Jesus' Reasoning in Luke 21:1-4

| | Comments (2)

This is my fourth post for Joe Carter's collaborative project Jesus the Logician (which would better be described as Jesus's Reasoning).

In Luke 21:1-4, Jesus caps off his diatribe against the rich scribes who dress majestically, love popularity, and receive much honor from human beings but who are merely showy without real piety and in fact devour widows' houses. As he looks up while saying this, he sees rich people depositing their gifts to the temple, while a poor widow put in just two coins. He says, "this poor widow has put in more than the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." (Luke 21:1-4, NIV)

Jesus is not telling the literal truth when he says that she put in more than others. Of course she didn't. She put in a tiny amount. It wasn't more than they put in. But "out of their wealth" they didn't put in very much, and out of "all she had to live on" she put in 100% of it. In other words, she put in 100% of what she had to live on, and they gave a tiny percentage of their surplus.

This is quite an argument, given the context. He's talking about the pride people take in things they do, the honor ascribed to them for their deeds. This is one deed that rich people can take much delight in doing, giving such large amounts and being the primary funders of the temple. We've seen the same sort of thing in recent weeks with billionaires giving very large gifts for tsunami relief. Yet for many of these people, that sort of gift is a drop in the bucket. It doesn't amount to a real sacrifice on their part by any means. When the business is counting sums, they can say they were responsible for a much greater share, but when the business at hand is moral evaluation, as those who take delight in having a high public opinion are doing, then it's irrelevant to the issue of how great their gift is in terms of an absolute measure. What's relevant to moral evaluation is how great the gift was in terms of what resources were available and what other needs someone might have to put those reasouces toward.

This exact issue comes up with taxation, with one crucial difference. The current U.S. system of taxation is progressive. It's designed to take into account the kind of thing Jesus is talking about here. Conservatives who insist on a flat tax have to get around the problem he's raising, since their argument for a flat tax is that we should treat everyone absolutely equally. The problem is that treating poor people equally requires taxing them so that the sacrifice for them is fairly similar to how taxation affects rich people. The only way to do that is to make it so there's not very much sacrifice at all, and really poor people just don't pay taxes the way things are right now. I should know. I'm one of those people who don't make enough money to owe any taxes besides the mandatory ones in my paycheck like social security and medicare/medicaid. They also try to make it so that middle class people pay a smaller amount than richer people to make it less burdensome for them, but I think it's fairly obvious that middle class incomes require far higher taxes when compared with resources and expenses in the relevant way. So the argument Jesus is giving here is recognized as fairly important for some purposes by all who accept the progressive income tax.

The one caveat I have is that Jesus isn't talking about taxation. He's talking about what kind of gift, offered by one's own choice, not by government mandate, should count as a morally superior gift. He's saying that choosing to give more money doesn't necessarily make a gift better, not if the smaller amount is coming from someone who has much less to begin with. That doesn't say anything about what the government should collect from people of higher or lower income. I think it does say that a just system of taxation needs to keep in mind that poorer people have less to give and thus are sacrificing more when they give the same percentage. I don't think the only way to acknowledge that is with a progressive system like ours. Ralph Nader's proposal to tax everyone at 35% except those who make less than $100,000 would also take that into account.


Jesus would not approve of any tax, progressive, regressive or neutral. The website, offers the book-length essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, for downloading in "pdf" free of charge. It is the first and to date the only conprehensive analysis of everything Jesus said or did vis-a-vis taxes and tax collectors. It primary thesis is that contrary to what many Christian exegetes have averred, particularly when interpreting the render-unto-Caesar incident, that Jesus condoned taxation. The essay argues the contrary, and all of its conclusions are solidly supported by Scripture and other authoritative sources.

Ned, I don't have the time to read a book-length defense, but I can tell just from browsing your site that you're basing your argument on a number of assumptions that I don't share, assumptions that I don't think can be derived from the biblical texts.

I'm not going to repeat myself on pacifism, which I've discussed recently here. I don't see any justification for thinking Jesus' statements against defending oneself to apply to defending others. I don't share your ethical presumption (not one I see in scripture anywhere) against choosing between two unfortunate consequences in a way that we sometimes call choosing the lesser of two evils. I don't see how you can see taxes as bad simply because they involve the use of force when Paul insists that the state is morally responsible to use the sword in pursuit of justice. Thinking something is morally necessary or morally permissible does not amount to worshiping that thing (or else we worship hymn-singing or prayer simply because we think those are good things).

You make it sound as if Pilate wanted to kill Jesus. After examining him, he couldn't see a reason for Rome to execute him. The Jewish leaders had been trying to catch Jesus on something like what you claim Jesus taught, but the fact is that they couldn't because he didn't teach such a view. That's why they had to spend so much effort getting him on something Rome didn't really even care about, something they thought stupid once they examined what it amounted to.

Furthermore, the claim that it's sinful to pay taxes willingly seems to me to violate Jesus' direct commands in the Sermon on the Mount. If someone asks for your shirt, you are to give it to them, and provide your cloak as well. This is in the context of talking about soldiers who ask people to carry their burdens for a mile, and Jesus says to go an extra mile, willingly. How does that amount to anything different from something like taxation?

Not that it affects your arguments, but you say at one point that Jesus died almost 2006 years ago. Did you mean that Jesus was born almost 2006 years ago? Even that is probably not right. Jesus was born around 3 BC, which was around 2008 years ago (though probably not close to this time of year).


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04