs and the one from whom all kingship derives (i.e., he is the only real king; all others are at best viceroys). Thus we expect to find the attributes of the ideal monarch in God as well. One of the great statements about God in the Old Testament specifically describes him as, "...the terrible God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing" (Deuteronomy 10:17b-18). This statement becomes even more emphatic when one realizes that the orphan, the widow, and the alien were three of the four main classes of "poor and oppressed" in Israel--the Levite being the fourth.

In harmony with this statement about the character of God is the confession of deliverance from Egypt, which is a confession of God's concern for the alien and oppressed (Deuteronomy 26:5-10). On the basis of such theological ideas, the prophets concluded "that it was precisely the deprived and wretched of the nation who were the objects of special divine compassion, indeed the real kernel of the people of Yahweh, for whose sake his providential government takes special steps."

The Psalmists pick up this theology and style God the deliverer of the poor (Psalms 9:16-18, 69:32-33). Since God is such a God, the poor have a claim upon God and his care. Thus the poet often uses the term "downtrodden and poor" to express not only his real suffering but also his claim upon God:

Incline thy ear, O Lord, and answer me,
for I am, poor and needy.
Preserve my life,
for I am godly,
save thy servant who trusts in thee.

(Psalm 86:1-2; cf. Psalms 25:16,35:10,34:7,40:18,69:30, 70:6, 109:22)

God has a special care for the poor and oppressed; the Psalmists knew that to establish that one belongs to this class was to establish a special claim upon God.

4) A mark of the true people of God is that they identify with God's interest in the poor and copy God's action in relieving them. Therefore, a life of relative ease in the midst of the suffering of others is never seen as good.

Since God's concern for the poor is expressed in concrete help, God's people are to be generous in sharing the goods they administer. Collective wealth rather than individual prosperity remains the focus of the ideal in the Old Testament narrative. Beyond the provisions of the tithe and year of remission mentioned above, the Israelite was to give to the poor (or make a no-interest loan). To fail to do so is to invite God's curse, while obedience to the command of generosity brings blessing (Deuteronomy 15; cf. Exodus 22:21-27). Generosity is to be very personal: one should invite the poor to join one's family for religious festivals, for it would be improper for part of the nation to be feasting while part went hungry (Deuteronomy 16:9-17).

The prophets were thoroughly aware of these commands, for they rebuke the nation for its failure to help the poor. Wealth, in their eyes, is the result of violence and oppression, for without taking advantage of the unfavorable situation of the poor (driving advantageous bargains), and without withholding generous assistance (refusing loans or foreclosing mortgages) the wealthy would not have obtained their wealth.

The rich worked within the law and followed accepted business practices, but God calls that violence and oppression.

The prophets denounce this type of legal manipulation for what it is (Isaiah 10:1-4, Jeremiah 22:13-17, Amos 2:6-7), and they vigorously attack the luxury of the people who increase their own standard of living instead of giving to the poor. "Woe to those who are at ease in Zion ... those who recline on beds of ivory..." thunders Amos (in 6:1-7), who previously had told the wealthy women,

Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are in the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, 'Bring, that we may drink!' The Lord God has sworn by his holiness that, behold, the days are coming upon you, when they shall take you away with hooks, even the last of you with fishhooks. (Amos 4:1-3; cf. 5:10-13, 8:4-6)

Jeremiah condemns the failure to fulfill the charitable prescriptions of the Law (5:28, 34:8-22) and Isaiah adds his responses to this litany (3:13-15, 32:7). One of Ezekiel's contributions reads,

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy; They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore, I removed them, when I saw it (Ezekiel 16:49-50).

The prophets, then, consistently see the gathering of wealth in a needy environment as evil. It is the business of the people of God to concern themselves with the welfare of their neighbors, particularly those neighbors who are sinking in economic mire. To take advantage of an inexpensive farm, to fail to loan to the poor, to actively bribe a judge--all mean much the same for the prophets: oppression.

But God is not an oppressor. He calls the poor his people and his people the poor. He will in the end vindicate their hope and destroy their oppressors (Isaiah 25:4, 49:13, 51:21, 54:11, 41:17, 66:2; Jeremiah 20:13; Zephaniah 3:12).

5) The Old Testament views trust in and commitment to God, irrespective of the consequences of this action, as the determining factor in the pious person's lifestyle.

Two key virtues in the Old Testament are trust and covenant loyalty. The great example of the former virtue is Abraham, who committed himself to God, and abandoned all security, simply because God called him to do it. Expecting a land, he lived as an alien; and expecting children, he lived with a barren wife. He finally "sacrificed" the very fulfillment of the promise out of commitment to God. Here was radical discipleship.

Covenant loyalty is related both to the covenant-giving God and to one's fellow covenant people. The covenant demands that one remain loyal to the various commandments through thick and thin, whether rewarded or not. Notice that this includes loyalty to one's neighbor, to whom one is bound by the common oath to God and by the commandment to love.

Neither virtue was easy, as the prophets well knew. Not to engage in the common way of life, or to show solicitous concern for the poor, would almost certainly lead to social rejection, oppression, or even impoverishment. Psalm 37 struggles with just that problem. But life was not to be lived by what was expedient or "realistic," but by the word of God. This meant obeying the command even in the face of certain personal loss or at the price of civil disobedience (1 Kings 18:13).

We conclude our examination of the Old Testament, then, having observed that God is on the side of the poor. He does not want one part of his people to be well-off while another part suffers. He looks at his people as a collective unity. God's true people will copy God (imitatio Dei) by committing themselves to the cause of the poor and oppressed. Their lifestyle will be determined by the demands of social righteousness on the one hand and the bonds of personal concern for their neighbors on the other.

The result will be just the opposite of social inequality brought about by hoarding wealth (termed oppression, violence, and injustice); it will be the social equality of a people bound together by mutual concern, realizing the elimination of poverty which Deuteronomy 15:4-5 envisions.

This hope, although never realized in the Old Testament, forms the background of the New Testament message, which moves the desire into the realm of charismatic fulfillment.

Like the Old Testament ethic, the ethic of Jesus is governed by a radical commitment to God and his kingdom (rule). This is for him the pearl of great price or the hidden treasure, for the sake of which one gives up everything (Matthew 13:44-46). It is disastrous for a follower of Jesus to look back, to compromise with the world, or to follow Jesus half-heartedly (Luke 9:57-62). Again, one must devote oneself to the kingdom and its standards and leave such mundane matters as food or clothing to God to worry about (Matthew 6:33).

This is indeed a radical ethic. Such an ethic cannot help but change one's lifestyle, for it demands a reorientation of goals and priorities away from anything which this age has ever considered. What is more, it demands that all of life be looked at from a transcendent, eschatological perspective, the perspective of the age to come.

This characteristic of Jesus' teaching means that he begins with the perspective of the Old Testament and then reinterprets it in the light of the coming age. Jesus, for example, apparently followed the Old Testament in practicing charity (John 13:29, reflecting the duty to share with the poor on feast days; cf. Mark 12:41-44, 14:7). It is certain that he taught others to do so too, but he added a new "twist" to this teaching, for he amplified it in the light of the dawning age.

Take Mark's saying about loving one's neighbor as oneself, for example (Mark 12:28-31, Matthew 22:34-40, Luke 10:25-37). At first it sounds like a simple repetition of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, but in Luke it is amplified by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Here we see a person who goes out of his way to help an unknown foreigner, a despised and perhaps feared race. He risks his life (would it have been safe to linger in a robber-infested area?), spends his time, and places his fortune at the disposal of this unknown person."Go and do the same," instructs Jesus. This illustrates his directions in Luke 6:27f. (and Matthew 5:43-48) that we are to love our enemies, which naturally includes doing good to them.

Here Jesus has indeed amplified the radical core of the Old Testament command, for he demands not just token charity for those who are of our own group, nor charity for some ulterior motive, nor even a total concern for less fortunate persons in our own group (as the Old Testament would have it), but rather a self-sacrificing concern for those who in fact reject and persecute us. (This same idea lies behind the command of non-resistance to economic and physical oppression found in Matthew 5:38-42.) Jesus, then, radicalizes the Old Testament ethic in the light of the coming kingdom by demanding a total orientation of one's life around, first, the worship of God, and then, the care of others in his name.

Naturally, such a lifestyle will put a totally new valuation on economic relationships; therefore, we expect Jesus to teach us a new way of relating to money. This expectation is in fact fulfilled in the gospel material. For example, one of the most revealing encounters in Jesus' life, the incident of the rich young man, revolves around this relationship (Mark 10:17-31, Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 18:18-30).

The young man in this narrative comes to Jesus and asks not for a special (i.e., apostolic) status among the mob of Jesus' followers, but for eternal life--he is seeking salvation itself. Salvation, then, will be the focus of the answer, which appears in verse 18 and revolves around two questions: (a) has he recognized the Lordship of God in obeying God's revealed will, and (b) does he know that "obedience to God must be demonstrated by acknowledging that God meets us in Jesus"?

The first question is quickly answered: "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth" (Mark 10:20). Here was a pious Jew, and Jesus accepted his claim to be (as Paul would later say) "in legal rectitude, faultless" (Philippians 3:6 NEB), for Jesus quickly moves on to the second question and Mark adds that Jesus loved him.

The second question is tested by Jesus' stating the terms of discipleship. What he lacked was Jesus, and these were the terms under which he could be his disciple. But suddenly a difficulty arises, for Jesus demands that the person sell his goods, and at this point he loses his potential convert. The man departs, "for he was rich."

Yet we are shocked along with this man, for the promise of treasure in heaven does not entice us, and the explanation in the following verses (Mark 10:23-25), rather than removing the cause of our consternation, increases it--for it generalizes this demand beyond the single case.

Exegetes have suggested three basic solutions to this difficulty, all appearing relatively early in church history. The first solution notes that Jesus is, after all, interested in the relationship between God and people; therefore the real point at issue is not the giving up of wealth but the attitude towards wealth. The disciple is free to keep his wealth so long as he maintains the proper detachment from it. We admit that this explanation brings out the inwardness without which the outward act would be meaningless, but we wonder: Isn't this explanation at heart an attempt to soften the radical call which the evangelist intends? Can there be a true inwardness without outward consequences?

The second solution explains that although the text singles out wealth, the real call is to renounce anything which comes between the individual and God. This solution correctly observes that Mark 10:24 broadens its sights beyond the wealthy and that the application in Mark 10:28-31 applies the "giving up" to a group which was by no means rich. But can we ignore the fact that the narrative does center on wealth and that the explanation twice (10:23, 25) returns to the theme of the wealthy? Is not this story more than simply a "pericope of crisis?"

The third solution goes beyond both previous ones, while attempting to retain their insights that the inward attitude is decisively significant and that the demands of Christ go beyond possessions alone. Wealth and the wealthy are the examples in this pericope because, in the gospel tradition, wealth is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) dangers to the spiritual life. This teaching is worked out in more detail in the material found only in Matthew and Luke. We may divide this into two parts for convenience: (1) Jesus and the command to give, and (2) Jesus and wealth.

There is no doubt that Jesus stressed the command to give. In Luke 14, for instance, Luke presents Jesus at a banquet. Observing the guests who are present, Jesus suggests that the host ought not to have invited the "haves" to the meal, but rather the outcasts of society. When the outcasts are fed, there will be reward in heaven, for, as Luke 14:21-23 shows, it is precisely these people whom God is inviting to his great messianic banquet.

Here we observe two characteristic attitudes of Jesus. On the one hand, sharing of one's goods with the poor brings reward, and on the other hand, the poor are the chosen of God.

The special love of God for the poor and oppressed is a theme we have already met in the Old Testament. Now it is amplified. In Luke one begins this theme with the Magnificat (undoubtedly built on the Song of Hanna in 1 Samuel), in which a reversal of the roles of rich and poor, strong and weak, is triumphantly announced. Next, Luke twice cites Isaiah 61:1, with its proclamation of the gospel to the poor and its message of release for the oppressed (Luke 4:18-19,7:22). This passage is the theme of Jesus' ministry. Then our author develops these concepts by including great blocks of material which teach sharing with the poor (chapters 12, 14, 16, and parts of 18), including the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in which the poor man Lazarus is, in the end, taken to Abraham's bosom.

Matthew, however, does not neglect the poor, even if he cannot compete with Luke in his massive support of this theme. In Matthew the preaching of the gospel to the poor is the climactic evidence of the arrival of the Messiah (Matthew 11:5), and the first four Beatitudes bless the poor and oppressed of this age. "Blessed are the poor in spirit," for instance, is certainly to be read in the light of God's special interest in the poor in the Old Testament.

This tradition assumes (1) that the poor are pious, for dependence upon God is the characteristic of the poor (who else do they have to turn to?), and (2) that they are oppressed, for "the poor" is never used as a title without the connotation of actual suffering, at least as perceived by the author. As developed in late Jewish tradition, this title becomes a designation for pious sufferers (for example, in the Psalms of Solomon, where it may refer to the Hasidim of the Maccabean age) or the elect of God (as opposed to the rich in 1 Enoch 108).

In the War Scroll from Qumran (1QM), it refers to the oppressed group which receives the eschatological victory. These are the pious sufferers who look to God to grant them victory over their rich oppressors. The scroll predicts that this victory will surely come, and it uses the very term "poor in spirit," which we find in Matthew, to designate the victorious group. Thus we must interpret the beatitude in Matthew as promising the kingdom of God to those poor who look to God for their deliverance. Matthew goes on to cite other oppressed groups of this age: those who mourn, those who are meek (cf. Numbers 12:3, where Moses is cited as meek because he does not defend himself from false accusations in an attempted coup d'etat--he looks to God for his defense), and those who hunger and thirst to see righteousness established upon the earth (i.e., for the kingdom of God to come with its establishment of true justice).

Luke presents this same material in his characteristically bold manner. He addresses the church (the disciples) as the poor, the hungry, and the suffering (the weeping) of this age who will in fact be blessed (Luke 6:20-26). In that he addresses the church as "the poor" (notice the use of the second person plural in "yours is the kingdom of God" instead of Matthew's more general "theirs"), he assumes a certain piety on the part of this group.

But his wording focuses on their economic situation, and this fact is reinforced by the series of curses on the rich, the well-fed, and the satisfied (the laughing) of this age. The poor and oppressed continue to be special favorites of God, as they were in the Old Testament.

Because this is the case, both Matthew and Luke record sayings which stress the necessity of copying God and interesting oneself in the situation of the poor. The second four beatitudes in Matthew, for a beginning, pronounce blessed those who give to the poor (the "merciful"), those single-mindedly devoted to God ("pure in heart"), those making peace (an important form of social righteousness), and those suffering in the attempt to produce righteousness. In other words, those people are blessed who are already about God's business in caring for the poor and oppressed.

But the strongest set of sayings in Matthew comes one chapter later (Matthew 6:19-34, Luke 12:22-34). This section begins with a direct command to put one's treasure in heaven instead of upon earth. In the context of the Jewish idea of putting treasure in heaven, which was widely known in Jesus' day, this saying can only mean: "instead of collecting money and goods on earth, give your money or goods to the poor."

The reason for this command is that "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Thus Jesus implies that it would be better to have no treasure on earth.

The next two verses talk about the "sound" or "single" eye. The Greek term (haplous) has connotations of generosity. This fact links the saying to giving to the poor. But in a Jewish context, this term primarily means undivided loyalty to God, which looks forward to the either/or of verse 24--it is either God or mammon.

Thus we discover that all three sayings fit together to form a series: "Do not collect treasure on earth. Instead, give it to the poor. Then your heart will be centered in heaven with your treasure. And you want to be centered there, for you must have a 'single eye,' a being which is undividedly devoted to God. In fact, a divided state is totally impossible: if one tries to collect goods here (serve mammon) as well as in heaven, one is not really serving God at all. With God it is all or nothing." The sayings that follow show that the giving up of worldly, material security is possible, for God will care for the Christian just as he cares for the grass.

The parallel in Luke is even more direct. The context is set by someone asking Jesus to do him justice and help him get his fair share of an inheritance. That, says Jesus, is not what life is all about. He then gives the parable of the rich fool, the man whose farm prospered and yielded more than he needed. Like a wise businessman, he stored his wealth (undoubtedly against the possibility of a poor harvest next year, which would be both prudent from the point of view of security and also possibly yield him a higher price for his grain). Fool, says Jesus, you should have given the surplus to the poor, for you are rich on earth but not rich towards God.

Our author then adds a series of sayings which show how unnecessary it is to be rich on earth. Finally the conclusion comes thundering down upon us in Jesus' uncompromising language:

Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Luke 12:33-34)

Giving to the poor is not an option--it is a command.

Jesus not only wants one to share with the poor, but he also wants one to avoid wealth. The term mammon, for instance, has negative overtones; it is unrighteous. Again, we noticed above that there is an either/or between wealth and God. One cannot be both wealthy and "rich towards God." It is either God (and the giving of wealth to the poor) or wealth, either the heart on earth or the heart in heaven. Jesus even states in Mark 10:23-27 that it is impossible for the wealthy to enter the kingdom. Wealth is a positive hindrance to faith. Put positively, the fact that the disciples have abandoned their security in this world is a sign of their blessedness (Mark 10:28-31).

The Danger of Wealth

This concept of the danger of wealth is illustrated in several ways in Luke. First, notice that John the Baptist demands sharing as a sign of repentance. True faith flows from true repentance and therefore always brings its proper works. To repent, for John, was to part with wealth (Luke 3:10-14). Second, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus shows that the rich person--who refuses to share with the poor and keeps his wealth in the face of need--is damning himself. This is in fact to serve money rather than to use money to serve God. How does one use money in the service of God? Jesus says, by giving it to the poor, the friends who will then receive one into heaven.

Third, the example of Zacchaeus demonstrates (a) how to use goods properly, and (b) how all things are possible with God (i.e., a rich person becomes a member of the kingdom). Here is a wealthy man who truly repents; he not only repays all he may have taken illegally, but he begins by giving half of his goods to the poor. Here is a repentance which produces good fruit, a changed lifestyle. Here is a man whose new orientation in life appears at once as he transfers his treasure from earth to heaven.

Yet while Jesus has nothing positive to say about wealth--it is at best a hindrance to the soul and perhaps simply unrighteous (Luke 19:2, 11)--he is no ascetic. He did not glorify abstention and poverty, even if he did fast at least once and was relatively poor. On the contrary, his disciples were known for not fasting during his lifetime, and Jesus himself was known as a "drunkard and a glutton," a "friend of tax-gatherers and sinners" who "ate with them." Luke's favorite manner of presenting Jesus is at a meal.

But even if Jesus was known for his periodic indulgence (which does prove that good things per se were not contrary to his ethic), we must admit at the same time that he had no investment in this world. He traveled with a band which shared what they had, Judas keeping the common purse, and which received the hospitality of others. Their only guarantee of support was "the father in heaven." Thus in passages like Matthew 6:25-34, we see the positive side of Jesus' message on lifestyle. If we are not to have wealth, if we are to share what we have with the poor, this is not simply to produce a mythical "holy poverty," but to demonstrate and lead to a radical trust in God.

On the one hand, commitment to God or repentance is necessary before one can part with worldly security and "put treasure in heaven;" but on the other hand, this parting with security allows one to experience the goodness of God in a way never possible before--to reorient life away from anxiety about food or clothing (or property values, investments, jobs), and to center life on the kingdom of heaven, on the father who gives good gifts to his children (Matthew 7:7-12).

We have now returned to our starting point in the teaching of Jesus: all of life is to be oriented around the kingdom of God. This goal alone is worth serving. Jesus sees wealth as being in direct competition with this orientation. One must give up wealth and invest in heaven--by giving to the poor--if one is to serve God single-mindedly, which means if one is to serve God at all. Only as God works a miracle can the rich (or anyone) do this and become a disciple of Jesus.

Those poor and oppressed people who look to God, however, are blessed, for God will deliver them. The gospel is a message of liberation from self, from wealth and worldly security, and from suffering and oppression. God is doing this work, and the liberated disciple who shares in God's work of caring for the poor and bringing about righteousness will likewise be blessed.

Jesus' teaching does not exclude sharing with others good food and joy, but it does mean that these things will not be gathered or clung to. Instead there will be a radical trust in God and an orientation of all life around God's program.

Peter H. Davids headed the Department of Biblical Studies at the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, when this article appeared.