Social Justice Jesus

[Free]

The text clearly states that she gave two coins of which was all she had to live on. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the poor widow receives anything, other than commendation from Jesus.

Exactly. That is my point. We can neither say that she was nor that she was not "on the receiving end of the rich folks' generosity." So your question: "Why was she not on the receiving end of the rich folks generosity?" is asking something that goes beyond Scripture.

 

[Rhea]

The text clearly states that she gave two coins of which was all she had to live on. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the poor widow receives anything, other than commendation from Jesus.

All right, then, why would this NOT mean that the wealthy should ALSO give all they have to live on, which would be a command to redistibute wealth?

The receiving does not happen to anyone in this verse. And it sounds as though you are now claiming that it means that no one gets any charity. BUt why would you think that? The gicing out must happen at some point or Jesus would not have commended to giving.

So read that further, it sounds like communism, no? Everyone gives all they have to live on and then they split up the whole for the community to share. Kind of like the sharing of the fish and loaves.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Exactly. That is my point. We can neither say that she was nor that she was not "on the receiving end of the rich folks' generosity." So your question: "Why was she not on the receiving end of the rich folks generosity?" is asking something that goes beyond Scripture.

No. We can conclude that in this specific instance in the Bible, she was not on the receiving end of wealth distribution because nowhere in the text does it state otherwise. How does reiterating Scripture constitute going beyond it?

 

[Drummer4Christ]

All right, then, why would this NOT mean that the wealthy should ALSO give all they have to live on, which would be a command to redistibute wealth?

The receiving does not happen to anyone in this verse. And it sounds as though you are now claiming that it means that no one gets any charity. BUt why would you think that? The gicing out must happen at some point or Jesus would not have commended to giving.

So read that further, it sounds like communism, no? Everyone gives all they have to live on and then they split up the whole for the community to share. Kind of like the sharing of the fish and loaves.

Everyone, including the wealthy, have an equal obligation to give up our possessions, deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Jesus. Nowhere in Scripture are the "rich" unevenly yoked to this obligation. I am not claiming anything other than to point out the obvious: that in the specific incident of the poor widow, she is not on the receiving end of wealth distribution.

Please see the OP concerning the loaves & fishes.

 

[Drew]

if you or I decided to do this without the government would it be considered theft?

I do not understand this question, can you please elaborate?

 

[Drew]

Why was she not on the receiving end of the rich folks generosity?

I am not sure any of us can do more than to speculate. I suppose that, as is sadly the case in our world as well, the rich tend to ignore the poor.

 

[Drew]

The text clearly states that she gave two coins of which was all she had to live on. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the poor widow receives anything, other than commendation from Jesus. Why, in this specific instance where the only place in Scripture this woman is ever mentioned, is she not on the receiving end of wealth distribution?

You are repeating the same fundamental error again - you presume that Jesus is going to analyze, explain, and teach on every aspect of every situation He encounters.

This is a highly unrealistic expectation - if Jesus did this, He would never have time to do anything else. True, Jesus does not address the moral imperative to give to the poor when He commends this woman for her generosity. But this is hardly evidence that Jesus does not believe in that moral imperative.

 

[Drew]

No. We can conclude that in this specific instance in the Bible, she was not on the receiving end of wealth distribution because nowhere in the text does it state otherwise. How does reiterating Scripture constitute going beyond it?

No. There are obviously many things left unstated about this woman. Perhaps she has a son who loves her. Does the fact that Jesus does not talk her loving son mean that we can conclude that Jesus does not endorse sons loving their mothers?

I really hope we can move beyond this highly unrealistic expectation that Jesus is going to exhaustively all aspects of each situation He encounters.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

No. There are obviously many things left unstated about this woman. Perhaps she has a son who loves her. Does the fact that Jesus does not talk her loving son mean that we can conclude that Jesus does not endorse sons loving their mothers?

I really hope we can move beyond this highly unrealistic expectation that Jesus is going to exhaustively all aspects of each situation He encounters.

The specific instance of the poor widow who gave up everything is mentioned for our benefit, just as the rich man who could not give up everything. In both instances Jesus places emphasis on giving, not receiving. Compare these two instances in Scripture with Jesus' teaching that Heavenly Father provides food/clothing/ect for us just as He does for the rest of Creation.

 

[Free]

No. We can conclude that in this specific instance in the Bible, she was not on the receiving end of wealth distribution because nowhere in the text does it state otherwise. How does reiterating Scripture constitute going beyond it?

My point is that Jesus talks about 5 seconds of this woman's life. We don't know what happened 5 minutes later, 5 hours later, 5 days later, etc. So, again, we cannot say with certainty that she did receive something nor can we say that she didn't. To do so is to go beyond the text. As such, it is not an argument against wealth redistribution.

 

[Rhea]

So am I understanding this correctly, that there is still a position that Jesus was against the rich giving more than the poor woman? That this passage shows that he expects the poor to give, the rich are not discussed and therefore have no greater obligation due to their greater resources, and no one receives the charity?

Is that what is being said here?

It seems like a contorted argument to try to make Jesus be against progressive tax brackets. Trying to stuff his words into a political box that is the wrong shape.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

My point is that Jesus talks about 5 seconds of this woman's life. We don't know what happened 5 minutes later, 5 hours later, 5 days later, etc.

Because whatever happened before or after this specific situation is irrelevant.

So, again, we cannot say with certainty that she did receive something nor can we say that she didn't. To do so is to go beyond the text. As such, it is not an argument against wealth redistribution.

We can conclude with certainty that in this specific instance the poor widow gave, she did not receive. Speculating anything not specifically mentioned in Scripture is going beyond.

 

[Free]

Because whatever happened before or after this specific situation is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant only to the point that Jesus was making but not irrelevant to the issue of wealth redistribution.

We can conclude with certainty that in this specific instance the poor widow gave, she did not receive. Speculating anything not specifically mentioned in Scripture is going beyond.

And yet you want to use this passage to argue against redistribution of wealth, correct? That is going beyond what this passage is stating. The poor widow gave, Jesus pointed out its significance relative to the rich, end of story. This has nothing to do with receiving or wealth redistribution, nothing at all.

If I am misunderstanding how this passage is being used, please let me know.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

So am I understanding this correctly, that there is still a position that Jesus was against the rich giving more than the poor woman?.

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus state that the rich have a greater obligation to sacrifice than anyone else. In this specific instance Jesus does not condem the rich for not giving enough but, commends the poor widow for giving everything she had. Both the rich and the poor widow were fulfilling their obligation to sacrifice.

That this passage shows that he expects the poor to give, the rich are not discussed and therefore have no greater obligation due to their greater resources, and no one receives the charity?.

The point of sacrifice is to give glory to God, not to receive charity from men.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

It is irrelevant only to the point that Jesus was making but not irrelevant to the issue of wealth redistribution.


And yet you want to use this passage to argue against redistribution of wealth, correct? That is going beyond what this passage is stating. The poor widow gave, Jesus pointed out its significance relative to the rich, end of story. This has nothing to do with receiving or wealth redistribution, nothing at all.

If I am misunderstanding how this passage is being used, please let me know.

Wealth redistribution does not advocate that the poor give up anything. It advocates the exclusive obligation of the rich to give to the poor. If Jesus advocated such a concept, why did he commend the poor widow for her giving? I'm using this passage to point out that this specific incident conflicts with the principles advocated by social justice.

The specific instance of the poor widow who gave up everything is mentioned for our benefit, just as the rich man who could not give up everything. In both instances Jesus places emphasis on giving, not receiving. Compare these two instances in Scripture with Jesus' teaching that Heavenly Father provides food/clothing/ect for us just as He does for the rest of Creation.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

 

[Rhea]

Wealth redistribution does not advocate that the poor give up anything. It advocates the exclusive obligation of the rich to give to the poor.

That's an odd definition. Wealth redistribution means that at various levels people give various amounts.

It says nothing about exclusive burdens to the rich, not exclusive benefit to the poor. It's a continuum, a sliding scale.

If Jesus advocated such a concept, why did he commend the poor widow for her giving?

AS I said earlier - perhaps to shame the rich into seeing how little they give and how their hearts are not pure in their efforts to hoard as much of their wealth as they can. To show the example of the goodness of feeling the need to give as much as one can as the righteous path.

And "as much as one can" is significantly bigger for the rich than it is for the poor (or the middle class).

That is what the passage means to many. Not a curiously uninstructive and isolated commendation of a widow, but a message to us all - if even the poor can give, then so should we all!

 

[Drew]

The specific instance of the poor widow who gave up everything is mentioned for our benefit, just as the rich man who could not give up everything. In both instances Jesus places emphasis on giving, not receiving. Compare these two instances in Scripture with Jesus' teaching that Heavenly Father provides food/clothing/ect for us just as He does for the rest of Creation.

All true, but none of this is any kind of argument that we should "re-distribute" wealth from the rich to the poor.

 

[Drew]

So am I understanding this correctly, that there is still a position that Jesus was against the rich giving more than the poor woman? That this passage shows that he expects the poor to give, the rich are not discussed and therefore have no greater obligation due to their greater resources, and no one receives the charity?

Is that what is being said here?

It seems like a contorted argument to try to make Jesus be against progressive tax brackets. Trying to stuff his words into a political box that is the wrong shape.

I am inclined to agree with your analysis.

By the way, it seems that the "deal" reached today in Washington lets the rich off the hook yet again.

There is a lot of good to be said about the USA (I am not an American), but, for the life of me, I do not "get" how so many Americans seem to think the rich "get a pass" on paying what I suspect the rest of the world would see as their "fair share".

 

[reba]

I would like to know what the rich give.

Taxes are not gifts.

 

[Rhea]

There is a lot of good to be said about the USA (I am not an American), but, for the life of me, I do not "get" how so many Americans seem to think the rich "get a pass" on paying what I suspect the rest of the world would see as their "fair share".

I do not get this, either. I especially don't get the people who argue that the rich should pay less than their share, so that the middle class can pay more than their share. Very bizarre to me - people say, "I pay 28% and the very wealthy pay 20% and look how oppressed they are!!!"

Reba - taxes can be gifts to the needy if one thinks of it that way. It can be a combination of upkeep fees plus gifts to the needy. It takes some courage to stand up and cut out the bridges to nowhere and the like, but taxes all boiled down represent national upkeep plus charity. Some people will re-name that as oppression and argue against the taxes instead of arguing against the particular programs, others decide to argue against waste and keep the useful programs. (And then still others argue to keep the wasteful corporate subsidy spending AND reduce their own taxes at the expense of those less able to pay).

To some people government of the people by the people for the people is evil and should be eliminated. For others it is a system that builds the secure kind of country we want to live in.