Like many, I have grown tired of hearing overzealous Christian apologists and fundamentalists claim that they “follow Jesus” or are “followers of Jesus.” Why?
- Because (1) as a biblical scholar (PhD in New Testament & Early Christianity), I actually know what such claims meant to Jesus and his real 1st-2nd century followers, based on both textual and cultural evidence.
- And (2) as an ancient historian, I am also aware of the radical and glaring differences between our 21st century socioeconomic worldview, values, feigned religious beliefs, ethics, judicial ideas, and views of the Self and the world, and those of Jesus’ own time period, which, in point of fact, he and his followers sought to overturn (see forthcoming)—differences, in other words, that make it impossible to follow Jesus in the 21st century, and would have made it extremely difficult to have done so in the 1st & 2nd centuries.
- And (3) because I’m tired of people glibly using soundbites and catchphrases to justify and promote their own agendas and beliefs with no accountability, especially when this irresponsibleness misrepresents and defames the biblical texts, or Jesus himself and what he stood for, at least according to the extant traditions about him.
So I ask anew: What does it actually mean to “follow Jesus”? What does Jesus himself, or the extant traditions about him, say about this matter? Do Christian apologists even know? And more importantly, are they being honest to Jesus?
This essay and those forthcoming, broken down into 8 different topics or posts—
Following Jesus means abandoning (1) a socioeconomic lifestyle & value system, (2) worldly matters, (3) oneself or one’s Self, (4) our judicial ideas and conventions, and (5) modern notions of family values. (6) What following Jesus means in terms of religion and ethics. (7) Following Jesus is a counter-cultural movement. (8) Following Jesus means waiting . . . or having an overzealous eschatological outlook
—will textually demonstrate that such claims are not only untenable, but hypocritical and disingenuous at the very least. But don’t take my word for it—take Jesus’ words!
Part 1: Following Jesus Means Abandoning a Socioeconomic Lifestyle & Value System
Some of the first words Jesus speaks in the gospels to his disciples are “Follow me!” (Mk 1:16, 2:14; Matt 4:19, 8:22, 9:9; Lk 5:11, 5:27, 9:59-62; Jn 1:43).
At heart these words express an imminent socioeconomic imperative: immediately stop what you’re doing, leave your job, your livelihood, and even your family, and “follow me!” And indeed, this is what the disciples are depicted doing in every account—immediately leaving behind jobs, possessions, social status, family, and even social and familial obligations.
Luke is more emphatic in representing this as a complete abandonment through his additions of the word panta (“all,” “everything”) to the textual tradition.
He rose up and followed him (Mk 2:14; Matt 9:9).
He forsook everything, rose up, and followed him (Lk 5:28).
On a larger note, Luke’s emphasis on abandoning everything to follow Jesus goes hand-and-hand with his Jesus’ emphasis on the fact that those on the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder—the poor, the hungry, the despised, the socially exploited and outcast, i.e., “the last”—will inherit the kingdom. Indeed, these individuals become “the first” in the redefined value system that Jesus is advocating, contrary to that of the current socioeconomic worldview. (Discussed in more detail below.)
In any case, these “Follow me!” passages express an immediate urgency. Indeed, several of these “Follow me!” imperatives anticipate objections, that is requests to delay following Jesus in order to fulfill prior or immediate social and/or familial obligations, by relaying the point that this too is not permissible (Matt 8:22; Lk 9:59-62). The message is clear: Following Jesus means to immediately “forsake all” and “leave everything behind.”
Analogously, in modern terms it is to, without any preparation, without any hesitation, without any insurance policy—this is what ‘having faith’ truly means in these ancient texts—abandon one’s job, bank account(s), future plans, social stability and status, familial and social obligations, entitlements, etc. It is at heart a call to leave behind the socioeconomic trappings of the world. More specifically, it is a calling to abandon the value system created by our, or any, socioeconomic worldview!And there are historical reasons why this message arose in the Judaism of the 1st century.
First century Judaism, its beliefs and messages, including those of Jesus and the early Jesus movement, was shaped by the socioeconomic injustices, exploitation, and heavy taxation brought under the Roman empire, which created stark class inequalities between wealthy Jewish landowners and the aristocracy on the one hand and the people on the other. Jesus’ teachings and message were shaped by this socioeconomic background and, as we shall see, sought to counter it by delivering a completely opposite message.
As a counter-cultural movement one of the things that the early church engaged in, reflected in Jesus’ own teachings, was the reassessment of value, particularly as it was defined by the socioeconomic world in which they found themselves living. For Jesus and his real followers what is of value was no longer to be defined by this socioeconomic worldview. Indeed, the very concept of value, social status, success, individual worth, and other socioeconomic markers such as ownership, material possessions, money, and financial security were all challenged and ultimately overturned in Jesus’ message.
In other words, Jesus’ sayings were designed to overturn and reject value as defined by the exploitative and self-serving socioeconomic worldview of his day.
1. Treasures on earth
2. Material possessions & earthly inheritances
3. Money = Security
4. Trust/Faith in Money
5. Social status & being first = success
1. “Treasures in Heaven”
2. “Selling what you have” & heavenly inheritance
3. God = Security
4. Trust/Faith in God
5. “Being last” in socioeconomic terms is being first
Money is the king of any socioeconomic system and how it defines value—the more you have the more value you have! Thus, the goal in any socioeconomic system is increased wealth, increased material possessions, increased financial independence, which ultimately translates to increased privileges, social status, and security. But these socioeconomic markers and the value system they inherently endorse are exactly what Jesus questions. Following Jesus means abandoning a life driven by this value system. Let’s look at some specific examples.
1. “Do not store up treasures for yourself on earth.” (Mat 6:19; Lk 12:21, 33)
In the original Greek, the verb and the direct object of this sentence are the same word. Me thesaurizetehumin thesaurosepi tes ges. The verb thesaurizomeans “to store-up,” or “save” in the modern sense, and the noun thesaurosmeans “store” or that which is stored, usually understood as goods or money. So literally this says: “Do not store-up stores [of goods/money] for yourself on earth.” Or, in a modern sense: Do not save anything on earth!
The saying, in other words, fundamentally challenges, and even rejects, how value is defined in a socioeconomic worldview, claiming that what is normally understood as valuable, and good, for living a successful and secure life—saving money and goods that can be exchanged for money—are of no value in the worldview preached by Jesus. In fact, Luke’s Jesus goes on to claim that monetary security and the value associated with it are not only no longer of value in this new world order, but are to be completely abandoned (see below). One must “forsake everythingand follow Jesus.”
Unlike Matthew where this saying is a self-contained unit (Matt 6:19-21), Luke embeds this saying around two stories, at the end of which this saying serves as a double conclusion (vv. 21 & 33). He intends, in other words, that his readers understand this saying in this newly created context. There are several salient points to note.
- Luke 12:15b-34 can be divided into two sections: the parable of the rich man which exemplifies what happens when one stores-up goods & money on earth, concluding in the first occurrence of the saying (v. 21), and the opposite message—Jesus’ imperative to not only NOT store up goods/money but don’t even seek to store up food and clothing! (Yes! This is how radically inconceivable Jesus’ message is for us who can’t even conceptualize life in non-socioeconomic terms.) This section also ends with the second occurrence of the saying (v. 33). Let’s look at this in more detail.
- “For one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (Lk 12:15). The key word in this axiom that sets the stage for the parable of the rich man is “life.” The rich man in the parable, he who has stored up wealth and possessions, feels that his life/soul is secure and at ease. And indeed, saved up money and material possessions do provide security in a life defined in socioeconomic terms, as we are all well aware of. But this is precisely what Jesus is challenging and overturning by presenting this so-called “secure” soul as having no security at all in relation to the kingdom of God. The parable concludes by arguing that on the contrary such an individual has not procured for himself any security vis-à-vis his life/soul. True security is to be sought in one’s trust in God. In other words, the passage challenges and overturns how one’s life and the security of that life are assessed in relationship to socioeconomic markers—bank accounts, ownership, material possessions, and social stability.
- Luke 12:22-34 is also a direct challenge to this socioeconomic assessment of life. “Do not worry about your life . . . nor your body. . . Life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. . . Do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink” Contrary to the rich man whose life is secure in the abundance of his material possessions, including food and clothing, Jesus claims just the opposite: that one should not even seek to store up food and clothing, but rather seek the kingdom of God and nothing else and then you shall have ‘treasures’ and security in heaven. It is the pinnacle example of trusting in God, or in the context of the rich man parable, trusting not in one’s stored-up goods & money for security. The message here is that life and the security of one’s life (i.e., one’s soul (v. 19)) are no longer to be understood in socioeconomic terms, but are now to be defined vis-à-vis the kingdom of God. And it is taken to an extreme counter-socioeconomic message: don’t even concern yourself with storing up food or clothing for tomorrow!
- Finally, Jesus’ message ends by instructing his followers to “Sell your possessions/property,” thus providing for yourselves “treasures in heaven.” Following from the immediate context, Jesus’ followers are not only to sell their possessions, but not even seek out food and clothing. Rather trust in God for these provisions. The message should be unsettling and horrifying for anyone leaving in the socioeconomic world of the 21stcentury!
2. “Sell as much as you have . . . and come follow me!”
All of the gospels’ “Sell as much as you have . . . and come follow me” stories (Mk 10:17-25; Matt 19:16-24; Lk 18:18-30) express the same message: that being morally irreproachable with respect to the Torah no longer gets you into the kingdom of God (contra other 1st century forms of Judaism). Jesus’ message adds a new requirement: abandon the socioeconomic constructs that shape one’s life, thoughts, and value system. That is, in all 3 accounts the rich man is presented as fulfilling the requirements of the Torah, at least as it was reevaluated in the Judaism of the 1st century—i.e., with a focus on the 10 Commandments. In any case, we are to understand that the rich man is morally irreproachable and that his obedience to the Torah (again loosely conceived) fulfills the requirements to enter God’s kingdom. Jesus, however, adds to this purely ethic requirement another requirement, and it’s a socioeconomic one. Let’s look at Jesus’ specific response in all three accounts.
- Mark 10:21: “[There is] one thing you lack [hustereo]: Go! Sell as much as [hosa] you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasures in heaven and come follow me!”
- The verb hustereo expresses that besides the ethic requirements that the rich man has fulfilled, there is still one requirement lacking—selling all you have and distributing it among the poor.
- Additionally, there is a reciprocal relationship between one’s earthly savings in goods & money (thesauros) and heavenly ‘treasure.’ The sentence is constructed as a cause-effect imperative: Go now; sell all you have and then you will have treasures in heaven. This is the same message as #1 above. Secondly, although this “treasure” is not defined, we are to understand Jesus’ response in the context of the rich man’s initial query: How to enter the kingdom of God.
- Luke 18:22: “There still remains [leipo] one thing for you (to do): Sell as much as you have, everything [panta], and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasures in heaven and come follow me!” Luke adds some minor modifications:
- “One thing remains (to do)” seems to express greater urgency: ‘Remains to do’ nowin order to “inherit eternal life.”
- The addition of the word panta (see the treatment above also: Lk 5:11, 28) seems to over-stress the case: “allthat you possess!” This goes along with Luke’s earlier commentary: “They abandoned everything”; “He forsook everything and followed Jesus.” Again, the message is to abandon and turn away from a socioeconomic lifestyle by selling allyour possesses, leaving behind your job and social status and by following Jesus, and then you will have treasures in heaven.
- Matthew 19:21: “If you want to be perfect/complete [teleios], Go! Sell your possessions and give them to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven and come follow me!”
- From “lacking” to “being teleios [complete/perfect].” Matthew’s modifications to the Markan tradition are most interesting; but they nevertheless go hand-and-hand with Matthew’s larger emphasis that righteousness is the sole requirement to inherit eternal life: “Unless your righteousness excels beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven!” (See my Matthew’s Jesus and the Criterion of Righteousness). Again, the rich man is presented as fulfilling the Torah requirements forinheriting eternal life. But unlike Mark and Luke who both add a purely socioeconomic requirement, Matthew conceives of this act, the selling of one’s possessions, in ethicalterms, the goal of which is to excel beyondthe righteousness demanded in the Torah! Thus, Matthew rewrites the tradition in order to present the selling of one’s possessions as an added moral requirement—one that excels in righteousness vis-à-vis the Torah’s moral stipulations. Thus teleios is a loaded ethical term denoting an added ethical requirement in order to inherit eternal life!
In all of these passages, “selling all one’s possessions” is not only presented as an additional requirement to obeying the Torah (again, loosely conceived) in order to enter the kingdom of God, but it is also seen as the prerequisite for following Jesus. Again, and particularly for Luke, the gospel was a message directed to the poor (Lk 4:18; 6:20; 7:22). There are several reasons why this was the case, but pertaining to our socioeconomic focus, its purpose was to present an opposing value system to that of the current socioeconomic worldview. That is, it was no longer the wealthy, the “first” on the socioeconomic hierarchy, the landowners, aristocrats, and merchants who were of highest value, but those who were deemed the lowest on the socioeconomic ladder. And if you were of the wealthy class, the socially privileged, the message was to abandon this worldview. “Go! Sell all you have and come follow me!”
Secondly, we might briefly note that as early as the 8thcentury book of Amos, Judaism, and especially the prophetic tradition, sought to develop a clearly defined tradition that viewed the wealthy as unjust and unrighteous, since their wealth feed on the lower classes. Conversely, this tradition has viewed the poor, outcast, socially exploited as righteous, and Yahweh as protector—indeed savior—of these righteous poor. One could argue that this tradition extends into Luke in particular, and is re-expressed in the gospels in general through Jesus’ insistence that “the last” in such as socioeconomic structure will be the first in God’s kingdom (see #5 below).
3 & 4. “You cannot serve God and money/wealth [mamona]!”
This saying, found in both Matthew and Luke (Matt 6:21; Lk 16:13), means exactly what it says, and is yet another requirement for following Jesus that demands one to denounce and abandon a life conceived, built, and valued upon socioeconomic principles.
- The verb “to serve” here is the typical Greek verb expressing enslavement: doulein. As such it expresses complete submission and enslavement to, and implicitly, the notion of loyalty and vassal-ship. Like our previous textual examples, this saying also advocates that the follower abandon any fidelity to money, wealth, or possessions—all understood in the word mamona. It conveys the stark opposition between earthly wealth and heavenly ‘wealth’ that Jesus’ sayings have been expressing all along. Moreover, it emphatically says, one cannotserve both God and money; rather, one must choose. The point that this essay has sought to convey is that if you’ve been born into our global socioeconomic way of life where we inherently measure and value our life, future plans, stability, success, social status, etc. in terms of money, wealth, or possessions then that choice has already been made for us! We have chosen mamona! We inherently define success, progress, and advancement, and social hierarchies—for us and our children—in monetary and socioeconomic terms. Want to really follow Jesus? “Forsake all”; “Sell your possessions and distribute your wealth to the poor,” and chose to serve God as defined by these sayings (see the treatment of Lk 12:22-34 above)! But no so-called modern follower of Jesus is doing this because we have been inherently conditioned to associate our life’s success, stability, and future in socioeconomic terms. And as long as that is viable, we have chosen mamona!
- Matthew embeds this saying in between the imperative not to store up money & possessions on earth (Matt 6:19-21; see Lk 12:15-33 above) and the pericope on trusting God and not seeking earthly concerns (Matt 6:25-34 = Lk 12:22-34). Again, looking at this broader context its central message becomes clear:
- “Do not save money & possessions (thesauros) on earth!”(Matt 6:19)
- “No one can serve two masters . . . You cannot serve God and money!”(Matt 6:24)
- “Look at the birds of the sky; they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns”—so much more so should you NOT! (Matt 6:26-32)
- Conclusion:”Seek the kingdom of God!” (Matt 6:33). But in order to accomplish this one has to abandon the security, social prestige and status, and ideas of success and advancement associated with our socioeconomic worldview. This is the stark reality behind Jesus’ sayings, which most modern Christians do not want to acknowledge! Rather they seek a Jesus who will confirm their own beliefs and worldly pursuits rather than truly grappling with Jesus’ sayings and meeting them on his terms!
- Again, the message is one that challenges and ultimately attempts to overturn how value is defined in a socioeconomic worldview. The way one “stores up treasures” in heaven is reciprocally related to ridding oneself of “value” stored up on earth. “Forsake everythingand follow me!”
5. “Those who are first will be last, and the last first!”(Mk 10:31)
In its immediate context, Jesus’ saying is in response to Peter’s claim that “we have forsaken everything and followed you” (Mk 10:28). And in the broader context (Mk 10:21-31), “everything” follows from the previous story of the rich man who Jesus just told to “Go sell as much as you have and give to the poor. . .”Peter remarks that similar to this man who is ordered to go sell all his possessions in order to have an inheritance in heaven, he too has left behind “everything.” The message once again is clear: one mustleave behind “everything,” understood as material possessions, money, jobs, stability, family, home, and even land or earthly inheritance—all things deemed as valuable and necessary in socioeconomic terms—to follow Jesus. But it is precisely this way of defining value that is challenged and tossed on its head: “the last will become the first.” In socioeconomic terms, Jesus’ followers are “the last.”
We should stop and grapple with what is meant here and in all of Jesus’ anti- or counter-socioeconomic sayings, which in point of fact is the sole purpose of this essay. All of us who are born into this vibrant 21st century socioeconomic world define our lives, what it means to succeed and be successful, our present and future stability and welfare, in socioeconomic terms. We have all been pre-conditioned to assess and value our, our children’s, and our neighbor’s lives in terms of success, stability, and advancement as defined by the socioeconomic paradigm we live under. Jesus’ injunctions are all directed at overthrowing that value system. Those at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy, “the first,” are in effect really the last in regards to entering the kingdom of God, and those valued least of all in this socioeconomic worldview will be the first. All I’m asking for is some honesty, to both ourselves and Jesus—nobody follows this, nor is potentially able to, in our modern thoroughly entrenched socioeconomic worldview.
- This saying also appears in Mark 9:35, and explicitly links the idea of “the last” with being “a servant.”In the socioeconomic hierarchy of the ancient world, the landless slave or servant would have certainly been the least according to its value system. But this is exactly what Jesus requires of his true followers: that they become “worthless/valueless servants”(Lk 17:10). I will discuss this more when we look at how the Self is re-evaluated, but here it needs to be stressed that this too is an anti-socioeconomic restructuring of value. To be a servant is to be last among those in any socioeconomic structure, but it is to be first among those in heaven! The addition of the wordachreios, “worthless” or “valueless” is an added strike against the value system inherent in a socioeconomic world. We are commanded not to simply become servants, but servants that have zero worth or valuein the current socioeconomic system. These are the requirements for following Jesus!
There are numerous other sayings from Jesus which would only further support the conclusions reached here. But seeing how this essay has grown too lengthy already I will stop here.
Conclusion: So what does it mean to follow Jesus per Jesus’ own words?
In terms of the socioeconomic message, to be a follower of Jesus one needs to not save money or possessions; to sell what one does have and distribute that to the poor; to not define nor seek security of one’s life in monetary or social terms, as well as not to conceptualize life, a good life, as one that consists in the abundance of possessions.
In more radical terms, Jesus’ followers are to abandon any and all means of procuring a socio-economic livelihood, or more accurately conceiving of a livelihood in socio-economic terms. Matters of clothing, food, drink, shelter, etc. are not to be sought out. Indeed, desiring to be first and successful in terms of our socio-economic worldview is exactly the opposite of what it means to follow Jesus. In sum, value or life in general is redefined: life is no longer to be valued by the fruits provided by the socio-economic worldview (material possessions, money, social status, etc.)—everything that defines our world today. Indeed one is to become a “worthless or valueless servant”—that is become “last” in socioeconomic terms, to have no worth or value as defined in our socioeconomic world.
Modern Christian apologists must think that “following Jesus” is analogous to following someone on twitter—where the sole task is merely clicking a button and fastening a pin on their lapel. Surprisingly, this is not the case. And I might make a larger exhortation: our goal as modern readers of these ancient texts—all of us—is to set modern beliefs aside and to enter into the worldview and messages conveyed in these ancient text, to listen and acknowledge their messages and even competing beliefs to those of our own, and lastly to understand the world from which the Jesus movement emerged and Jesus’ reaction to that—not to hypocritically claim that we believe the same or are followers of Jesus, because we need to justify our own guilt and fragility in accepting a world where we are all servants of mammon. Being honest to these ancient texts, and here being honest to Jesus, means listening to his counter-cultural message, acknowledging it, and grappling with it, and attempting to historically understand it—not to feign allegiance to it, or unabashedly manipulate Jesus’ saying so that they conform to our own socioeconomic beliefs and lifestyle. That is to be disingenuous at the very least. Thus we honor Jesus by acknowledging the radical intent of his message and by also acknowledging that no one in our 21stcentury socioeconomic worldview follows Jesus.
In my forthcoming post, I will additionally argue that: Following Jesus means abandoning (2) worldly matters, (3) oneself or one’s Self, (4) our judicial ideas and conventions, and (5) modern notions of family values.
Thank you for another post Dr. DiMattei, I was looking forward to it.
By the way, great interview at the “The NonSequitur Show”! I found it by chance and it was a pleasure to see you in action.
Your version of ‘following’ is tantamount to perfection, which never existed in human form until Christ. Jesus didn’t want the perfect. In fact, he made it clear that he was after sinners who sought forgiveness in Him. (Luke 18:9) And that’s exactly why he came to the earth and died.
Thankfully, God is willing to meet his followers wherever they are — and to stay with them until we achieve perfection through Jesus. However long that takes is completely dependent on the individual.
(God is merciful!)
That said, we could all follow better ;)
Well said Dan.
What “god” are you talking about?
Is it Yahweh, the racist, genocidal, apartheid god of the Old Testament/Tanach?
This is very incomplete. Luke tells us that several wealthy women supported the ministry of Jesus. They didn’t sell all that they had and gave it to the poor. And Jesus does not condemn them.
Very incomplete? Did you read the post? Over 30 verses/passages are cited or referred to and many accompanied by in-depth analysis, paying attention to language and cultural/historical setting. Moreover, the examples above are all pulled from the gospels “follow me” passages and/or related passages. In other words, our query was to ask the texts how they define what “follow Jesus” means. Your example has no relevance to this query: it’s not presented in a context that deals with defining what following Jesus means. So you ignore the crucial passages and the central message that the texts are saying vis-a-vis defining what following Jesus means, and instead grab a spurious passage that has no relevance to the query at hand?
Context! LOL!
I agree. Dr. Steven DeMattei has exploited his version of interpretation as absolute in every way. Yes, it is impossible to follow Jesus by one person alone, any of us. That is the key to all he was saying. He also specifically refers to individuals in some passages, as examples for us to be sure. For example, the disciples left everything to follow him, even their boats. Should we leave our boats, or does it mean cars? Etc., etc…
Jesus was a patriotic, Zionist Jew, as is made clear in the Gospel of Matthew!
The Jesus of Christendom is a combination of Roman, Greek, Jewish characteristics.
It is no wonder that you capitalize the word “Self”. Have you considered the various churches and specific people as described by Paul the Apostle? I’m sure You have. They had jobs, for example. If I were to interpret denying oneself, as you misconstrue most things Biblical it seems, I (excuse the absolute) would not exist. I’d go on but it would require volumes to counter your elaborate scholarly arguments as if unusual to be educated and clueless.
What happened when Jesus spoke the words “I am” when the soldiers came to get him? They all fell down! Then He proceeded to name His own terms of surrender. My point it that reality is not something that you or I can see, touch, experience or understand without being in our spirit to know Jesus. If you think you are living in reality, you should do a little study of the spirit world. Those who don’t believe that the spirit world controls the physical world are naive, and sadly misinformed. Without understanding that, and that God is spirit, can’t understand Jesus, His teachings, His purpose or even see Him. You are right to say that it is impossible to live in this socioeconomic system and follow Jesus. He never wanted His disciples to follow Him completely, because even then it was beyond their capabilities. Still, He said to the Father that He had not lost any of those who He came for. Transformation and regeneration are processes that don’t happen overnight, nor are they visible in an instant. God waited for many to be powerless before He empowered them to do His will. He didn’t use those in power for His greatest works. Jesus taught of things that are not seen, and not understood by any of us. Even the apostles were blind to His teachings. Peter gets a great revelation, and then proceeds to totally misinterpret his vision of Moses and Elijah. He had no clue even after walking with Jesus. Jesus said “you search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is these that testify concerning me, yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life”. Jesus came to plant a seed, to give forth fruit, the church. He accomplished many things, but never expected any of them to follow Him completely, because they were not capable of doing so. If you look for Jesus in spirit when you read the scriptures, even the Torah, you will find Him, and you will find life. He is on every page. If you read with a critical eye that is based on the flesh, you will find only death.
“[He] never expected any of them to follow Him completely?” Really? Isn’t that the KEY takeaway if this essay. Of COURSE he did!
The best “sermon” speaking hard truth and coming from a humanistic biblical scholar. I’m impressed.
Excellent read ! And like most all of the teachings of Jesus, his ethical ones etc, this revolved around his core belief: the evil world was about to end and the new kingdom installed. This drove pretty much everything else he taught. No need for money or jobs if you think the known world is about to end very very soon. Great job Steven much enjoyed the read !
Are there additional parts to your article “In Defense of Jesus:
A Challenge To Those Claiming To ‘Follow Jesus’ (part I)?”
Thank you for your Biblical, while radical and insightful perspective about “Abandoning a Socioeconomic value” in 1968 when I wrote my first stewardship of life curriculum and advocated these first principles, you would have thought I was attacking the Virgin birth, Apostles or Nicene Creed. After 43 years (1963-2002, 2004, and 2005-2008 of directing strategic planning, annual stewardship of life campaigns, capital, and planned giving campaigns for over 400 churches, private religious schools, colleges and para-church ministries, directing over 4,000 campaigns representing millions of members living in over 29 states and netting over $400 million for beneficiaries. Over 43 years my clients or employers completed all but 2 campaigns. If we abandon the security, social prestige and status, and ideas of success and advancement associated with our socioeconomic worldview God’s people reform their world view, behavior, and values. PS I’m developing a new website after a ten year autoimmune disease which is now under control.
An excellent summary by Dr. DeMattei on Jesus’ call for his disciples to give away all their wealth and pursue virtue. My research is into the pre-biblical origins of concepts appearing in the Old and New Testaments. My conclusion is that Christianity is a Hellenized form of Judaism. It has assimilated certain Greek concepts that arose in the Hellenistic era, circa 332 BC to 100 AD, concepts traced back to various Greek schools of philosophy, one such is the Cynics, who taught man should live life like a dog (Dog= CYNIC in Greek, whence Canines). For the Cynics virtue was all important, chasing after wealth, social status, etc. was to be avoided. Sell all you possess, give it all to the poor, pursue virtue, to be acceptable to God. This is Jesus’ message, that is to say Jesus is a Cynic. Jesus teaches, turn the other cheek to your enemy, do not resist your enemy, your reward will be after death, after a resurrection of the dead. In the Old Testament, God says wealth is a sign of his approval, poverty is a sign of his disapproval. You are to attack your enemy, who will be overcome by you, if you are righteous in obeying God. The New Testament also portrays DEMONS as active in opposing Jesus and his disciples. In the Hellenistic period Daimons/Daemons were portrayed by the Greek Hermetic school of thought as enemies of man. This was in response to Plato who said it was wrong to blame the gods for evil in the world, the gods should be portrayed only as being good. So evil came to blamed on the Greek Daimons by Plato’s successors. The New Testament is written in Greek and was pitched to a Greek speaking audience, Greek was the lingua franca of Jesus day. The New Testament uses Greek concepts like the Logos (translated as “the Word” in English). The Old Testament is being refuted by the teachings of Jesus, based on Hellenistic Greek concepts from different Greek schools of Philosophy. The Hellenistic Greeks conquered the Persian Empire under Alexander the Great circa 332 BC, they ruled over Palestine till replaced by the Romans in 60 BC. The Greeks encouraged the Jews to adopt Greek ways, and even Jewish High Priests were amenable to adopting Greek religious beliefs. The Maccabees arose to purify their religion (restore belief in the Old Testament) of Greek inroads into religious beliefs and customs. Jesus’ followers claimed he was the Messiah, a claim he made himself. The Jews were right, he was not the Messiah. The Bible tells us who the Messiah is to be, Zerubbabel of the house of Judah, the Persian appointed governor of Judah circa 515 BC. The verses? Jeremiah tells us that after a 70 year captivity Babylon will be destroyed by her enemies and the nation will return to its land. They will rebuild the temple and a Messiah will reign again. Subtract 70 years from the Temple’s destruction circa 587 BC and we have a restored Temple circa 517 BC for Jeremiah. Haggai and Zechariah declare Zerubbabel will be the Messiah. The sign? God says that he who rebuilds his Temple will sit on the throne and rule and that person is to be Zerubbabel. He did complete the temple by 515 BC but he was never made the Messiah. God had failed to keep his word. By turning a blind eye to the prophecies of Jeremiah, Haggai and Zechariah, Judaism kept alive the notion that one day, in the future, the MESSIAH WOULD COME, after all Israel had repented of offending God. Jews, to this day await the Messiah and the Temple’s restoration.
Steven, I’ve been trying to express the same things to Christians for a very long time and they just want to ignore or argue “context”. They really are afraid to be inconvenienced by their faith unless they can do it in front of others and make a show of it. They even get money back by giving to charities so that is pretty much their reward. I’ve never known and Christian to do such things, not even I when I was so pious and spent many long hours a week in ministry, prayer, and studies.
I left this comment on Reddit. Would be really interested in seeing a response:
I’d like to explore this topic a bit further.
Some of Jesus’s followers were and even stayed rich and influential men, such as Joseph of Arimathea and Zacchaeus. Some of the disciples were apparently allowed to retain their possessions too. Peter – “who left everything to follow Jesus” – was allowed to keep his house (see Mark 1:29ff, the names are in the genitive indicating ownership). At John 21:3ff, Peter still has his boat and fishing tackle. He apparently didn’t sell everything.
At Luke 6:30, Jesus says: “Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.” He says this before a “large crowd of his disciples,” which again presupposes that many of them were allowed to retain their possessions.
My first question: Is it possible Jesus recognized a two-tier discipleship among his followers, with his closest followers expected to live in total poverty and those who were less committed to remain on the sidelines, giving aid (food, shelter etc.)? In other words, were his followers divided into true disciples and then mere hearers of the word who were not capable of following Jesus’ message in their daily lives?
My second question: At Mark 7:9-13, Jesus expects children to help their parents (“if they have something,” I’m assuming financially etc.). In his parables, Jesus casually referred to owning estates, buying vineyards, dividing inheritances etc. presupposing the existence of a society based on the ownership of private property. Why would he use this kind of language if he advocated renunciation of all material attachments as the cost of discipleship?
because the bible is books written by different people, and they all had their own agenda on what to have an imaginary character say.
Another question: will there be future installments on following Jesus? Or has the series been discontinued? Looking forward to reading more, if I can.
Fred, I’m going to go with the latter question. Appears it was a one and done. Shot in the dark so to speak and in the end it was not a position that could be substantiated. Your previous retort was on point sir.
Hey Steve,
]
I realize that this is not relevant to the above post but I would like to ask you: how is your work coming along? I am very much looking forward to your next book. I purchased the one on Genesis 1 and the creation debate. I assuming more books are in the works. I realize that there may be hardships and time constraints these days but I am hoping that there is more to come! Thanks!
Is this website “information” an attack on inerrancy or/and infallibility?
If you are not worshipping the Triune God at a local church, the Bible commands me to stay away from you.
How do your writings increase the faith of Christian believers? Please note I am not trusting in the Bible for my salvation.
This website is both an information website and an attack on biblical infallibility. It supports the Documentary Hypothesis but in a provocative fashion-by approaching it from the angle that the Bible is flawed and often contradicts itself. I don’t agree with ever cited instance of a contradiction but I do believe that there are a number of them, thus demonstrating that the Bible is not infallible. As to your question: why does the work of Dr. DiMattei have to increase the faith of Christian believers? That is not a stated desire of his website nor has he made this intent anywhere. I don’t worship any triune god and I am confident that neither DiMattei, John Kesler, and others have have visited here in the past and contribute to this website, do so either. If the Bible commands that you stay away from us, fine and well, don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Well, according to Christians IP “refuted” some of your contradictions on his channel.
and those Christians lie. they don’t mind lying at all even when their god says not to do it.
Thank God this site is online again!
I still remember when I found this website. At that time I was a Christian looking for a satisfactory answer why God would strictly and emphatically forbad eating boiled Passover but not long afterwards he was also demanding to eat it boiled (as if he didn’t really cared that much or as if the previous law never existed) only to make Moses write two contradictory laws about the same Eternal Law. Did Moses got confused? After finding the answers on this website, a whole new world has opened for me…
Hey this is good. I’m late to the party. But a lot of good stuff. Although I find it a little simple and narrow. I feel your analysis would benefit from a broad approach. The demands Jesus made on his inner circle and disciples was not a universal demand. He was not trying to get everyone he met to “follow” him. He was building a core of full time cadres to go into the world and teach others. The point wasn’t to have everyone in palestine literally following him around in a giant crowd. There are many passages in which Jesus does not invite people to drop everything and follow him. He tells people to go back home. He tells people to stay with their families. As others have pointed out many of his followers kept their jobs, their houses, their spouses and families, their money etc. Really you are conflating the rigours of being a sold out inner circle disciple with rank and file believers. I think to make a point. My personal view is Jesus wanted to radically change the inner perspective of people along the lines you suggest. Creating a reevaluation of societal norms. This internal shift towards individual worth, love and faith does not require that everyone become John the Baptist. But it did require a core of disciples who would literally drop everything, follow Jesus, and then go out and spread the word. I don’t think Jesus was trying to eradicate his culture or the economy, or the civil/religious government. He was trying to radically change people’s values. I’ll just end with this. Why were those invited to follow told to sell everything and give the money to the poor? Why not just run off with Jesus? Why not pile up your money in your house and light it all on fire? If money is evil why would you burden the poor with it. They would just have to give it to someone else if they really wanted to “follow” Jesus? Because Jesus wasn’t against money as a concept. He knew money had value, and he knew money could actually help make people’s (especially poor people) lives better.
For someone so well read in the Bible and as someone who has clearly spent a lot of time writing this very lengthy assertion – it’s a shame that it’s really such a shallow dive into the Biblical texts…
Dealing with just one component of this write-up now. First – Jesus had 12 disciples that were male. Of those he expected them to physically follow him. Of that, there is no contestation. Our PhD here however makes more of what Luke says than than what Luke himself said.
“Part 1: Following Jesus Means Abandoning a Socioeconomic Lifestyle & Value System
Some of the first words Jesus speaks in the gospels to his disciples are “Follow me!” (Mk 1:16, 2:14; Matt 4:19, 8:22, 9:9; Lk 5:11, 5:27, 9:59-62; Jn 1:43).
At heart these words express an imminent socioeconomic imperative: immediately stop what you’re doing, leave your job, your livelihood, and even your family, and “follow me!” And indeed, this is what the disciples are depicted doing in every account—immediately leaving behind jobs, possessions, social status, family, and even social and familial obligations.
Luke is more emphatic in representing this as a complete abandonment through his additions of the word panta (“all,” “everything”) to the textual tradition.
They immediately abandoned their nets and followed him (Mk 1:18; Matt 4:20).
He rose up and followed him (Mk 2:14; Matt 9:9).
They abandoned everything and followed him (Lk 5:11).
He forsook everything, rose up, and followed him (Lk 5:28).
On a larger note, Luke’s emphasis on abandoning everything to follow Jesus goes hand-and-hand with his Jesus’ emphasis on the fact that those on the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder—the poor, the hungry, the despised, the socially exploited and outcast, i.e., “the last”—will inherit the kingdom. Indeed, these individuals become “the first” in the redefined value system that Jesus is advocating, contrary to that of the current socioeconomic worldview. (Discussed in more detail below.)”
Great. He makes a case for those who physically followed Jesus. I don’t argue that he called these twelve to leave everything. Jesus said it, the Bible writes the account of it and they in fact do it.
But that is NOT everything that the Bible says about every single person that gave their life to Jesus. Many were told to remain where they were and in the station that they were in to be a light to the world. Others were called to specific ministries, wherever they may be called to go. There is no call to action to sell everything you own and abandon your family in perpetuity. At least, not without using a very shallow examination of Biblical text which is termed “proof-texting.”
Remember – The Biblical account is that Jesus is still alive. To “follow Jesus” is not a physical walk, but a spiritual one.
More to come – unless of course an opposing view is not allowed. I hope we are all free-thinkers here. :)
From Yahweh to Zion: A Book Review
May 19 ,2018
BY David Brooks
From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land…Clash of Civilizations
Laurent Guyénot
Sifting and Winnowing Books, Lone Rock, WI, 2018
492 pp.
More than four months have passed since the publication of Laurent Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion. It is, to quote his eloquent translator, Dr. Kevin Barrett, “a magisterial book by an uncommonly erudite historian, and deserves the widest possible readership.” Yet to this date, no notable review beyond a blurb has appeared, summoning such readership.
Guyénot possesses impressive academic credentials: a BSc. in Engineering, an M.A. in Biblical Studies, and a PhD. in Medieval History. Lacking commensurate qualifications, I submit these words not so much as a book review, but as a book response—“How It Strikes a Contemporary,” rather than “Report to the Academy.” May it not be very much longer before the work of Dr. Guyénot receives the attention it deserves from his professional colleagues. Even without their approbation, keen intellects will savour Guyénot’s original reflections on the theories of Darwin, Marx, and Freud, and especially his chosen field of biblical hermeneutics.
Caveat: This book is not for the theologically faint-of-heart. Guyénot takes a decidedly secular approach with regard to the Hebrew Scriptures and the background in which they were written. With due respect for the text, he treats the Old Testament as an all-too-human document, composed by a priestly elite who projected their own warped psychology and nationalistic ends onto God. Guyenot’s abiding bête noir is the Almighty Himself, (aka “Yahweh”), who is cast as a petty, capricious, tyrannical tribal god, who’s as much a scourge to his worshippers as to his innumerable enemies. You wouldn’t want him for a father.
I read some of what you wrote and want to bring you a better understanding of Jesus. First it wasn’t hard for them leave everything at that time because Jesus was the Messiah they were waiting for which made an instant celebrity and the most popular person at that time. Fast forward 2022 if someone with the celebrity status were to come up to people and tell them to drop everything and follow 9 out of 10 people would because of who he is. Second you can have all the wealth and material possessions you want what Jesus taught was to not put money before God, meaning don’t just do anything for money(getting over on people, or anything that goes against you having a just character). What he meant by don’t store up material possessions and wealth simply means don’t be stingy and share your blessings with others. I hope I was able to bring a better understanding to whoever else reads this passage.
This is a good article for thought. The things Jesus said and the things Jesus told His Apostles to say all need to be considered together. For instance, Peter never told Ananias and Safira that they should have given all the money to them but that they should not let Satan fill their heart to lie to the Holy spirit. And they were meeting in people’s houses. Most so called Christians today in their business don’t obey the book of James and say ‘if the Lord wills we will make a business transaction’ (paraphrase) because they are doing what everyone does and are not salt and light in this world. In I Corinthians 5 we are supposed to be in this world to make a difference as distinct followers of Jesus Christ and not to go live in a monastery somewhere but to use our money and lifestyle as a witness.
The context of the story is about what happened at the beginning of Jesus ministry. He abandoned his life in Capernaum, Galilee, including his home, family and work as a “carpenter or builder.” He left with the clothes on his back and went into the wilderness. Went he returned he required those who followed him to do likewise and aid him in his ministry of preaching and healing.
However, they couldn’t abandon everything. They still had to eat & drink, wear clothes, have blankets, hire occasional housing, keep Sabbaths, offer sacrifices at the temple and other essentials. They had to use money and Judas held the purse and acted much like their treasurer. They bought what they needed and accepted donations. It financed Jesus’ overall ministry, which they all thought would be short-lived.
The instructions he gave during the Sermon of the Mount were specifically to his immediate followers. He was convinced he was living in the End Time and preached about the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. He told everyone the time was at hand. His followers believed him and even atter his supposed resurrection they asked if he was going to then establish the kingdom. He ascended to heaven, and they went on to preach extensively after Pentecost. Jesus and his believers were wrong. He didn’t come and establish the kingdom before his generation (whom he preached to) all died. His prophecies failed, but the Christian church and its many schisms did arrive and are still here. It’s been almost 2,000 years since Jesus’ failed prophecies in the NT.