Category Archives: Economics

The Wall Street Bible

Posted on by
Reply

I normally don’t post twice in a day, but this Wall Street Journal article “inspired” me.  Now, I have nothing positive or negative to say about modern day capitalism, unless of course we compare it with the oppressive argrarian societies of history, like feudalism.  For me, capitalism is a social tool to decentralize wealth and create incentives.  Fine.  It has its strengths and weaknesses, and I could probably list many of them, but we are not here for that.  We are here because Rabi Aryeh Spero has made a biblical argument for capitalism, and that just doesn’t sit right with me.

His biggest blunder is a common one, to pit capitalism against socialism.  It is an unfair dichotomy in the present Western World, and in America.  Most Western countries are a messy mix of both public and private sectors, and it is unlikely that such things will change soon.  What is really being argued over is the relationship and ratio between the two: How big should the public sector be? And how can the public sector be involved with the private?  Great questions, and the arguments need to be placed in concrete contexts, rather than abstract ideas.

While Spero has pointed out some of capitalisms strengths, his use of the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) takes quite a leap of faith between our cultures.

Because the Hebrew Bible sees us not simply as “workers” and members of the masses but, rather, as individuals, it heralds that characteristic which endows us with individuality: our creativity… At the opening bell, Genesis announces: “Man is created in the image of God”—in other words, like Him, with individuality and creative intelligence.

I’m going to give Spero the benefit of the doubt, since he may get this interpretation from some Rabbinic sources that I’m not aware of.  However, I’m still going to express my doubts over his interpretation, not only because of the Wall Street Journal, nor because of his “Caucus for America,” but because I doubt the Bible has much to say on Western individualism or capitalism.  One of the defining characteristics of an Individual-Oriented society is the emphasis placed on personal happiness and individual liberty.  These themes are severely lacking in the Hebrew Bible.  Rather, the Hebrew Bible is more concerned with political independence, critique of corrupt leadership, and social identity.  Also, the Hebrew people lived in an agrarian society, thus making a leap to modern economic systems require heavy exegesis–something Spero has not done at all here.

While, I am a Christian and focus on the New Testament, I still hold that even the Hebrew Bible cannot defend Capitalism or Socialism.  Rather, all we can really look for are the reasons that both Testaments critique their own agrarian societies.  And correct me if I’m wrong, but the strongest critiques are aimed at corrupt elites, who gain at the expense of the weak, the poor, and the marginalized.  So whatever economic system one supports, someone claiming the authority of either Testament ought to make sure that all economic systems prevent such exploitation.

Occupy the Kingdom

Posted on by
3

There will be debate in the blogosphere, and out of it, over whether the Occupy Wall Street movement is Christian or not.  I’ve tried to argue in this blog for what I call Christian economics, and it is not complicated.  Perhaps the policies that might implement it can be complicated, but the principle is simple: Individuals, communities, and societies are called to favor, in behavior and in organization, the poor and the marginalized, in the ways that God and Christ favored them in the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels.  Arguments for and against government involvement ought to be arguments for how to help the poor and the marginalized, not whether to help them.  In that same vein, I present another argument from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 5.

The writer of Mark favors what are called sandwich stories, A-B-A’ constructions, where B as the central point in the story, says something crucial about A and A’.  Have a look:

A.  21 And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him, and he was beside the sea.  22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing him, he fell at his feet  23 and implored him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.”  24 And he went with him. And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him.

B. 25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years,  26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.  27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.  28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.”  29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.  30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?”  31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’”  32 And he looked around to see who had done it.  33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth.  34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

A’. 35 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?”  36 But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.”  37 And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.  38 They came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and Jesus saw a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly.  39 And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but sleeping.”  40 And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was.  41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”  42 And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.  43 And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

In the two stories above, an elite (ruler of the synagogue, male, house owner) comes to Jesus asking for him to heal his daughter and save her from imminent death.  But Jesus, on the way to the ruler’s house, pauses for a disenfranchised woman with an impure discharge who has no money.  He pauses, because this woman touched his garment to be made well.  And Jesus calls her, Daughter, not by mistake, but most likely in the presence of Jairus.  This girl too is a daughter.  Then Jesus continues and heals the daughter of Jairus.

In this story, Mark wonderfully juxtaposes the poor and the elite, and shows the priority of the Divine Dominion is for the poor and marginalized first, and then to the elites.  But not only that, but by calling her daughter, Jesus somehow connects the two daughters, perhaps calling Jairus, and other elites, to look upon this woman as a daughter as well.

The radical Judeanism of Jesus, calls his followers to occupy the kingdoms, the empires, the dominions of this world, in order to show God’s favor to the poor and the marginalized.  There is no hatred for elites (at least in this story), but simply a priority shown towards the disenfranchised.  Does the Occupy Wall Street movement do this?

Agree to Agree

Posted on by
3

Bible readers survey

Image from Lifeway Research.

Has anyone ever told you, or offered to “agree to disagree” on the Bible with you?  For me it has often come when people know my stance on critical issues, rather than after an in depth conversation on the Bible.  It causes one to wonder, if when somebody says they believe in the Bible or the Bible is foundation of their faith, that really their ideologies are really the foundation of their faith.

A recent study by Lifeway, pointed out by The Biblical World, shows that what people say they want in a Bible and what they buy are nearly opposites.  Particularly, people want an accurate word-for-word translation, yet they buy the NIV in droves.  The NIV is a thought-for-thought translation, not a word-for-word translation, and has long been ignored by scholars of the Bible because of this.

So why this incongruity in the Bible market?  Let me speculate my cynicism for a moment, since the market really should not behave in this way.  First, most people who buy Bibles have no idea the differences from one translation to the next, let alone the enormous scholarly process that goes into determining which text ought to be translated.  Therefore, these people do not make informed decisions in the market the way one would make when they buy more “important” things.  In other words, either these people do not really care that much about the Bible, or they assume that the differences from one translation to the next are minimal.

Second, churches, denominations in particular, are often guided by the scholar/pastors in their ranks.  If we can understand for a moment the financial, energy-sapping, and time-consuming demands that a Bible translation requires, we might have a better picture of why an institution might embark on such a task.  But rarely do these institutions do so without an agenda, and for this reason, we can see correlating divides in denomination and Bible translation.  For years, before the ESV, the conservative Bible translations were the KJV and the NIV.  The ESV, out of Wheaton, IL, is considered a scholarly conservative translation, now used by many conservative denominations such as the PCA or the LCMS. More progressive denominations use the NRSV and others before it, like the RSV or the NAS.  Of course, not every church follows this, but there’s a big enough trend for me to say this: denominations make careful decisions to choose which translation to use, translations which were often translated with certain issues in mind.  Depending on how the translations handled the issues (gendered language, traditional theological terms, etc.), the denomination accepted or rejected it.  According to the data, most people simply follow the translation their denomination agrees with. 

Again we are back to the issues, the ideologies.  Because of the market data, I am skeptical that most people even care about the Bible.  Most people care about issues.  And although, people may read the Bible and make decisions about issues, people rarely do so in a vacuum.  Their political views, economic perspectives, and denominational affiliations carry great weight in their interpretations of certain texts… which makes you wonder, is there even any room for disagreeing discourses about the Bible?  If that’s how it’s going to be, we are not agreeing to disagree, we are agreeing to agree with those who share the same views on important issues as we ourselves do.

Cheers.

2,000 More Years of Critiquing Rome

Posted on by
2

Professor Byron states in a recent blog:

It has become quite popular over the last few decades for New Testament scholars to bash ancient Rome and suggest that when first century Christian writers use terms like gospel, Lord, savior, kingdom, etc, that these authors are deliberately critiquing Rome and its emperors. Some modern scholars have pushed this interpretation so far that the New Testament looks less like a theological book and more like a political manifesto. And perhaps that is part of the problem. Too often some of these interpretations of “Rome’s gospel” are clearly motivated by frustration with American hegemony. And while I think American policy does need to be critiqued and criticized, I am not sure that authors like Paul and others were doing same thing with Rome as some modern scholars suggest. To hear some New Testament scholars talk there was nothing good about ancient Rome and that the world would have been better off without it.

This got me thinking: Did everyone in the ancient world hate Rome? Which then reminded me of the scene from the Monty Python film Life of Brian in which the Jewish rebels are planning to kidnap Pilate’s wife because they hate the Romans. But of course, as the below clip makes clear, not everything about the Romans was all that bad.

(See the link to his blog for the Monty Python video)

In my view, Professor Byron is somewhat correct when he notes that such perspectives are motivated by “frustration with American hegemony.”  This stems from, what is in my view, the great anti-American Empire triumvirate from Boston: Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Richard Horsley.

However, this criticism is also based on a separate field of studies called Postcolonial studies, which analyzes texts from the colonized (see this introduction).  Particular studies have been done to look at colonies of the British Empire and see how they produced texts/art while being colonized.

Let’s be clear.  Every Empire does great things as the Monty Python skit suggests, but the question is always: “At what cost?”  Sure we like your aqueducts, your smooth roads, and your safe seas, but if the cost of these is human lives (Revelation 18.13), then is it really worth it?  But what Postcolonial criticism of literature has shown, is that even if the writers do not openly critique or show contempt for the Empire, there acts of writing still question the center and act at least in small forms of resistance.

Revelation critiques Rome with apocalyptic language.  The Gospels critiques the Roman way of life without naming the Empire.  And Paul has to jump through Imperial hoops to spread the Gospel and help the poor.  And why are there even so many poor that Paul has to help in the first place?  So certainly, every book in the New Testament doesn’t cry out, “Down with Rome!”  But the difficulties of Empire cannot be ignored when engaging the New Testament, or any of the Old Testament either (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece…)

The problem I think Professor Byron has is that such criticism is all to prevalent these days in biblical studies. The first reason is that Postcolonial Criticism is a relatively recent development in biblical scholarship.  But the other reason is simply that for nearly 2,000 years, Roman Imperial oppression was almost totally ignored in biblical studies.  So in order to have a “little more balance,” we may need another 2,000 years of critiquing Rome.

The ‘Free’ Market and Immigration

Posted on by
1

In Ha-Joon Chang’s book, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, he argues correctly:

The wage gaps between rich and poor countries exist not mainly because of differences in individual productivity but mainly because of immigration control.  If there were free migration, most workers in rich countries could be, and would be, replaced by workers from poor countries.

Of course, hypothetically, there would eventually be greater global income equality.  This had never really occurred to me before, and I was struck at the irony that the typical anti-immigration types are also the hard-core ‘free’ marketers as well.  Of course, I don’t think this means we need immediate abolishment of immigration restrictions.  But rather, I think it calls for a softer stance on regulations in general.  One ought not to support regulations that only benefit one’s own desires and that protect one’s own resources.  That seems anti-free market.  What do you think?

What is the Gospel?

Posted on by
1

In a recent post by Rachel Held Evans, she poses the question, “What is the Gospel?” to the public, to her favorite bloggers and writers, and gives a nod to Scott McKnight.  I wrestled with this question before, and I thought I might share my questions and research.  In no way do I seek to answer this question clearly, for I am admittedly only a Bible scholar.  Yet, I feel I can enlighten at least part of an answer.  I will use parts of a paper I wrote a couple years ago.

As far as the Gospel goes, there is a double-tradition passage in Matthew and Luke that really got me to thinking.  When John the Baptizer was in prison, he sent some of his followers to Jesus to find out if he was “the one who is to come.”

Matthew 11:4-5  And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:  the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.

Luke 7:22  And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.

The blind, the lame, the lepers, the deaf, and the dead all have their problems solved.  But what do the poor get?  Some good news?  You might expect the poor to get some money, free shelter, free food, etc.  But some preaching?  Come on, that just seems unfair.

Charles Spurgeon preached, “Almost every impostor who has come into the world has aimed principally at the rich, and the mighty, and the respectable; very few impostors have found it to be worth their while to make it prominent in their preaching that they preach to the poor.”1 It is because the good news is heralded to the poor and not the rich that the good news can be paralleled with the other miracles in Luke 7.22.  The allusion is to Isaiah 61.1.  If we read the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament, we can see a turn in the use of the verb euvaggeli,zw (to preach the gospel/good news) at Isaiah 61.

Before, whenever euvaggeli,zw is used, there is always a herald bearing the good news and an audience of it. In nearly all instances of its usage, honor is attributed to its audience outside of Second and Third Isaiah. . Yet, in most of its uses, euvaggeli,zw gives honor either to a ruler or to the people of a victorious military conquest by a herald.  Also, honor is attributed to a king who has a son, when the herald brings the good news.  Examples include: 2Sam. 4.10; 18.19-20, 26, 31; 1Kings 1.42; 1Chron. 10.9.

So in Isaiah 61, and in the two Gospel passages, the meaning is put on its head—the poor are esteemed as though they are kings.  The poor do not simply lack material things, but they are outcast and humiliated in society.  The heralding of good news, whatever the content of the message, says to the poor, “You are no longer an outcast, you have dignity and worth.”

While one may still wonder, and I do, why don’t they receive food or shelter or other things that they need, it is something curious about the Gospel that the poor’s place in society is raised, perhaps above the level of kings and rulers.  What is the Gospel?  I cannot answer so easily.  But what the Gospel does: at the very least, it raises the societal importance of the poor and the marginalized in society.  And while we may want to know what the Gospel does for ourselves, the challenge of these passages is that we may be heralds of the good news by recognizing the importance of the poor and the marginalized before God and in society.

 

1 “Preaching for the Poor,” http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0114.htm.

Debt and Gospel: Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB, 2.

Posted on by
1

Pt. 2 “The Contract”

Part two of the series we look at the ancient economy and contracts, keeping our eyes on Luke and Matthew’s critique of debt, which we looked at last time. Last time we left off by noting that the Greek word for forgiveness is actually a “release,” which is also used in contract language. The biblical tradition is full of contract language, especially covenant language, which is an ancient contract. So to release someone from an old contract and renegotiate a new one, is typically the model of forgiveness, both of debt and of sins.

In a paper, Gotsis discusses Oakman’s analysis of the Roman political economy:1

Oakman (1993) carefully observes that the ancient Roman economy was political in two aspects: first, it was based upon forced extraction of goods through taxation of agricultural resources in the provinces, and second, it encouraged a movement of good through commercial activities, in favor of the dominant elite or its delegates. This process resulted in an unequal distribution of property and riches which led to economic exploitation through control, hoarding and concentration of immense wealth by a small minority of the population.

Many complain today about the gap between the rich and the poor—rest assured it was worse then. One of the most recent studies (find one here) on ancient Rome concludes that at least 70% of the population of Roman cities had just enough or less than enough food on which to subsist. Famine was rampant, but this was due in large parts to the structure of the Roman economy, which was primarily focused on serving the city of Rome.

At the grass root’s level, many owned land early on, especially in Palestine. But as Roman power grew and Roman elites spread their hegemony through the empire, the people became indebted to them. They sold their land to pay off their debts and then worked on the land to make an income. When they owed so much, that they could not pay off their “contracted” debt, the elites would feed them and provide shelter in exchange for honor and loyalty. The Roman Empire spread through aggression, but it was consolidated with debt—paid with honor that ought not to be contested. Not all the Roman elites were Roman, but some like Herod were fairly local. And when the temple cult demanded continued animal sacrifices, temple taxes, and pilgrimages to Jerusalem, some prophets spoke out because many were not able to afford the necessary participation in the temple cult. One even traveled to Jerusalem and turned over the money tables in the temple. The narrative of the Gospel shows that Jesus countered such patrons of Rome, because the God of Israel had always demanded concern and moral behavior from the elites towards the poor and the marginalized.

Modern debt:

Here’s my laymen’s view of the anthropological structure of our problem. First, one of the underlying assumptions of the market is that people are rational maximizers—homo economicus. People will make rational decisions for themselves to avoid losses and maximize gains. But as political economists and economic anthropologists have pointed out this is not the case. In my opinion, it is better stated that the market rewards those who act in this way, but on the whole, people are not consistently rational, and the market punishes people when they are not rational. Now one can say it is one’s moral obligation to society to act in a rational way, but if we are going to police society on economic actions, it seems at least equally important to morally judge the actions of the best of the maximizers.

For example, when I was young I asked my little brother (many years ago) if he would exchange his dime for my nickle because he would be getting a ‘bigger’ coin, most people would say that I was dishonest. But as a maximizer, I could easily say, “No, he made a rational choice and entered into a contract with me.” While this is an extreme example, many factors go into a contract that are not always addressed in Free Market thinking, such as education or “infinite demand.” Like my brother, who at the time did not know the difference in value between a nickle and a dime, education in values, loan processes, and interest rates make much of the borrowing process unfair. And in a situation where the debtor has high demand or infinite demand for a product or service, they are unable to act as a so-called “rational” actor in the marketplace of lending. An example of infinite demand is something like the need for cancer treatment, which left untreated would be terminal. In a recent conversation with an agricultural economist, he said, the negotiation of prices through Free Market competition only happens when both sides are equal in education and societal power. Otherwise, there can be no equal exchange.

The major problem, which I think the biblical accounts address, is when the “haves” continue their dominion over a person, community, or society who “have not” through intentional debt expansion. This is where we will pick up next time. Please feel free to disagree (in the comments section), especially with my laymen’s analysis of the modern situation.

1Sorry, for quoting from a quotation. I don’t have all my sources with me while I am abroad, so I am stuck with papers from the internet.

Debt and Gospel: Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB

Posted on by
2

PART 1:

For the first in a several part series, it’s been suggested that I comment on debt forgiveness, especially in Matt. 18.21-35, and Elizabeth Warren/the CFPB. While I hope I’m an ‘expert’ on the biblical side, I am quite skeptical of the information I get regarding modern politics, making me much less of an ‘expert’ on the CFPB (need more original sources). Therefore, I will make an attempt at connecting biblical ideologies to a modern political one. A difficult jump indeed, but I make no apologies.

If you are interested in Debt, I recommend this book to you. I have not read it yet, but Graeber is fantastic, and I plan to read it when I get back stateside.

I can think of two places to start: the text or Greek semantics. I’ve pushed pretty hard on this blog, arguing that meaning is determined by context, so I should probably start with the text. But rather than starting with Matt. 18, I think the best place to start is a synoptic analysis of the Lord’s Prayer.

Matthew 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Luke 11:4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.

For those who know Luke’s focus on economic issues, it is interesting that Matthew references debts twice, while Luke parallels sin with debt. But a closer look at the language and Matt 18 shows that it is actually the opposite. In Matt 18, Jesus is exhorting the members of the faith communities to address conflicts in the community and forgive mistakes. This too is in Luke 17, but Matthew adds a parable about a master who forgives the debt of a servant. However, when that servant fails to forgive the debt of a fellow servant, the master becomes angry and puts him in jail until he pays all his debt.

Two things are clear from the Parable that appears only in Matthew. First, Matthew is clearly paralleling the forgiveness of debt with the forgiveness of sins, Jesus’ purpose according to Matthew (1.22). Second, debt forgiveness was a live issue in the ancient world. For us, it is hard to imagine getting a credit card statement that says, “all your debts have been paid and the balance is $0.00.” But in the ancient world, and particularly in ancient Judeanism, this was a possible, if not common, scenario. The fact that Matthew1 parallels sin and debt does not mean that Matthew thinks that debt forgiveness is bad, but on the contrary, it is a good Jewish practice, hence the year of Jubilee.

But the year of Jubilee is most prominent in Luke’s Gospel. Luke’s Gospel begins with 5 songs:

1.47-55 (Mary’s Song)

1.68-79 (Zechariah’s Song)

2.25-35 (Simeon’s Prophecy)

3.4-6 (John’s OT Announcement)

4.18-19 (Jesus’ programmatic statement)

Each of these has an economic element to it, but the final programmatic statement really is the thesis statement to Luke’s Gospel, where Jesus says:

Luke 4:18-19 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

The year of the Lord’s favor is the year of Jubilee. Think of the Parable of the Dishonest Manager as well (Luke 16.1-9), where the manager cuts the debt of the debtors and wins their favor. Likewise, in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, Matthew’s Jesus leaves out the exhortation “And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you?… lend, expecting nothing in return.” (Luke 6.34-35). This is at least a reference to interest collection, which was discouraged by the Torah (Ex. 22.25, Lev. 25.37, Dt.15.6-8). The practice is also condemned by Ezekiel (18.8-17), while it is permitted in Proverbs 28.8, but only for using the profits to help the poor. The point of all these examples is to show again, that Luke has economic concerns about debt, especially for the poor and marginalized.

Back to the Lord’ Prayer. Matthew can talk about debt forgiveness, because Matthew relates debt forgiveness to the forgiveness of sins. Matthew uses the form “forgive us as we have forgiven,” asking God’s forgiveness to be parallel to our forgiveness. Since God is typically not in the business of forgiving financial debt, this is most likely a direct reference to the forgiveness of sins. Hence, some modern versions of the prayer use “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” It is a realization that Matthew’s concern is for the forgiveness of sins.

On the other hand, Luke uses the form “Forgive us for we forgive,” a request predicated on previous behavior. The juxtaposition of “sins” and “debtors” suggest that neither one is a representation of the other, but each one is what is says. In other words, petition to God for the forgiveness of your own sins, based upon your previous and present debt-forgiving behavior. The practices of debt-forgiveness that make the parable in Matthew 18 so viable, are requirements in Luke for those who wish to follow Christ. Living in the Divine Dominion2 is nothing less than living with the economic concerns for the poor according to Luke.

The radical Judeanism of Jesus has been muted particularly because of its “spiritualized” use in Matthew. Moderns typically separate religion, economics, and politics in their mind because this is the Western way of analyzing different aspects of life. But this does not give us a full picture of reality, now or then, for the realms of religion, politics, and economics are intertwined in complex ways. Another problem is that there was no semantic separation with the Greek word for forgive. When one hears the word “forgive” today, one typically thinks of letting go of a wrong done to one’s self. But in Greek, the word is actually “release.” One is released from sins, debts, and contracts in all the same way. It is legal contract release language, used certainly in the economic sphere. Redemption too is an economic term used in the Christian dictionary. But using economic terms to describe ‘spiritual’ things does not necessarily mean their economic meanings do not apply. On the contrary, the so-called ‘spiritual’ meanings are predicated on necessity of understanding moral economic behavior.

I’ve probably been too hard on Matthew, as many biblical scholars note Matthew’s concern for the marginalized (as any story with Jesus ought to).  But I’ve really tried to hit home Luke’s attack at the debt system.  Next time more on the Roman debt system and the CFPB.

1No one knows the names of the authors of the Gospels, but we will use their given names out of convenience.

2“Kingdom of God”