Poverty, oppression and the Incarnation in the Kingdom of God

And the Word became flesh and lived among us 

John 1.14 NRSV

 The incarnation and Jesus’ teaching on the perils of wealth are two inseparable concepts. The narratives surrounding His birth (The Annunciation, The Visitation, and The Nativity) show that even before He became flesh, His mission was for the poor and the oppressed. By looking at the implications of God becoming man for society and what Jesus taught about the social equality of the Kingdom of God, we can see that the incarnation is ultimately linked to social justice.

The incarnation is the central and unique principle of Christianity;[1] God took our common nature to himself.[2] Without assuming human nature, the Son of God could not have lived and realised a truly human history.[3] A Jesus who is not truly divine implies a God who was unwilling to assume our condition, therefore not placing a high value on humanity.[4]

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
John 3:16 NRSV
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. 
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly; 
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty. 
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free, 
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’ 
‘Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God. 
Blessed are you who are hungry now,
for you will be filled.

By the Word becoming flesh, the brotherhood of all men became a reality for humankind.[5] By the incarnation, the Son of God claims the Kingdom for God over the whole of human life; this goes beyond transforming conditions, but to transforming the whole meaning of all life.[6] It is the manifestation of divine goodness in the flesh, in Jesus as Son of God first, then through the Holy Spirit in members of his mystical body.[7] It is the redemption of the physical body, therefore also of the social relations of the life lived in the body, and of the whole social, economic and political structure.[8] In Christ all men become brothers.[9] The unity of the whole human race was proclaimed. Every human being was declared to be an infinitely sacred and precious thing, with transcendent rights to the fullest development.[10] The separation of the sacred and secular was broken down. The will of God comes to us through our relationships with common humanity which God has taken on himself. It is impossible for those who don’t love those they have seen to love God which they haven’t seen; it is impossible because of the incarnation.[11]

We can see the importance of the socialist message of the incarnation by looking at the texts that deal with Jesus before His earthly ministry. In the Gospel of Luke, where hear that God is to become flesh at the Annunciation, when Gabriel says to Mary: 

And now,

you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,

and you will name him Jesus. 

He will be great,

and will be called the Son of the Most High,

and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 

He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever,

and of his kingdom there will be no end.’

Luke 1:31-33 NRSV

 This is the news of the incarnation; God in midst of Gods people. While it may not have any socialist message, it is interesting to note that the annunciation takes place to a young woman in a house, not to a person of power in an important place.[12]

Mary then goes to visit Elizabeth at her home to serve her. (Luke 1:39-56) Like the previous annunciation, this idea of home reinforces the idea of commonality.[13] In the Magnificat, the socialist ideal is strong and irrefutable. Mary thanks God for what is about to occur with the incarnation:

He has shown strength with his arm;

Luke 1:51-53 NRSV

The Magnificat has been called a 'Christian Manifesto,' Stuart Headlam called it “the hymn of the universal social revolution" and the “Marseillaise of humanity."[14] In it, we hear God's new deal for the poor and oppressed, His special concern for the poor.[15] It tells us that we must embrace all humanity; the social doctrine of the church should begin at “he has bought down”.[16] The Magnificat shows us that God himself takes up the cause of the poor. We are to be on their side; to struggle against exploitation and oppression.[17] It calls for an end to dictatorship, or of money being a master. Most of all, it expects solidarity to the poor.[18] “A Pope has declared that the Blessed Virgin is the great foe of Socialism. If the Magnificat be her song, it would be far more reasonable to call her the Mother of it."[19]

The Nativity also belies the socialist nature of the incarnation. Jesus was born in a stable, not a palace or temple:

And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth,

and laid him in a manger,

because there was no place for them in the inn.

Luke 2:7 NRSV

The first people to be informed of His birth were shepherds; common working men, not religious or political rulers. (Luke 2:8-20) Jesus could have been class He chose; the Jews expected the Messiah to appear as a great Prince.[20]  Judaism had invented its own ideologies concerning the saviour. Jesus’ life and teaching was a radical challenge against this. [21]

Within Jesus’ teaching, there is constant criticism of materialism.[22] He was not a social reformer who produced a “socio- economic blueprint for society”.[23] His incarnation is concerned with the whole of life.[24] In our competitive capitalist culture indifferent and selfish masters promote limitless economic growth, and oppress the men who work within it.[25] Mechanisation has either robbed labour of its dignity or has made many people surplus to requirements. But a worker is more than a worker; he is an individual and a citizen. [26] His ultimate value is not merely his value to himself or to society; it is his value to God. Everyone is a soul that God created as act of his love, and every human being is unique and irreplaceable, because they are a child of God.[27]

The first public speech of Jesus proclaimed a social revolution,[28]

‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

Luke 4:18-19 NRSV

He announces the dawn of a new era. This is echoed later in the Beatitudes, where money is a central issue:

Then he looked up at his disciples and said:

Luke 6:20-21 NRSV

The Kingdom will belong to the poor, the hungry, and the sorrowful and the persecuted, while the comfortable, well-fed and successful are the targets of the mirror image woes. [29] The rich are then condemned for their indifference to the sufferings of the poor and their profiteering.

Give to everyone who begs from you;

and if anyone takes away your goods,

do not ask for them again.

Luke 6:30 NRSV

If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive,

what credit is that to you?

Even sinners lend to sinners,

to receive as much again.

Luke 6:34 NRSV

The highest expression of love is free surrender of what is truly ours; our life, property, and rights. A lower level is the surrender of any opportunity to exploit others. [30] This is not a condemnation of wealth, it is more that the pursuit of wealth will numb all sense of spiritual reality,[31] creating “a permanent barrier to complete surrender to God's will and the demands of the Kingdom” [32] The pursuit of wealth breeds arrogance, self satisfaction, smugness and indifference to others’ needs. [33] Jesus wanted to put material matters into perspective, to encourage his followers to trust God, to store up their treasures in heaven, not on earth.[34] The service of God is incompatible with mammon.[35] The pursuit of wealth is seen as an obstacle of entry into the Kingdom of God.[36]

 The Kingdom of God was central to Jesus’ mission. He expresses the idea over 100 times in the Gospels. [37] The Kingdom is “spiritual and historical, eternal and temporal, outward and inward, visible and invisible, both a system and an energy”. It is not constrained by the conditions of present existence, but is manifest under them.[38] It is not of this world, but very much in it. [39] The Kingdom of God is not confined to church; it embraces the whole of human life[40]. It is humanity organised to the will of God.[41] The event of the incarnation tells us what the will of God is, and is told to us through the infancy narratives: to help the poor and oppressed. By God becoming man, He was showing us His love and the value He places on humankind, and making the brotherhood of all men a true reality. Jesus’ teaching throughout His earthly ministry is consistent with the ideals stated before His birth, and reinforced those ideals of social justice and equality.

Bibliography 

 Coste, Rene; The Magnificat (1988) Claretian Publications: Quezon City 

Dearmer, Percy;  Socialism and Christianity (1907) The Fabian Society:London  www.anglocatholicsocialism.co.uk

Dowell, Graham;  The Magnificat. A Christian Manifesto?

www.anglocatholicsocialism.co.uk 

Gebara, Ivone; and Maria Clara Bingemer; Mary, Mother of God, Mother of the Poor (1989) Orbis: New York

Gore, Charles; The Incarnation of the Son of God (1898) John Murray: London 

Griffiths, Brian;  Morality and the Marketplace (1982) Hodder and Stoughton: London 

A.G. Herbert; Liturgy and Society (1956) Faber and Faber: London 

O’Collins, Gerald; Incarnation (2002)Continuum: London 

Orens, John R;  “Dancing the Magnificat” www.anglocatholicsocialism.co.uk 

Ramsey; A.M.; From Gore to Temple (1960) Longmans: London. 

Rauschenbusch, Walter; A Theology for the Social Gospel (1978) Abingdon: Nashville 

Temple, William;  Essays in Christian Politics and Kindred Subjects (1927) Longmans, Green and Co: London 

Walker, W.L.; The Spirit of the Incarnation (1907)  T&T Clark: London 

Westcott, B.F.; Social Aspects of Christianity (1888) MacMillan & Co: London 

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants

Here is another essay that has been causing me grief.

Jesus teaching with Parables consists of using the unknown with known, the strange with familiar.[1] The parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is unique among the parables of Jesus due to it essentially being an allegory. Here the vineyard is Israel, the landowner is God, the slaves are the prophets, the tenants are the religious leaders of the time, and the son is Jesus Christ. But this is really only half the story. It is the way that this allegory is used within a realistic context that makes it so powerful.

In Isaiah 5:7 the House of  Israel is represented as a vineyard. This use of Isaiah  shows the reference  to the vineyard and the owner are not to be understood as “earthly”, but representations of Israel and God.[2] All three synoptists use this allegory. Matthew and Mark add imagery from Isaiah 5:1-2: the setting of a hedge, the digging of a winepress, and the building of a tower. Luke omits this clear allusion to Isaiah, but his readers would still have understood the general reference of the vineyard.[3] The planting and care of a vineyard are signs of a prudent householder.[4]

At this time in Palestine and Galilee, many landowners were absentees.[5] This gives the parable a sense of reality, as there was unrest due to landlords living elsewhere[6] Luke adds to this “for a long time,” to emphasize the amount of responsibilty given to the tenants, to state they were trusted.[7] It is the owner’s absence rather than his departure that is illustrated in the parable. The God of Israel is being represented as an absentee landlord. [8] The absence represents the distance between God and the religious leaders of the time, due to their own withdrawal.[9] His absence is in actuality theirs. He had not forgotten them; he will send his slaves, and his only son.[10]

In Mark and Luke, the slaves are sent “in season”.  Due to the winepress being mentioned, this would be the time of winemaking, not the actual harvest as is stated in Matthew.[11] Either way the slaves are sent at appropriate times in history of salvation.[12] The sending of slaves refers to the sending of prophets.[13] The slaves are arranged and treated differently in each version. In Matthew, the slaves are sent in two groups; this may represent the former and latter prophets.[14] In Mark they are sent as individuals to portray the distinctive message of each prophet.[15] In Luke a single slave is sent each time, the violence each time escalating, climaxing in the killing of son.[16] Whether the next messengers are sent in the same season or the next is not stated, but the central point is that the trouble does not start straight away. Not only are the husbandmen given several opportunities to pay their rent, the message to do so is delivered in differing ways by different people.[17]

By using the same nomenclature as was used at both Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration, “beloved son” alludes to a christological interest.[18] The sending of the son is not only theological; it follows the logic of the story.[19] The owner expects his son will be well received. The arrival of son allows the tenants to think the owner has died.[20] Earlier it had been just slaves who had been sent who had no personal interest in estate. The one and only son is sharply contrasted with many slaves.

This is stated elsewhere in the New Testament:[21]

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things.

Hebrews 1:1-2 (NRSV)

The owner represents God by showing mercy and being long suffering.[22] By pursuing the contractual arrangements to end, he shows Gods fidelity.[23]

In Matthew and Luke, the son is thrown outside, and then killed.[24] This is similar to the Passion story in Matthew, where Jesus is crucified outside the city.[25] This analogy is awkward, as the vineyard represents Israel, not Jerusalem.[26] In Mark, the body cast out unburied as a final insult.[27]

 

To understand parable it is essential that the owner is living away. By removing the sole heir, the tenants can take unhindered possession. The law states that under specific circumstances an inheritance may be regarded as ownerless property, which may be claimed by any one, with the proviso that the priority right belongs to the claimant who comes first. [28]

At this point in the parable, Jesus uses a quote from Psalm 118.  Jesus’ view of the Old Testament was very spiritual, he felt it transcended his own age. He would have seen in Psalm 118 not a direct reference to himself, but only “the statement of a principle applicable to himself.” [29]

Psalm 118 was one of the primitive church’s proof texts for the resurrection and exaltation of rejection of Christ.[30] The whole of psalm 118 is a vindication of Gods purpose. This final week of Jesus’ earthly ministry is to be seen in the light of Gods victory snatched from defeat, God’s selection of his own people, and the new Kingdom of God, in gathering of the elect into Father.

The cornerstone referred to is the head of the corner, the stone used in buildings corner to bear stress and weight of the two walls; it is crucial to whole structure. It is this elevation of rejected stone into its predestined place at the head of the corner in which the Psalmist see the hand of God.[31] 

This rejected stone will become a stumbling block, as stated in Isaiah:

He will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against; for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one stumbles over—a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.

Isaiah  8:14-15 NRSV

The stone of offence is God, a refuge and sanctuary to those who trust in Him, a snare to the faithless. This speaks of the refusal of Israel’s leaders to put their trust and confidence in God’s will.[32]

A chief cornerstone would not be likely to trip or fall on a person.[33] Christ will be a stumbling block for some, and they will suffer heavily for their shortsightedness.

In between the quote from Psalm 118, and the clear reference to Isaiah 8:14-15, Matthew adds the following:

Therefore I tell you,

the kingdom of God

will be taken away from you

and given to a people

that produces the fruits of the kingdom. 

Matthew 21:43 NRSV

In Matthew alone is the Vineyard referred to as the kingdom of God. [34] The kingdom is not only of future, the vineyard is underdeveloped, because it has been in possession of those who were unworthy. Vineyard in wrong hands will not bear fruit. No nation or people will have a permanent right to the vineyard.

Because the rulers will kill the Messiah, the vineyard, the Kingdom of God will be taken from them. It will be given to others.[35] The vineyard should be given to all, not one nation. [36] The “Israel of future” will be advanced to honour by the death of the only son. A judgement on Israel’s rulers is a conclusion that is impossible to resist, and also reflects tensions between Jew and Gentile.[37] Owner will come to sort it out.[38]

While the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen may be a very lofty allegory, it is its realism that makes it so tangible. It is a resemblance to a social reality. First, it has a strong resemblance to social reality. The fact that there was unrest in Palestine and Galilee due to landlords living elsewhere,[39] starts the parable off in a realist way. Another element Jesus audience would have understood was that the “payment in kind” which the tenants were to pay the landowner had led to many disputes with dishonest tenants who had leases.[40] None of this is really unusual for Jesus’ teaching; he was always vindicating the poor, the despised and alienated.  Here the tenants have opposed and rebelled against God. The rulers will be dispossessed. They will not only lose the blessing offered, but what they reject will actually cause their overthrow.

Bibliography

Albright, W.F.; Matthew (1986) Doubleday: New York

Allen, Willoughby C.; A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (19??) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark

Creed, J.M.; The Gospel according to St. Luke (1930) MacMillan: London

Dodd, C.H.; The Parables of the Kingdom (1961) Fontana: London

Dormanday, Richard; “Hebrews 1:1-2 and the parable of the wicked husbandmen” in The Expository Times (Vol 100. No. 10; July 1989) pp. 371-375

Fitzmyer, Joseph A.; Luke (1985) Doubleday: New York

Gould, Ezra P.; A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (1921) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark

Inge, W.R.; The Gate of Life (1935) Longmans, Green and Co: London

Jeremias, Joachim; The Parables of Jesus (1963) SCM Press: London

McNeile, Alan Hugh; The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1957) MacMillan: London

Mann, C.S.; Mark (1986) Doubleday: New York

Oesterley, W.O.E.; The Gospel Parables in the Light of their Jewish Background (1936) SPCK: London

Plummer, Alfred; A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke (19??) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark

Swete, Henry Barclay; The Parables of the Kingdom (1920) MacMillan: London

Swete, Henry Barclay; The Gospel according to St. Mark (1909) MacMillan: London