The radical Jesus: you cannot serve God and Mammon.

Abstract

Based on philological considerations and contextualization of the very earliest Jesus traditions, especially Luke 16:13, this article argues that at the core of the concern of Jesus of Nazareth was a critique of Mammon, carried on under the proclamation of God's ruling power, that may still today leave Christians in an Age of Mammon with an uneasy conscience.

**********

A very common interest among U.S. Christians today, especially in the multitudinous "Bible churches," is the guidance offered by Scripture and in particular the biblical example of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the Bible might seem more important in American culture today than the Constitution of the United States. Under such impulses a few years ago, people began wearing bracelets inscribed with the acronym "WWJD," standing as most readers probably know for "What Would Jesus Do?"

A number of presuppositions are wrapped up with any answers to such a question--for instance without in any sense attempting to be comprehensive, the presuppositions that the gospel material recounting Jesus' example or words stems by and large from Jesus himself, or that Jesus' example or words should somehow be directly relevant to our situation without further investigation, or that nothing between Jesus and us has shaped Christian sensibilities and ethics.

All of these deserve more thorough exploration than can be given here. Suffice it for now to say that even scholars have versions (perhaps more sophisticated) of this interest and these presuppositions. I need cite only three instances: In 1953, Ernst Kasemann launched the Second Scholarly Quest of the Historical Jesus with his well-stated repudiation of teacher Rudolf Bultmann's position that Jesus was simply the presupposition of Second Testament Theology. Kasemann argued that Christianity would be reduced merely to an ideology if there were no critical principle of its meaning in Jesus; conversely, the Second Quest attempted to show the points of continuity especially between Jesus' proclamation and the Kerygma or proclamation of the early Christian movement. More recently in 1972, John Howard Yoder's fine study THE POLITICS OF JESUS assumed that Jesus had a politics and that it is important for Christian reflection on political life. Yoder's treatment, however, lacked the refinements of scholarly study of the gospels, so that his Jesus turned out essentially to be that of the Gospel of Luke. Finally, the strenuous efforts of the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus, on-going since 1980 and caught between the horns of the dilemma of a socially irrelevant apocalyptic or cynic Jesus and a socially relevant politically-engaged figure, shows the persistence of concern with the Man at the Root of the Christian Tradition, the Radical Jesus (Herzog: 23-33).

The portrait of a socially irrelevant Jesus is to some extent the editorial product, based in scriptural and theological interpretation, of the scribes of the first-century Jesus traditions. Critical sifting of the earliest traditions, closer to the Galilean soil, shows that at the core of the concern of Jesus of Nazareth was a politically charged critique of Mammon, carried on under the proclamation of God's ruling power. Let us proceed, then, to undertake a careful investigation of the Jesus-saying preserved in the Q tradition, "You cannot serve God and Mammon" (Q/Luke 16:13). Q refers to the collection of Jesus' words in the Sayings Gospel, the earliest material about Jesus that we possess (around 50 CE). Q passages are cited today by their location in Luke, and that convention will be followed in this discussion (Robinson, Hoffmann, & Kloppenborg: 9).

Luke's Moralistic Treatment of the Saying

Some years ago, I wrote an essay attempting to "locate" the ideology of Luke, the writer of the Third Gospel of the Second Testament, and concluding that he had transformed the social register of Jesus' original message:

   What was originally a radical social critique by Jesus and his
   followers of the violent and oppressive political-economic order in
   the countryside under the early empire becomes in Luke's conception
   a rather innocuous sharing-ethic ambiguous in its import
   for rural dwellers.... For Jesus, the kingdom of God was world
   reconstruction, especially beneficial for a rural populace
   oppressed by debt and without secure subsistence. For Luke,
   political expediency demands that the world restructuring be limited
   to alleviating the harshest aspects of political economy within
   the local Christian community by benefaction and generalized
   reciprocity [Oakman 1991 : 177].

This assessment involves the judgment that Luke's Gospel represented an "elite-directed moralism." It is likely that Luke-Acts is one of the first in a line of apologetic works for the early Christian movement. Luke dedicates his two volumes to Theophilus, perhaps an elite city councillor somewhere in the late first- or early second-century Roman Empire. Luke--Acts has the general theme that the Jesus movement represents no threat to the Roman order. Luke's propaganda can be styled "moralistic" because Luke glosses over the harsher aspects of Roman relations and expresses a message of heartfelt concern for the poor which at bottom is an appeal to noblesse oblige.

Luke presents several sayings of Jesus about Mammon in chapter 16, immediately following the Parable of the Unjust Steward. The context has long been seen to be an artificial literary construction, since the Unjust Steward parable, which appears only in Luke, is followed by a series of appended applications that do not belong to the parable proper (Jeremias: 4647). Included here is the statement of Jesus to "make friends by means of the Mammon of Injustice." These application statements in turn are followed by the sayings about faithful stewardship and the impossibility of serving two masters or God and Mammon. The sayings about two masters and Mammon are found in identical order in Q (as can be seen from Matthew 6:24). From the Gospel of Thomas 47, however, the saying about two masters had another trajectory in the tradition, where it was paired differently with sayings about the impossibility of riding two horses or stretching two bows.

The Meaning of Mammon

Appreciation of Luke's moralistic applications and this brief tradition analysis give us license to inquire as to the meaning of these statements for Jesus himself, especially the Q word "You cannot serve God and Mammon."

The term Mammon offers a fascinating word study, of which we can only give the outlines here. The word appears four times in the Second Testament, and only in connection with sayings of Jesus: Luke 16:9, Luke 16:1 I, and of course Q/Luke 16:13/Matt 6:24. Though the earliest collection of Jesus' sayings we can reach historically--the Q sayings--are already in Greek, Jesus' mother-tongue was Aramaic, the language of the first-century Palestinian village. This shows in numerous places in the early Jesus traditions--for instance, in the Aramaic address to God as Abba ("Father"; Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; Aramaic probably stands behind the Greek of Q/Luke 11:2), or nicknames like Cephas (the "Rock," as Jesus called Simon), or idioms like "son of man," or phrases like talitha koum (in Greek transliteration, "little girl, arise," Mark 5:41) (Brown: 203-73).

The word Mammon likewise is Semitic. Though the noun MMON does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, it emerges in later Hebrew and Aramaic. "Mammon of Injustice"--translated "Mammon of Unrighteousness" in the Authorized and American Standard Versions, "unrighteous Mammon" in the Revised Standard Version, and "dishonest wealth" in the New Revised Standard Version--becomes a stock expression, MMON DSQR, in the targumic and rabbinic traditions after 70 CE, where Mammon has the standard meaning of wealth, money, or property (BDAG: 614; Black: 139). However, the simplex reference to Mammon in Q/Luke 16:13 is probably closer to the authentic speech of Jesus in the 20s CE. Mammon is set in stark contrast to "God," without the suggestion at all that there could be a "Mammon of Justice," an acceptable and legitimate Mammon or MMON SL 'MTH, as allowed in later targumic and rabbinic traditions (Hauck: 389).

Without more detailed first-century evidence, etymological considerations are indispensable for apprehending Jesus' meaning. Old Latin translations of the Gospels confused etymological discussion by doubling the middle 'm'; this spelling carried over into late Greek manuscripts, early Protestant translations of the Bible, and modern English. However, the best Greek manuscripts have a single 'm,' with the accent on the last syllable of the word, mamonas. This suggests that the Greek transliterates the Aramaic word MMON' in the emphatic state, that is, The Mammon (Hauck: 388; Nestle: 2913). Four roots come into discussion: (1) MNH or MON, to count or apportion, (2) HMH, to roar, hence in noun form, to represent a crowd or metaphorically abundance, 3) ~V/N to conceal, lay up, and 4) 'MN to confirm, support, or trust. The play on words in Luke 16:11 (faithless with unrighteous mammon, entrusted with righteous mammon) gives a very powerful indication that Jesus' intention and meaning was closest to root 4--'MN, to trust (Nestle: 2914). From 'MN, we get the familiar English transliteration Amen, truly. What is trustworthy is true; what is untrustworthy is false. This attitude comes from an ancient culture where epistemology is rooted in social relations and strong-group perceptions (Malina: 58-79). The meaning of Mammon is bound up with trust and true and false social perceptions of reality.

But what is it that is falsely trusted in the usage of Jesus? The linguistic evidence points to Mammon as signifying wealth collected in the bank, or the storehouse, or the treasury: wealth which then becomes the object of trust for the powerful-wealthy to the exclusion of God and neighbor. More importantly, Mammon is based in a system that exploits the many for the benefit of the few. To serve Mammon is to be alone in one's self-sufficiency; to serve God is to have concern for others and to practice reciprocity. To trace the further meaning of Jesus' critique of Mammon, we need to investigate and see more clearly his central interests in context.

Jesus' Critique of Mammon

At the time of Jesus' historical activity (late 20s CE), Galilee had stood under Roman provincial arrangements for nearly a century (Pompey, 63 BCE). Herod the Great wrested the area from bandits and Hasmoneans, and managed to have the Roman Senate declare him King of the Judeans (37-4 BCE); at his death, when Jesus was a small child in Nazareth, a Galilean insurrection resulted in the intervention of the Syrian Legate Varus and the destruction of Sepphoris, just down the road from Nazareth. Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, subsequently rebuilt Sepphoris, making it according to Josephus into the "ornament of all Galilee" (Josephus, ANTIQUITIES 18.27). Builder-families such as those of Joseph and Jesus perhaps even participated in this work. Around 20 CE, Herod Antipas began construction of his other major Galilean city, Tiberias by the Galilean Lake. He did this, I believe, to secure greater control over the tax revenues from fishing (Hanson & Oakman: 106-10). Perhaps Jesus participated in this building work as well; but not long thereafter, Jesus appeared at Capernaum on the north end of the Lake delivering his message about the Kingdom of God.

It is increasingly persuasive, based on historical evidence and comparative social science, that Jesus' message held social significance. Exorbitant taxation and debt seems to have been a central concern, as is often the case among peasants (Hanson & Oakman: 113-16). Agrarian tax systems, which have no formal checks and balances to protect the village cultivator, are typically oppressive. Early Roman imperial taxes were fixed and levied in imperial silver. These were exacted from an agricultural base, hence had to be "converted" from agricultural produce into money. Fixed or invariable taxes showed no respect for natural variance in product. When villagers were unable to pay, tax debts were tabulated in written records kept in royal and imperial archives. James C. Scott's comparative political studies of peasantry offer us helpful perspectives on the general issue. For instance, Scott writes in his book DOMINATION AND THE ARTS OF RESISTANCE:

   ... in the region in which 1 have conducted fieldwork [farmers]
   have resented paying the official Islamic tithe. It is collected
   inequitably and corruptly, the proceeds are sent to the provincial
   capital, and not a single poor person in the village has even
   received any charity back from the religious authorities. Quietly
   and massively, the Malay peasantry has managed to nearly dismantle
   the tithe system so that only 15 percent of what is formally
   due is actually paid. There have been no tithe riots, demonstrations,
   protests, only a patient and effective nibbling in a multitude
   of ways: fraudulent declarations of the amount of land
   farmed, simple failures to declare land, underpayment, and delivery
   of paddy spoiled by moisture or contaminated with rocks and
   mud to increase its weight [89].

Scott's category of "everyday peasant resistance" is helpful for contextualizing Jesus' activity. Traditional peasantries have employed a number of means of day-to-day resistance (Scott's "fraudulent declarations of the amount of land farmed, simple failures to declare land, underpayment, and delivery of paddy spoiled by moisture or contaminated with rocks and mud to increase its weight"), though none of these ever does away with the systemic problem.

Ancient peasant revolts were infrequent because of the perennial localism of peasants and the highly organized means of violence in the hands of elite groups. Not surprisingly, the great Judean Revolt of 66-70 CE was accompanied by tax remedies. The Jerusalem debt archives were burned during the initial phases (Josephus, WAR 2.427), and Simon bar Giora later announced the release of prisoners and the liberation of slaves (Josephus, WAR 4.508). When recounting the burning of the Jerusalem archives, Josephus refers to them as the "sinews of the city." He might have said empire as well.

According to Josephus also, the Roman tax arrangements implemented when Judea became an imperial province in 6 CE were met with stiff resistance. Judas of Gamala (in Gaulanitis, the present-day Golan Heights to the east of the Galilean lake) and a certain Zaddok the Pharisee, insisting that there is no God but God and that paying taxes to Rome is a sign of servitude, advocated armed resistance. I quote briefly two passages from Josephus:

   But a certain Judas, a Gaulanite from a city named Gamala, who
   had enlisted the aid of Saddok, a Pharisee, threw himself into the
   cause of rebellion. They said that the [tax] assessment carried
   with it a status amounting to downright slavery, no less, and
   appealed to the nation to make a bid for independence [Josephus,
   ANTIQUITIES 18.4, LCL].

   As for the fourth of the philosophies, Judas the Galilean set
   himself up as leader of it. This school agrees in all other respects
   with the opinions of the Pharisees, except that they have a passion
   for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced
   that God alone is their leader and master [Josephus, ANTIQUITIES
   18.23, LCL].

One cannot but be struck by the proximity of Judas and Jesus, and the similarity of their messages. At the time of the census, Jesus would have been about ten years old and living only thirty miles from Gamala. Moreover, during the time of his own historical activity, Jesus spent most of his time in the environs of the Galilean lake. Capernaum is within eyesight of Gamala, and vice versa.

Another significant datum about Jesus of Nazareth is his association with "tax collectors and sinners" (attested in Q and in Mark). "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" (Mark 2:16) Why indeed? John Kloppenborg, one of the preeminent American scholars studying Q, offers a clue in terms of that document's origins:

   If one asks, who would be in a position to frame the Sayings
   Gospel as it has been framed, the answer would appear to be village
   and town notaries and scribes.... There is ample evidence
   from Egypt to indicate the presence of a variety of scribes, of
   varying educational levels, in towns and villages, some serving in
   the apparatus of the provincial administration and others
   functioning as freelance professionals. The [village scribe] was
   concerned with tax and census matters [200-01].

Jesus's associating with "tax collectors and sinners" around the table, or as we will argue below "tax collectors and debtors," hence had to do with the sharing of real goods and perhaps the mitigation or even elimination of burdensome debts and taxes. The tax collectors possessed the social technology--writing--by which debt and tax collection was enforced. Ironically, the same technology enabled Jesus' oral Aramaic words eventually to be recorded for posterity. Jesus' message held special resonance with the fishingfolk, and Jesus' closest followers were fishermen like Simon and Andrew (sons of John), and James and John (sons of Zebedee). So a tax collector--Levi, son of Alphaeus--turns up among Jesus' retinue. Interestingly, a fourth-century inscription found during the archaeological excavations at Capernaum reads: "Halfu, the son of Zebidah, the son of Yohanan, made this column. May he be blessed" (Tzaferis: 294). It would seem from this inscription that the association of the Alphaeus, Zebedee, and John families persisted for many centuries. If so, then the tax collectors were the fishers' relatives, and Jesus' meal program gathered together to some extent both the indebted and their creditors. There was mutual benefit.

The Radical Jesus

At the root of Christian origins, then, there stands a disaffected group and a social concern. Jesus proclaimed a socially transformative power, "the Kingdom of God," which appealed to the indebted and the outcast. Lake-fishers were in debt to the tax-farmers; prostitutes were in debt to their pimps, who undoubtedly paid a regular tax; and village-farmers were obligated to the large estate holder. Rents and taxes meant debt and arrears, for sooner or later (and usually sooner) people fell behind on their payments and were permanently put on record. The Romans encouraged this situation by infusing coined money into provincial agrarian economies, which in turn led to money loans and further debt. The provincial banks, which in Greek are called "tables" (trapezai), were held by powerful-wealthy interests. These tables represented exploitation, while the table of Jesus promoted reconciliation and reciprocity.

Jesus was attempting to mitigate the situation of the indebted, and perhaps went even so far as to promote peasant resistance in the form of subversion of the imperial tax system in Galilee. This subversion would have operated in terms of both tax evasion and distortion of the tax records. Jesus also focused on debt-forgiveness in the name of God's ruling power in order to mitigate the situation of the indebted.

Additional corroborations for these assertions are found in a variety of excellent Jesus material. The remission of enormous tax debt in Matt 18:27 (special Matthew) is noteworthy, and the slaves are expected to follow suit. In a very different light, the political significance of Luke 16:1-7 lies open for scrutiny. A royal steward manipulates tax records in his own interests and against those of the kyrios, the master. These manipulations are viewed positively (in v 8), and the steward anticipates "being welcomed into [villagers'] houses." More subtly, Mark 4:3-8, (The Sower) and Gospel of Thomas 97 (The Empty Jar) intimate possible evasion tactics when seed sown on impossible ground or lost meal becomes available for tax-free gleaning. The tax question is addressed ambiguously at Mark 12:17 and Matthew 17:26 (special Matthew). Even at the redactional level of the evangelists, good evidence of such resistance might still be preserved, for instance in Luke's Zacchaeus 09:1-10) or in Luke 23:2 (both special Luke) when Jesus is accused before Pilate of advocating tax evasion.

The evidence of the very earliest Q material, stemming as we have indicated from Tiberian scribes in the administration of Herod Antipas, is particularly important (see further Oakman 1999:140, 147). Early Q reflects on the ethos and largesse of God's alternate kingdom. With roots in Passover meditation (as I see the Q beatitudes) and perhaps the example of Moses (who violently resisted Egyptian corvee, Exod 2:11-12), early Q has in view a liberation praxis (Robinson 1995: 259-74).

Indeed, early Q takes on a fascinating light when read against the concerns of "tax collectors and debtors." "Love for enemies" (Q/Luke 6:27) and "Golden Rule" (Q/Luke 6:31) are not meant, then, as generalized ethical norms, but as supports for reversing the normal dynamics of imperial taxation. This value is stated positively in Luke 16:9, "Make friends with unjust Mammon." Behind both Q/Luke 6:32 and Q/Luke 11:4, Jesus' oral-Aramaic speech patterns are in view. As Matthew Black and others have noted, the Greek in both places reflects the ambiguity of the Aramaic HOV' (Black: 140). While the related Greek word hamartolos could be understood within a Judean theological frame to refer to the morally disreputable, i.e. "sinners," HOVYN could equally denote those in indebted circumstances. With this translation adjustment in view, Q/Luke 6:32 contrasts balanced reciprocity and the general reciprocity ethic of debt, and tax-forgiveness commensurate with God's ruling power. Jesus' prayer concretely brings into focus his praxis, especially through the petition, "Release us [that is, tax collectors] from debt, as we release those in debt to us [that is, those who owe taxes]" (Q/Luke I 1:4).

Rostovtzeff, the great ancient historian, remarks on the frequency during the Hellenistic period of those who turned in royal opponents (including tax-evaders): "[in Ecclesiastes, under Ptolemy III The spies of Ptolemy, who are so ubiquitous that 'a bird of the air shall carry the voice' of him who cursed the king in secret, were presumably both fiscal and political menytai [Greek, 'informers']" (Rostovtzeff: 350). The same pattern continues into the Roman period. The Q-words of Luke 12:2-3 have in mind such damaging revelations of secrets, so the connection to bodily danger in 12:4 is not accidental. This consideration throws a striking light onto Judas Iscariot, the Betrayer of Jesus.

Hatred of family members (understood ironically in Q/Luke 14:26) implies that one's actions for the sake of God's rule put family members at grave risk. Gospel of Thomas 55 and 100-01 juxtapose hatred of family with either the tax question or the cross. Besides Matthew 18:25, there is the interesting story told by Philo about the actions of an Egyptian tax collector:

   Recently a man was appointed tax collector among us. When
   some of those who were supposed to owe taxes fled because of
   poverty and in fear of unbearable punishment, he carried off by
   force their wives, their children, the parents, and the rest of
   their families, striking them, and insulting them, and visiting all
   manner of outrages upon them in an effort to force them either to
   inform against the fugitive or else to make payment in his stead
   [SPECIAL LAWS 2.19.92-94, quoted in Lewis & Reinhold: 400].

Thus, Q/Luke 14:27 and Gospel of Thomas 55 provide an important crux for this line of argument. For these sayings indicate very clearly Jesus' consciousness of the political consequences deriving from his praxis. The Q writers and Thomas hardly say a word otherwise about Jesus' death. If the cross saying is hyperbole, as some scholars think, why would it be associated with family and bodily danger? The saying's literal meaning must then be taken seriously. As the Roman jurist Paulus wrote in the early second century CE, "People who plot sedition and riot or who stir up the masses are, according to the nature of their social rank, either crucified, or thrown to wild animals, or exiled to an island" (OPINIONS 5.22.1, quoted in Shelton: 13).

Jesus' criticism of Mammon--the money and wealth stored at the bankers' tables or in creditors' storehouses or in the imperial treasury--resonated with the concerns of other contemporary Palestinian documents focused especially upon the elites of Judea. The Damascus Document from the Dead Sea Scrolls records:

   Unless [the priests] are careful to act in accordance with the exact
   interpretation of the law for the age of wickedness: to separate
   themselves from the sons of the pit; to abstain from wicked wealth
   which defiles, either by promise or by vow, and from the wealth of
   the temple and from stealing from the poor of the people, from
   making their widows their spoils and from murdering orphans ...
   [CD 6.14 17, Martinez: 37].

Testament of Moses 7:3-8 likewise indicates a general feeling about Herodian Judea:

   Then will rule destructive and godless men, who represent themselves
   as being righteous, but who will [in fact] arouse their inner
   wrath, for they will be deceitful men, pleasing only themselves,
   false in every way imaginable, [such as] loving feasts at any hour
   of the day--devouring, gluttonous.... But really they consume
   the goods of the [poor], saying their acts are according to justice,
   [while in fact they are simply] exterminators, deceitfully seeking
   to conceal themselves so that they will not be known as completely
   godless because of their criminal deeds [committed] all the day
   long, saying, "We shall have feasts, even luxurious winings and
   dinings. Indeed, we shall behave ourselves as princes." They, with
   hand and mind, will touch impure things, yet their mouths will
   speak enormous things, and they will even say, "Do not touch me,
   lest you pollute me in the position I occupy ..." [Priest: 930].

Whether fictional or historical, the recollection in the Gospels that Jesus attacked the tables in the temple points to an incompatibility of social perspective and interest. Forty years ago, Eppstein supposed on the basis of Mishnah Shekelim that Jesus would not have taken offense at money-changers because he "understood their necessity both in the provinces and, assuming that he had previously kept the Passover, in the Temple" (Eppstein: 45-46). It is likely, on the contrary, that Jesus understood all too well the nefarious political consequences for provincials of the tables, money-changing, and debt. His attack enacts the basic idea of the Q saying, "You cannot serve God and Mammon" (Q/Luke 16:13). The tables represented deposits of money in trust, bank deposits that could then be lent out, mamonas, and correspondingly something trusted to the detriment of other human concerns and values, such as familial sharing, which the Jesus movement championed. Moreover, the tables represented tax-collection points and perpetual debt and arrears. Jesus' table, by contrast--consonant with his central concern of debt-forgiveness--was the gracious Passover table, the feast of the gracious and compassionate God of Israel to which all the hungry and indebted were invited (Oakman 2000: 306; 2001: 128-31).

Jesus' historical activity, in this reading, was centrally about provincial politics, the social realities of Mammon or the wealth-concentrate in the hands of the powerful, and not centrally about theological debates. The activity of historical Jesus signified debt-release and possibly tax-evasion in the name of God's ruling power. While Jesus' historical resistance to imperial realities left its traces in early traditions, it is also true that later scribes shifted from Jesus' focus on political relations to theology. By Luke's day, Jesus could be seen as innocent of any Roman charges. In this sense, the Second Testament made an early contribution to obscuring the meaning of Jesus' peasant resistance.

WWWD--What Would We Do?

How does any of this meet with our situation today? Certainly there are analogies. I do not think, however, that we can simply leap from the first- directly into the twenty-first century without further consideration. So much has happened since then. Karl Polanyi gave important indications in his book THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION; Ernst Troeltsch traced other lines in his monumental THE SOCIAL TEACHING OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES; H. Richard Niebuhr demonstrated complex historic possibilities in the relationship between CHRIST AND CULTURE. But Robert Wuthnow's recent study GOD AND MAMMON IN AMERICA indicates the on-going resonance of these themes. Perhaps, therefore, the real question is not so much What Would Jesus Do, but What Would We Do now?

This kind of historical investigation places certain developments in the Christian tradition in a significant light. It suggests that we look for places in the Christian tradition that are socially and culturally resonant with Jesus' critique of Mammon. To name two examples ready to hand, Francis of Assisi and Luther come to mind. The wealthy Francis gave away his substance to stand in solidarity with the poor and all creation (Tawney: 23; Troehsch: 355). Luther too came to a moment of theological clarity through the radical grace of God, and restated Jesus' radical aims thus (in the words of Luther's LARGE CATECHISM):

   ... the trust and faith of the heart alone make both God and an
   idol. If your faith and trust are right, then your God is the true
   God. On the other hand, if your trust is false and wrong, then you
   have not the true God. For these two belong together, faith and
   God. That to which your heart clings and entrusts itself is, I say,
   really your God [Tappert: 365].

Luther further had none-too-kind things to say about money loans and usury, and he called bankers of his day "extortioners" (Tawney: 74). Arguably, the Lutheran Reformation itself had as a central concern the clarification of basic theological and human values that had been obscured by narrow economic interests. Exemplary figures in the Christian tradition, then, provide signs of the on-going power and influence of Jesus' vision and commitment.

Relative to our time, Jesus' critique of Mammon suggests that a capitalism without equity and distributive justice has not measured up to his radical vision of human fulfillment. And his critique is not just for the Christians. The engines of industrial and technological capitalism have produced the greatest boon in history, so as to provide the resources to address poverty and hunger on a global scale. But enormous imbalances in control and distribution of this cornucopia leave most on the planet in a state of abject poverty. Moreover, the great wealth of capitalism, in the name of security, is increasingly diverted into expensive weaponry, defensive social structures, and wars that perpetuate fear and misunderstanding. Necessary investments in the right kind of education--one that would promote genuine understanding and that perfect love which might finally cast out fear (1 John 4:18)--fall far behind. Meanwhile, the gross injustices of global capitalism and corresponding cultural dislocations give ready excuse for violent terrorism.

In this respect, the searching critique of individualism by Robert N. Bellah and his colleagues points to the tyranny of the isolated self that alone can be the cultural consequence of capitalistic Mammon. Critique of the social and environmental insustainability of an economics promising endless growth in a world of limits has been powerfully advanced by Herman Daly and John Cobb in their book FOR THE COMMON GOOD. They urge a thorough reconsideration of arrangements that place wealth under control of a small elite, where the many hold tokens while the real dividends are paid only to the few.

Indeed, there is a need to rethink in broadly representative democratic assemblies arrangements of capital, trade, and taxation, and to pursue policies that promote a more just and humane social order. There is need for a new kind of leadership to move the debate in legislatures and congresses beyond draconian budget cuts and tax relief for the wealthy. And there is need to see fiduciary and trust arrangements not as mere opportunities for personal gain, or the stock market as a rich man's lotto, but to see wealth as a community-trust to benefit all.

Finally, in an age of increasing fear and insecurity, Jesus' critique of Mammon compels thought about how we might see, how we might live, and how things might be if the ultimate heart of the universe is loving mercy and grace. It was Jesus, after all, who is remembered as having said:

   If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For
   even debtors love those who love them. And if you do good to
   those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even
   debtors do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you
   hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even debtors lend to
   debtors, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do
   good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will
   be great, and you will be [children] of the Most High; for God
   is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish [Q/Luke 6:32-35].

Hardly the sentiments of an Enron executive or a Pentagon general, but words that might still be taken seriously by Christians, or a "Christian nation," or even a global civilization. Indeed, these are sentiments that do not sit comfortably at all in an age of corporate exploitation and the global politics of terror, but might provide a radically different basis for rapprochment between very different cultures and peoples. If everything has been given in radical grace, what then will we do now?

Works Cited

BDAG = Bauer, Walter, & Frederick W. Danker. 2000. A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE. 3rd edition. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1996. HABITS OF THE HEART: INDIVIDUALISM AND COMMITMENT IN AMERICAN LIFE. Updated edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Black, Matthew. 1998. AN ARAMAIC APPROACH TO THE GOSPELS AND ACTS, with an introduction by Craig A. Evans and an appendix by Geza Vermes. 3rd edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Brown, John Pairman. 2001. The Foreign Vocabulary of Jesus' Aramaic. Pp. 203-73 in ISRAEL AND HELLAS, Vol. 3: THE LEGACY OF IRANIAN IMPERIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1999. Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Crossan, John Dominic. 1998. THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY: DISCOVERING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE YEARS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXECUTION OF JESUS. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.

1991. THE HISTORICAL JESUS: THE LIVE OF A MEDITERRANEAN JEWISH PEASANT. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.

Daly, Herman, and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1994. FOR THE COMMON GOOD: REDIRECTING THE ECONOMY TOWARD COMMUNITY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Eppstein, Victor. 1964. The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE NEUTESTAMENTLICHE WISSENSCHAFT 55: 42-58.

Hanson K. C., & Douglas E. Oakman. 1998. PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF JESUS: SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Hauck, Friedrich. 1967. MAMONAS. Pp. 388-90 in THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Vol. 4, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Herzog II, William R. 2000. JESUS, JUSTICE, AND THE REIGN OF GOD: A MINISTRY OF LIBERATION. Louisville, ICY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Jeremias, Joachim. 1972. THE PARABLES OF JESUS, translated by S. H. Hooke. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Josephus, Flavius. 1926-1981. JOSEPHUS, translated by St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, & Louis H. Feldman. 9 volumes. LCL = Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kasemann, Ernst. 1964. The Problem of the Historical Jesus. Pp. 15-42 in ESSAYS ON NEW TESTAMENT THEMES, translated by W. J. Montague. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Kloppenborg Verbin, John S. 2000. EXCAVATING Q: THE HISTORY AND SETTING OF THE SAYINGS GOSPEL. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Lewis, Naphtali, & Meyer Reinhold. 1955. ROMAN CIVILIZATION, Vol. 2. THE EMPIRE. New York, NY: Columbia University.

Malina, Bruce J. 2001. THE NEW TESTAMENT WORLD: INSIGHTS FROM CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY. 3rd edition, revised and expanded. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Martinez, Florentino Garcia. 1996. THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS TRANSLATED: THE QUMRAN TEXTS IN ENGLISH, translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2rid edition. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Nestle, Eberhard. 1913. Mammon. Pp. 2912-15 in ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA, Vol. 3, edited by T. K. Cheyne & J. Sutherland Black. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. 2001. CHRIST AND CULTURE. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.

Oakman, Douglas E. 2001. Models and Archaeology in the Social Interpretation of Jesus. Pp. 102-31 in SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC MODELS FOR INTERPRETING THE BIBLE: ESSAYS BY THE CONTEXF GROUP IN HONOR OF BRUCE J. MALINA, edited by John J. Pilch. Biblical Interpretation Series, 53. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

2000. Economics of Palestine. Pp. 303-08 in DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT BACKGROUND, edited by Craig a. Evans. Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press.

1999. The Lord's Prayer in Social Perspective. Pp. 137-86 in AUTHENTICATING THE WORDS OF JESUS, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig a. Evans. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

1991. The Countryside in Luke-Acts. Pp. 151-79 in THE SOCIAL WORLD OF LUKE-ACTS: MODELS FOR INTERPRETATION, edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Polanyi, Karl. 2001. THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION: THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF OUR TIME. 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Priest, John. 1983. The Testament of Moses. Pp. 919-34 in THE OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, Vol. 1. APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE AND TESTAMENTS, edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Robinson, James A. 1995. The Jesus of Q as Liberation Theologian. Pp. 259-74 in THE GOSPEL BEHIND THE GOSPELS: CURRENT STUDIES ON Q, edited by Ronald A. Piper. Supplements to NOVUM TESTAMENTUM, 75. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Robinson, James A., editor. 1990. THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY IN ENGLISH. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.

Robinson, James A., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, editors. 2002. THE SAYINGS GOSPEL Q IN GREEK AND ENGLISH, WITH PARALLELS FROM THE GOSPELS OF MARK AND THOMAS. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Rostovtzeff, Michael. 1941. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE HELLENISTIC WORLD. 3 volumes. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Scott, James C. 1990. DOMINATION AND THE ARTS OF RESISTANCE: HIDDEN TRANSCRIPTS. New Haven, CT/ London, UK: Yale University Press.

Shelton, Jo-Ann. 1988. AS THE ROMANS DID: A SOURCE BOOK IN ROMAN SOCIAL HISTORY. New York, NY/Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tappert, Theodore G., translator and editor. 1959. THE BOOK OF CONCORD: THE CONFESSIONS OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Tawney, R. H. 1954. RELIGION AND THE RISE OF CAPITALISM: A HISTORICAL STUDY. Holland Memorial Lectures 1922. New York, NY: Mentor Books.

Troeltsch, Ernst. 1931. THE SOCIAL TEACHING OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, translated by Olive Wyon. 2 volumes. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

Tzaferis, Vassillos. 1993. Capernaum. Pp. 291-96 in THE NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS IN THE HOLY LAND, Vol. 1, edited by Ephraim Stern. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1998. GOD AND MAMMON IN AMERICA. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Yoder, John Howard. 1972. THE POLITICS OF JESUS: VICIT AGNUS NOSTER. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Douglas E. Oakman, Ph.D. (Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA) is Associate Professor of Religion at Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA 98447, and author of JESUS AND THE ECONOMIC QUESTIONS OF HIS DAY (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1986), Was Jesus a Peasant? Implications for Reading the Samaritan Story (Luke 10:30-35) BTB 22: 117-25 (1992), and with K. C. Hanson PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF JESUS: SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998). This article was originally delivered in 2003 as a lecture at Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA, then in 2004 as an invited Goodspeed Lecture at Denison University, Granville, OH. Email: [e-mail].