The Maker Versus The Takers: What Jesus Really Said About Social Justice and Economics

STEVE LYON
Editorial Director
Read more from Steve

Listen to this article:

The Purpose of the Book: 

Writing as a former Marxist, Jerry Bowyer presents biblical and historical evidence that refutes leftist claims Christ condemned wealth and mandated its redistribution to the poor. Instead, he shows us Jesus only denounced the use of economic power to oppress them. 

The Perspective 

The author cautions us that some modern theologians have imported socialist/Marxist notions of wealth distribution into key biblical texts, resulting in what is commonly known as liberation theology. He reminds us that “socialism sets up political and economic hierarchies — always.” Therefore, we must recognize “Liberation theology has stolen these passages from us … [and] take this ground back for Biblical Christianity.”  (p. 16)

Key Points 

Jesus only condemned the oppressive use of wealth by elitist power brokers in Judea and Jerusalem. He never condemned the accumulation of wealth in Galilee. 

NT scholarship in the 70’s and 80’s allowed Marxist-influenced social science models to influence their observations Galilee was “backward and poor” and that large numbers were ousted by landowners leaving them with no source of income. More recent scholarship and archaeological digs demonstrate that wasn’t the case.

Indeed, Galilee (where Christ spent His childhood and most of His ministry) was a decentralized, “entrepreneurial society with broad ownership of property and reasonable prosperity based on [locally owned] farming, fishing, building, and manufacturing of stone jars” (p. 40). In addition, Nazareth was known for its olive-oil production — and the father and son team of Joseph and Jesus likely participated in a documented regional building boom that required the talents of highly-skilled craftsman who benefitted from “a fairly high level of income and social influence” (p. 43). 

Additionally, Galilee wasn’t as heavily taxed as its southern counterpart, freeing up capital for free-enterprise investment. And all of lower Galilee was strategically located on the major trade route from Egypt to Asia Minor, giving it access to merchants ferrying goods to distant points in the Roman Empire. In sum, “Jesus grew up in a commercially vibrant region, a conduit from the ancient empires of the east to the more modern Mediterranean ports that served as connections to Greece and Rome.” (p. 36). 

Bowyer’s point is that had Christ wished to condemn productivity and wealth carte blanche, He could have easily done so in Galilee. Yet He never did.

Judea, on the other hand, operated in a calcified, hierarchical economy dependent on Roman and Temple taxation. Consequently, it accommodated corruption — and oppression by those in power. The author believes Mary addressed that issue in her response to Elizabeth’s exuberance Mary would give birth to the Savior: “He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble. ‘He has filled the hungry with good things; and sent away the rich empty-handed.’” (Luke 1:51-53, referring to Ps. 107:9, NASB). 

Christ’s condemnation of excesses in the Judean power structure can also be seen in differences between the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt. 5-7, spoken to a largely Galilean audience) and the “Sermon on the Plain” (Luke 6:17-49, delivered to a crowd from Judea, Jerusalem, and Tyre and Sidon [with whom Judean elites had close economic ties]). For instance, the former addresses those “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3); the latter, those who are poor (Luke 6:20). The former offers hope for those persecuted on Christ’s account (Matt. 5:11-13); the latter replaces that with condemnation of the rich (Luke 6:14-15).

Other examples include Christ’s encounter with the rich young “senator” (Bowyer’s terminology, Mark 10:17-25) and Zaccheus (Luke 19:1-10); His driving money changers out of the Temple (John 2:12-17 and Matt. 21:12-13); and the toleration of shepherds (considered so untrustworthy they weren’t allowed to testify in court; and who were banned from regular religious practice because their seven day work week kept them in a constant state of ceremonial impurity) because they were  “necessary to the operation of the ruling class and its revenue center in Jerusalem.” (p. 26)

Powerful economic forces were a key driver in the Crucifixion

Early Christian historian Eusebius documented Pontius Pilate’s intense dislike for the Jews and the harsh way he treated them. Thus, Bowyer rightfully asks why he was so accommodating to the mob who demanded the Lord’s death. He offers two answers:

First, they threatened to brand Pilate as an enemy of Caesar, a charge for which the Roman emperor Tiberius had one of Pilate’s contemporaries — Sejanus — executed (along with his family, friends, and political allies). Second, the Roman financial collapse of A.D. 33 (precipitated by the failure of important Roman banks and the loss of agricultural revenue) drove the empire into a destabilizing economic panic. Thus, “the usually hard-line Roman cynic Pilate was much more easily pushed around, including being pushed into rubber-stamping the unjust execution of the peaceful Jesus of Nazareth …” [sic]

“Forgive us our debts …” in the Lord’s prayer (Matt. 6:12)  — and the use of Is. 61:1 in His inaugural sermon (Luke 4:17-21) — should be understood in the light of the seven year release-of-debt provision in Deuteronomy 15.

Jesus articulated both as a corrective to the first-century rabbinic principle of “prosbul,” developed by experts in the Torah so they could still lay claim to debts owed. 

He also believes Christ’s statement during  His burial anointing that “you will always have the poor with you” (Mark 14:7, et al) is a prophetic statement of judgment against the Jewish hierarchy for their refusal to obey Deuteronomy 15 — and that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was a direct result of that disobedience, noting the economic devastation lasted two millennia. 

Details We Appreciate

The author is correct to challenge the biblical basis for Marxist/socialist notions of wealth distribution (which seeks to replace God with government). Doing so mars our ability to reflect God’s image. It assaults the dignity that comes from the regenerate work of the Spirit to produce Christ-like character and its attendant virtues: industry, personal responsibility, creativity, faithfulness, and integrity (among others). Indeed, wealth redistribution works against True Charity’s commitment to champion a resurgence of civil society in the fight against poverty.

As well, we appreciate his caution that “any follower of Jesus who wants to assert any ideology that requires concentrations of power in the state must first show us why those who operate the levers of power in our time will do it less selfishly than those who pulled the levers in Jesus’ time” (p. 133-4). Along the same lines, “No group is virtuous enough or smart enough or great enough or has enough common sense or diplomas or four-dimensional chess skills to wield power over others and not turn whatever capitol they rule from into a swamp land” (p. 134). Indeed, “Christians should be the last people to sign up for massive concentrations of economic power in the state.” (p. 135)

Considerations 

The book suffers from two major weaknesses:

First, a lack of focus. It is not a theology of Jesus’ teaching on social justice and economics, as the subtitle implies. Rather, much of it is an amalgam of economic and biblical facts (some misapplied and some — unfortunately — wrong) that don’t support the subtitle. Bowyer mistakes volume of content for relevant content, which weakens his argument. That’s most pronounced in the second half of the book.

Second, incorrect or inadequate exegesis. For instance, the Judean/Galilean divide is an irrelevant dichotomy. It assumes the Galilean economy was bereft of the misuses alleged to the southern economy, was therefore more virtuous, and thus passed muster with Jesus. Yet a clear theology of human nature demonstrates “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Ro. 3:23; see also 1 Ki. 8:46, Ps. 14:1-3, Eccl. 7:20, et al). That means there were economic sinners in Galilee, too (which the author admits on p. 134) and Christ’s condemnation of wealth’s misuse applied there just as much. Thus noting where the message was delivered does little to support his contention that Christ affirmed the Galilean economy (and thus a biblical accumulation of wealth) and condemned the Judean one.

As well, parsing differences in the crowds to whom the Lord delivered the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49) is tenuous at best. Both groups probably numbered in the thousands and consisted of people from a wide range of persuasions and backgrounds. It is far more likely differences between the two sermons had more to do with His choice of two messages to address the universality of human need than the crowd’s economic proclivities. 

Thus, in this reviewer’s opinion, Bowyer wastes the reader’s time by sharing facts that, while interesting, lend no additional support to what is already abundantly clear: The Lord’s condemnation of first century Judaism’s inflated sense of self-righteousness and the misuse of wealth it engendered. Indeed, an exposition of critical texts in support of that truth are absent and would have been more helpful (e.g., Matt. 6:19-34, 23:13-26, and Mark 7:6-13) — as would a clearer examination of how His anointing for burial (Matt. 26:6-13, Mark 14:1-9, John 12:1-8) countermands socialist/Marxist notions of wealth distribution. Likewise, it would have been helpful for the author to at least touch on Paul’s acknowledgment that at times, he lived in material prosperity — with no condemnation from the Lord for having done so (Phil. 4:12).

Other exegetical missteps include the claim Judas Iscariot “was very likely a Judean and somewhat likely from a family with an ideological affinity for the ruling political elite of Judea” (with no evidence to support that claim, p. 72);  that the 10,000 talents owed by the slave in the parable of Matt. 18:23-35 is a sum so large it is “sensible” to “see this as a story about the combined debt of a nation over several years” (p. 82) — minimizing the parable’s purpose as an illustration of the overwhelming debt owed by individual sinners to a holy God (and His depthless willingness to forgive that debt); his confusion on p. 114 over whether Adam and Eve’s sin and resultant death might have been a debt paid to Satan “for his work of helping them open their eyes and get knowledge of good and evil …?” — which is heresy (see Col. 2:13-14, 1 Pet. 2:24). 

More examples include his contention Christ’s claim “you will always have the poor with you” (see passages on His anointing, listed above) is due to Israel’s violation of the cancellation of debt provision in Deut. 15. Yet that passage clearly affirms that even with the provision in place, “the poor will never cease to be in the land” (Deut. 15:11). And equating Christ’s reading of Is. 61:1 with the reinstitution of Deut. 15 unnecessarily limits that passage to the economically oppressed (who are never mentioned in it as such). Finally, it would have been helpful for Bowyer to explain how Nathanael’s question “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (i.e. Galilee, John 1:46) co-exists with evidence he offers that the Galilean economy was “commercially vibrant” and that Joseph and Jesus were in-demand, highly skilled craftsmen who would have enjoyed a good income and a degree of social influence (again, pp. 36 and 43).

Who Should Read This?

For reasons cited above, we only recommend The Maker versus The Takers for readers savvy to the exegetical imbalances cited and who are willing to accept its failure to deliver what the subtitle promises. That said, it is of some value in rightly pointing out the error of socialist/Marxist interpretations of the text and why those came about; for general information on the economy of Galilee and the Roman financial crisis of 33 A.D.; and for its wise caution against the consolidation of power in the hands of any ruling class. 

Makers vs. Takers can be purchased at Amazon. If you purchase the book through this link, True Charity will earn a small amount as an Amazon Associate.