I rarely mention issues relating to faith on this blog. There is good reason. Like many, I was long ago alienated from the conventional religious interpretations of Christianity, which was the tradition in which I was brought up. I fully understand anyone who wants nothing to do with religion as a result. I found a personal accommodation of faith and a rejection of the imposition of religion with the Quakers, but evangelising is the last thing I am interested in doing.
However, this is Palm Sunday, which Christians consider the start of what is called Holy Week. And, in the context of what is happening in this country now with regard to protest the story of Palm Sunday, and the day that followed, seems worth sharing to me, not least because this one has a decided ring of historical accuracy to it, versions being in all four Gospels. This is from Mark:
11 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 3 If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?' say, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.'”
4 They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, 5 some people standing there asked, “What are you doing, untying that colt?” 6 They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. 7 When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted,
“Hosanna!”
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
10 “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”
“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”
11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
12 The next day ....15 on reaching Jerusalem , Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'. But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.'
18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him,because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
This is a story of protest. It is not a story of peaceful protest. It is a story of anger at corruption. And it is the story about those exposed as corrupt.
Nothing much changes, I suggest.
Those exposed disliked angry protest as much then as they do now.
We supposedly venerated the angry protestor in this story. And yet we have not learned to listen to those who oppose corruption, oppression, inappropriate profiteering and the powerful who gain as a result of those abuses. Instead, those with the power to abuse still seek to criminalise those who righteously protest.
I wish we did not have to go through the pain of the learning process that this does not work, yet again. But it seems that those who are corrupt insist that we must.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It is a matter of sadness to me that the condemnation of the activities of the money-changers etc. was only applied to them inside the temple.
🙂
So you are supporting the rights of those angrily protesting outside the school gates in Batley?
I support the right to protest
It does not mean I quests agree with the protest
As example, so long as peaceful and not racist etc I think the far right has a right to protest
I will never agree with them
Absolutely, Richard. Under Clause 54 of the draft Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, just about anything that someone says has an ‘impact’ on them may be interpreted as illegal. To follow though your Palm Sunday reference from the Christian calendar, for instance that, or perhaps a Good Friday walk of witness could be objected to, the outdoors singing of ‘There is a green hill far away’ having an ‘impact’ on someone who wants to silence religious expression. The same ‘impact’ could be complained of for just about any moderate political protest. If the authorities were prepared to use s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain Walter Wolfgang at the Labour Party Conference in 2005, I have every expectation that this pernicious Bill, if enacted, would equally be used to shut up the truth tellers that this country so deserately needs.
Agreed
It just goes to show that even though Neo-liberals talk a lot about ‘freedom’, they are very selective and specific about dishing freedom out.
‘Freedom’ for them applies to anything they believe in and nothing that they do not.
I have read several of Burton Mack’s books on the NT. Very interesting stuff from an anthropologist and theologian of many years who knows plenty about 1st century Israel. The gospels were written some decades after the life of Jesus. But there were some oral traditions that preceded the writing of the gospels as well as some creative writing added at that later stage. Mack says that there is not much direct historical evidence for the money lenders story at the Temple, but the fact it was included in the 4 gospels was an indication that money issues like the temple taxes and purchases of sacrificial animals using only Temple currency(as well as Roman taxes) were still a huge bone of contention when the first gospel of Mark was written(possibly 40 years or so after Jesus death and maybe a decade after the fall of Jerusalem). This story was still seen as a politically significant story about money and righteousness in Jesus time. The Pharisees were largely disliked at that time as relative new comers who were by and large overly pious and corrupt. Against which Jesus is portrayed as being at loggerheads throughout the NT.
I have no wish to cast doubt on anyones religious beliefs here. But I do believe a historical Jesus probably acted as some counter to the Pharisee elite ,or at least belonged to a highly spiritual group that was teaching something totally at odds with the prevailing Judaic practices. There was a very strong early gnostic following of which I have been intrigued by for many years now, saying such things after Jesus’ death, which has largely been buried by time and the Catholic church. That he was a critique of the corruption in his day I have no doubt and that he would likely have been responsible for some opposition that raised his profile an made him some sort of threat ,though we can never be sure about what actually happened.
Whether the money lending story was historical or not ,the fact that its is included in the NT demonstrates that this was undoubtedly an important issue for those 1st century followers of Jesus.
All doubts are reasonable – but I think there is enough evidence that money related issues were key to what Jesus was saying
I do think that is safe to say.
Richard,
I haven’t yet read Michael Hudson’s book “Forgive them their Debts”
(See LSE review following https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2019/08/05/book-review-and-forgive-them-their-debts-lending-foreclosure-and-redemption-from-bronze-age-finance-to-the-jubilee-year-by-michael-hudson/) so cannot say whether he endorses my view on the driving of the moneylenders from the Temple, but can say thtwo things.
First, not just I, but E.P. Saunders in “Jesus and Judaism”, as a sceptical agnostic, believes it this event really happened, and that it was pivotal in the desire to get rid of Jesus.
Secondly, Professor Hudson strongly supports the argument that Jesus’s mission was very much about money, and the remission of debts owed by the landless, or at least impoverished, precariat of 1st Century Judaea.
And that leads into my take on the driving out of the moneychangers. For they were needed, because Jews could not pay their Temple tax, or buy sacrificial victims, with pagan money (that’s the whole point behind the “Render unto Caesar” event recounted in the Gospels).
I have no proof of my theory, not having either access to, or the requisite knowledge to make use of, primary, or even secondary, source materials, but I’d be fairly sure that the moneychangers were charging an exorbitant exchange rate of shekels for denarii.
There would be a normal exchange rate in the market, with an accepted exchange rate for goods in either Roman or Jewish money.
Suppose, though, that instead of 1 denarius (or part denarius, given that a denarius was a day’s wage in 1st century Judaea), for a Temple shekel, it cost twice as much?
This would result in a doubling of the moneychangers expectations in the open market, and it seems highly likely to me that not only were the Temple Priesthood beneficiaries of this arrangement indirectly, as providing funding for the Temple, but even directly, creaming off some of the surplus.
That this was normal practice in the Roman Empire explains the hated for tax-gatherers, who were given targets by the Roman authorities, but could keep any extra they made beyond their target.
Now, given the Mafia nature of Roman rule (Mark Anthony, for example, imposed a 50% interest rate on loans he made in the East!!), it seems highly likely to me that the Romans were in on this scam too, making sure they too got their cut.
Jesus’s action would then have been very much a blow on behalf of the landless poor, and against those extorting money from them. But also, of course, against both the Temple hierarchy AND the Imperial Roman authorities. In light of that, Jesus’s crucifixion makes a great deal of sense.
And final point: people often say that the Gospels show that it was the Jews – or rather, the Jewish authorities – who brought about the crucifixion. To which I answer that, having lived under a dictatorship (my wife and I in the Colonels’ dictatorship in 1972, and my wife in Czechoslovakia, from 1948 to 1978) know that that isn’t the way things work under an authoritarian administration.
Put simply, the writers of the Gospels had no wish to antagonise their Roman masters, who had, after all, sacked Jerusalem and plundered, burned and pulled down the Temple in 70 CE.
The poet Ovid fell out of favour for publishing poetry Emperor Augustus didn’t like, and was exiled from Rome, to the Black Sea, in what us now Romania.
Publishing something that accused the Romans of an unjust execution would certainly have resulted in something worse than exile for the authors – at best, enslavement.
So the Gospel-writers spun the story to lay most of the blame on the Jewish authorities – with all the horrendous , and well-known, antisemitic results down the ages. But the decision to do so, under the then circumstances, is very understandable.
So, that’s my take on this, and would love to hear an expert’s opinion on my theory.
I like it
I am definitely not an expert
@Andrew,
From what I have read ( I may have forgotten some details)the Temple imposed a tax on all Jews in Israel who had to go to the Temple in Jerusalem to pay it. This led to the mass migration of people into Jerusalem, at times like the Passover, when it was also a religious duty to give live animal offerings/prayers at the Temple. There thus grew a very lucrative business around the Temple for sacrificial animals. The rich might buy a goat and the poor maybe only could afford a dove. These animals were “purified” and prepared for sacrifice and could only by bought with Temple money. So along side the animal business there was a money changing business that exchanged shekels for Temple money. Only the Temple priests could use Temple money and they would exchange that back for shekels. It was a very lucrative business for the priesthood and no doubt the money exchangers. You can imagine the resentments!
The Romans imposed there own taxes as they did in all parts of conquered territories. But this Temple tax and money changing scam was a particular contentious issue in Jesus’ lifetime. So was seen as worthy of great detail in the gospel stories.
However by the time the gospels were written this situation in fact no longer existed since the Jews had been driven from Jerusalem by the Romans and the Temple has been destoyed and priesthood had fled East (acccording to legend),where they established the Masoretic Rabbinism and went on to write their own version of the Tanakh ,as opposed to the existing Greek versions that the Christian followers used.
The gospels vary quite a bit on style,Mark being the earliest is rather apocalyptic about the story of Jesus. The issue is more of a resentment that many Jews did not heed the teachings of Jesus. So it appears more as an internal strife between two communities within Isreal rather than aimed at the Romans directly. Though the Romans were seen as oppressors ,it was in a material world sense, in that they demanded monetary obligations, in contrast Jesus demanded a different “spiritual” obligation form his followers. This is demonstrated in the NT by his the way he is shown to answer to the trick question about whether it was right to pay the Roman tax. He says to render unto Caesar what is Caesers and render unto God what is God’s. This is a clever answer and shows that there was nothing shameful in paying taxes to Romans(God had allowed them to rule Israel in any case) But that was not as important as being spiritually aware of your obligations to God and your fellow man(do unto others). The Temple priests were basically portrayed as beyond help. The gospels show that these priests were only concerned with outward shows of piety but were in fact spiritually empty. The money making issue was key to showing that. The later Gospels tuned down the anti Jewish rhetoric as well as the anti Roman, because by then the Romans ruled Israel and the Jews had been banished from their own lands. The divide between the two communities was now permanent and physical.
The late David Graeber in’ Debt: The First 5000 Years’ makes mention of the Christians abhorring usury but were quite content to let the Jews be money lenders (I confess total ignorance of any Jewish stance on lending money BTW). The result of this of course was that when (say) the debts got too big, Graeber mentions that the Christians would turn on the Jews and persecution and death would be the result. Any excuse was made to cover up that it was about debt it seems.
And so (taking Greaber’s input into consideration) began a long and dark history of Jewish persecution. Because they offered a service that Christians (Muslims too?) were not allowed to.
Fundamentally though it is also about this thing called debt or even money: what it does to societies; how it makes people behave and its use in power games – fatal and otherwise.
It’s all fascinating stuff but also deeply troubling. There has to be a better way – surely.
You are very selective about Jesus’ teaching – frequently your writing goes against much of what he said.
I think it is very poor taste the way you mus-use Christian teachings to try and pretend you are morally superior to those with different opinions.
Please tell me where I conflict with the teaching?
I don’t think I do
And don’t bother to discuss sex, sexuality and orientation, where he had very little to say
Stick to political economy
I think you will find I am remarkably close
Having used lockdown to (almost) read Wealth of Nations perhaps I should start on The New Testament?
Either that or is there a book you can recommend on what the NT has to say on economic & social justice?
As Desmond Tutu said, if you take concern for poverty out of the Bible there is not a lot left
Luke and Acts together are interesting – especially on the early Church. Then Paul came along….
Trevor
Can you be more specific please? Go on – I dare you.
Everything I’ve ever read on this site in terms of its objectives are those that I feel Jesus would approve of.
Jesus was very concerned about the condition of the poor. This site has at its core that concern as well. Jesus was all about how mankind treated those who were less powerful and fortunate than others.
I’m all ears.
I suggest Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-42, John 8:1-8 would be a good place to start.
Richard frequently tries to take moral high ground, accusing others of ‘not caring’ etc etc, when in fact plenty of people have the same (or higher) aspirations as Richard, they just have different ideas about how best to achieve those goals.
Pretending that anyone who doesn’t share his views (particularly those NOT on the far left of politics) cannot be good Christians is offensive and incorrect.
I am amused. This is what I am deemed to have transgressed, this version coming from Matthew:
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
So, what I have done is not breach a teaching, as such, but I have instead not complied with what might best be called process.
But let’s imagine that I really am not permitted to form a judgement on the actions of others. I might be able to live with that if the Churches of the world has never formed such judgements .
So, a simple question Trevor. Has a Church or a member of it ever suggested the actions of another person might be wrong? If that has never happened you can call me out.
If not you can’t.
Now you tell me the answer. Has a Church ever passed judgement when assessing the behaviour of people? Yes or no?
Mr Murphy,
I just wonder if you have seen this and what your thoughts might be.
Thank you
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-03-23-what-next-for-brexit-britains-tax-haven-empire/
I will try to take a look
Ironically of course after Brexit the UK is likley to face the full wrath of the EU
Bet the leavers never thought of that one
Prophets and Kings at Sunday School.
Maybe the government might put the bible on the list of seditious text not to be taught in schools.
Faith is very much a personal matter and I recognise that many folk derive great spiritual comfort from it. I became alienated from religion as a youth, finding it strange how faith leaders were very selective about which aspects of Christian philosophy they preferred to propagate, especially those relating to greed and money lending, and the use of violence and torture to enforce their narrow interpretations.
The Palm Sunday story is a case in point.
It’s ironic that the CofE used to be known as the “Tory party at prayer”. Nothing could be further from the truth today. Nearly everyone now realises that we must show tolerance and acceptance of people of all faiths and none. Today’s Tory party is the antithesis of this.
I am no biblical scholar but is this story not the only occasion where Christ is recorded as having lost his temper? He knew what the tories of that era were all about and he called them out.
I think his irritation is apparent many times
In reply to john Boxall’s request for some reading suggestions, I would offer some of these:
Selby, P. 1998 Grace and Mortgage London Darton, Longman and Todd 0 232 52170 0
Sheppard, D. 1984 Bias to the Poor London Hodder & S 0 340 35277 9
Selby and Sheppard, though less recent work, are easily digestible and very well founded.
Boff, L. & Boff C. 1982 Libertad y Liberación Salamanca Ediciones SÃgueme 84 301 0884 X
(I’m sure Boff & Boff must be available in English; it’s a ‘standard’ liberation theology work; look for ‘Liberty and Liberation’.)
Sandel, M. J. 2012 What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets London Penguin 978 0 241 85448 5
Burridge, R.A. 2007 Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics Grand Rapids, MI Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 978 0 8028 4458 3
Burridge is a denser read, but one I frequently consult for preaching into ethics. Masssive referencing and full footnotes.
Good luck!
Thanks
Thank you
From Robin Ducret
Re. your introduction on religion, I would offer the following conjecture as to why otherwise intelligent people get so caught up in its clutches. My approach is based on evolutionary psychology–so no actual proof until we crack the computer code of the human brain I’m afraid.
So what evidence is there that religion is adaptive? (Meaning successful in evolutionary terms). Well, look no further than ISIS and how shockingly effective it’s recruitment drive has been. Brain washing and fundamentalist religious indoctrination of the young, bright and educated, seems all conquering as a strategy. If there is a “god spot” in the brain (call it what you will) which overrides intelligence and normal survival instincts, how devastatingly effective would this be in times of warfare?
The use of human soldiers in adopting the strategies of ants and termites in providing dedicated fighting machines, caring little for their own survival, is so successful that these creatures now comprise about 10% of the planet’s biomass. (Yes I know their strategy developed by having non-breeding worker ants acting almost like mobile limbs of the queen, but this wouldn’t exactly work for humans).
In case I am accused of invoking group theory, (much derided by Dawkins et al) the thesis being usually dismissed as failing by “defection from below” where the cowardly foot soldiers survive and the brave are snuffed out, bodily and genetically. But, just consider, by adding culture, language and ruthless intelligence to this mix, what would happen then? It is possible that cowards are identifiable and ruthlessly punished, similar to the war machine tactics that existed under Ancient Rome, then this strategy would become a game changer. Where would religion be in all this? It could be as an additional spur to bravery and a strong disincentive to desert. The religiously minded would believe that an unseen but all-seeing god would tally all actions on the battlefield and dispense reward and inescapable punishment in the hereafter.
When the battle is over, the bravest survivors would get the girls, the shirkers would get their dues and evolution would do what evolution does. Those with the deepest belief would probably be the most effective fighters in this warring tactic.
It could even be argued that religions themselves could undergo some form of meme driven evolution. To be successful a religion must strenuously avoid any evidence of untruth or non-delivery of reward. Thus, from first principles, promises must be delayed until the afterlife and be the most glorious and everlasting imaginable. All threats of punishment would deliver agonising torture without end, never mind how trivial the offence. All tenets must be strictly non-verifiable so that every fortune would be evidence for divinity, every misfortune evidence for the devil etc. etc. As you see, building a winning strategy from evolutionary principles gets us pretty close to a typical religion.
It must be admitted that human beings are infinitely nuanced in their cultures and show great variances in behaviour patterns, so no one explanation can give the whole story. All I would say is that when otherwise intelligent people stubbornly hold on to the most ridiculous and unprovable beliefs, look for an explanation in our evolutionary past. I will leave the final word to Seneca.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful”.
I find such rationalising irrational
And I did not discuss religion
I discussed faith