Last week we posted an article from Steve Collins. Here is another installment from Steve that will leave you pondering traditional thought. Steve lives here in Sioux Falls with his wife and family, has written five books on Israel, and is one of our life group leaders. More on his books and his blog on his website. There is also a recent audio there of his hour-long interview last week on Israeli National News which was broadcast to tens of thousands of orthodox Jews throughout the Holy Land.
Traditionally, Jesus Christ has been regarded as a “poor carpenter,” but several scriptures counter that assumption. Some have thought that Jesus had few resources because of such statements as “the son of man has no place to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). However, Jesus was raised in a house (Matthew 2:11), and Joseph and Mary were both descended from the Jewish royal dynasty of King David (Matthew 1:1-16, Luke 3:23-31). It is highly unlikely that members of the royal family of Judah were living in poor conditions. Jesus “had no place to lay his head” because he had a traveling ministry with no permanent address, not because he lacked money.
When Jesus is referred to as a “carpenter’s son,” concordances indicate Joseph to be an “artificer” or “craftsman.” This argues that Joseph was likely a “builder” or “building contractor” who was well-able to afford his own house. When Mary gave birth to Jesus in a manger, it was because the rooming houses were all occupied—not because the family couldn’t afford appropriate lodging (Luke 2:7). Due to Mary’s advanced pregnancy, they could not travel quickly, causing them to arrive after the rooming houses were all filled in Bethlehem.
Do not forget that the Wise Men gave very costly gifts (gold, frankincense and myrrh) to the young child, Jesus (Matthew 2:11). The Wise Men were giving gifts to someone “born a king” (Matthew 2:2). These gifts would have made the family of Jesus wealthy, and the value of these exceptional gifts would have been sufficient to finance Jesus’ ministry when he reached maturity. We tend to forget that Jesus traveled widely for three and half years with “the 12” or “the 70” with no visible means of support. Judas was the treasurer of Jesus’ band and the group had money enough to buy whatever they needed or to give gifts to the poor (John 13:29). Indeed, there was so much money in the treasury of Jesus’ group that Judas succumbed to the temptation to be an embezzler (John 12:6). Though some who followed him did offer financial support (Luke 8:3), few have considered that Jesus never had to ask for donations from anyone during his ministry!
Where did Jesus get all his money? There are two answers, and both may be true. Joseph and Mary may have been a wealthy family with both of them being of royal lineage, and with Joseph being a successful businessman in the construction trades. The second answer is that the wealthy gifts given to Jesus as a child by the Wise Men were held in trust for him until he reached maturity, and Jesus used that wealth to finance the needs of everyone who traveled with him during his ministry.
Loading ...
From my understandings of scripture I believe there is enough evidence to suggest, if not prove that the family of Jesus was not wealthy.
In Luke 2 (Birth of Jesus) verses 22-24 discuss their actions during the purification after birth. See below.
22 - And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord
23 - (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”),
24 - and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord,
“A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS.”
In verse 24 Mary and Joseph offered up 2 Turtle Doves for the birth offering.
Now lets look to the Law in Leviticus 12:6-8 (Laws of Motherhood)
6:’When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.
7:’Then he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female.
8:’But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”
Notice in verse 6 the requirement for sacrifice is to bring a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young Pigeon or Turtle Dove for the sin offering.
Verse 8 offers up an option if the family cannot afford a one year old Lamb. They can substitute a Dove for the Lamb.
If Mary and Joseph had wealth either from Royal Estate, or a successful business they clearly would have offered up a Lamb and a Dove instead of the 2 Doves.
Dear Travis,
Your questions seem to exhibit a common Christian viewpoint that Jesus was a “poor carpenter” from a poor family. I’m convinced the scriptures very much support the opposite viewpoint. I will respond to your latest response by making the case for Jesus’ prosperous condition more thoroughly. Some incorrectly assume that Jesus was poor because he was “born in a humble manger,” but Christians gloss over the biblical statement that he was born in a manger because Joseph couldn’t find room at any inn “at any price.” Luke 2:7 clearly states they found themselves in a manger because “there was no room for them in the inn.” [Emphasis added.] This account confirms Joseph could easily afford the price of a room at any inn in Bethlehem, but there simply wasn’t a single room anywhere to be had. With a very pregnant wife, you can be sure Joseph tried to get a room anywhere he could. However, there were no rooms to be had, in either the “motel 6″ or “Hilton Inn” equivalents of ancient Bethlehem.
Joseph and Mary also journeyed to Bethlehem “to be taxed” (Luke 2:1-4). Both Joseph and Mary were of the lineage of king David and were part of the royal seed of Judah. It is highly unlikely that members of the honored “royal seed” of Judah would be living in poverty. Their family obviously had significant assets and/or income for they were one of the families subject to the tax collection decree of Caesar. When the angel warned Joseph to go to Egypt for an indeterminate period of time, Joseph was able to support the trip to Egypt, the return trip to the north of Judea and to relocate in Nazareth with funds he had on him when they journeyed to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:13-23). The Bible is silent on the subject of whether Joseph may have been traveling with retainers or servants. He obviously was not in poverty as he had ample funds to finance unexpected additional trips with funds he carried on his person when he went to Bethlehem. This account argues Joseph was a man of considerable financial means.
When the Wise Men came and gave their costly gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to Jesus, the family of Jesus became wealthy, whatever their prior circumstances were. The Bible gives us “prima facie” proof of that. The Wise Men were Parthian high nobility and they would not have brought insignificant trinkets or tiny quantities to give to one who was “born a king” and to whom they had been led by an angel of God! The Parthian Wise Men were exceptionally wealthy men (among the richest men in the Parthian Empire), and they could give very substantial gifts. Put yourself in their place. How big a gift would you give the Christ-child if you were very wealthy and God Himself Divinely led you to His Son to give a gift to Him? This would have been a very wealthy gift, indeed! This wealth would have been held in trust for Jesus until he reached an appropriate age of maturity.
Those who would assert the family of Joseph, Mary and Jesus were poor have a huge obstacle to overcome. They would have to show how Jesus’ family became poor even though they had obviously become rich when the Wise Men arrived at their doorstep with very rich gifts. They would also have to explain how God could have allowed Jesus’ treasure gifts to be wasted or to have disappeared if Jesus was poor afterward.
Also, Joseph and Mary later had a large family. Matthew 1:25 records Joseph and Mary did not have marital relations until after Jesus was born, but they later had at least six other children. Mark 6:3 lists the names of four of Jesus’ younger brothers and also mentions unnamed “sisters” in a plural reference. This means that Jesus had to have at least six other siblings. Joseph and Mary clearly had the financial means to support a large family.
When Jesus died, his body was claimed by a near kinsman, Joseph of Arimathea. In my book, Parthia: The Forgotten Ancient Superpower, I provide evidence that Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus Christ’s great-uncle. Joseph of Arimathea had to be a wealthy man to have already prepaid for the private tomb in which Jesus’ body was laid (Matthew 27:57-60). Matthew 27:57 openly declared Joseph of Arimathea was “a rich man.” There was wealth among the relatives of Jesus as well as in the family of Jesus himself (due, at least, from the very rich gifts the Wise Men gave to Jesus).
When Jesus conducted his ministry later in life, he traveled around Judea and surrounding regions for 3 and 1/2 years with no visible means of support. He was accompanied by “the 12″ or “the 70″ or however many people were in his retinue. All had to eat every day, and they all had human needs. Somebody paid the bills. It was Jesus who said “follow me” to Peter, Andrew, James and John. In Matthew 9:9, Jesus called the tax-collector, Matthew, to “follow me.” The same likely happened for each person Jesus called. When Jesus called these men to give up their personal livelihoods as fishermen, tax-collectors, or whatever, was not Jesus implicitly assuming the responsibility for their support? The Bible confirms Jesus was able to provide for those around him, and that his band did not consist of poor, itinerant wanderers. Judas was the treasurer (John 13:29) and this scriptural account indicates there was plenty in their treasury to both finance a large feast plus “give something to the poor.” That Jesus’ disciples thought Judas may have left the group to go and give some gifts to “the poor” reveals two things. The first is that Jesus and his band did not consider themselves to be among “the poor,” and that Jesus’ treasurer (Judas) was absent sufficiently often allocating gifts to the poor that his absence was not deemed unusual. When the “5000″ were miraculously fed, Mark 6:37 indicates the disciples first considered buying bread for the multitude until Jesus fed everyone via a miracle. How much money would you need in your Treasury to even consider feeding 5000 people on the spur of the moment?
John 12:1-6 also indicates that Jesus’ close friends (Lazarus, Mary and Martha) were sufficiently wealthy to have very costly ointments in their possession and that they could afford to use one large vial of such ointment to anoint Jesus’ feet. Judas objected, saying the high value of the ointment should have been “given to the poor” (another confirmation that Jesus and his group never considered themselves to be among “the poor” but rather benefactors of “the poor.”). John 12:6 reveals Judas cared nothing for the poor, but was a thief (i.e. an embezzler of money from Jesus’ treasury). This infers that Judas saw the pouring of costly ointment on Jesus feet as a wasted opportunity (as a thief, he wanted to take the ointment, sell it for money and keep the proceeds for himself).
Even as he was dying on the cross for humanity’s sins, there is a scriptural statement affirming Jesus’ wealthy status. Luke 23:34 records that people were casting lots to see who would keep the articles of Jesus’ clothing. If Jesus’ clothing had been the clothing of a poor person, no one would have wanted the articles. However, his clothing was sufficiently costly and of high enough quality that people were casting lots to see who would get to keep them.
In summation, I think the Bible, when read and understood literally, not only supports the viewpoint that Jesus was a man of substantial financial means. It makes the case repeatedly.
Steve Collins
Steve- You make the case of Jesus’ wealth after he starts his ministry. The response I had to your first post was that Joseph and Mary did not have substantial wealth prior to the gifts of the wise men. This is evident in the sacrifice they had given dictated by the law of moses. Refer to Leviticus 12 verse 6.
The required sacrifice is a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and one turtle dove for a sin offering.
There is a provision in the same scripture for people that would not be able to afford that type of sacrifice.
Verse 8 says if they cannot afford a lamb they could offer up two turtle doves. One for a burndt offering and one for the sin offering. Luke clearly states that they offered 2 turtle doves.
If they had wealth before the wise men presented gifts, why would they not offer a one year old lamb?
Travis,
Thank you for your excellent follow-up question. The evidence I provided from the scriptures in my last response makes a strong case that Jesus Christ’s family was never poor at any time and that it was definitely quite wealthy from the time of the Wise Men’s visit. However, the account you cite from Luke 2:22-24 (and Lev. 12:6-8 could imply otherwise. Is there a way to reconcile the accounts? I think there is a simple answer, although it requires examining wider subject material than I had planned to address in these blog exchanges. Bear with my digression as it will lead to an answer to your question.
Luke 2:1-7 records that Caesar had imposed a tax and/or census on the Roman Empire’s citizens; however, the Romans were often practical in how they imposed such things. Both the Bible and secular history record that the Romans made efforts to accommodate the Jews’ religion (giving the Jewish Priests their own armed force, Temple authority and religious autonomy, etc). It would make sense to “piggyback” the tax on the Jews during a Holy Day season when they were used to traveling anyway. Luke 2:7 says that by the time Joseph and Mary reached Bethlehem, the rooming houses (inns) were full to overflowing. Why was there a massive crowd of pilgrims journeying to Bethlehem at that time? Was there a vast host of people who had their roots in the small town of Bethlehem? There is more here than meets the eye. People at that time weren’t widely mobile, so a tax decree shouldn’t have resulted in a massive influx of people into Bethlehem.
It is my view that Jesus was born during the Autumn Holy Days (see Leviticus 23) observed by the Jews and observant proselytes from all over the world. Also, Acts 2:9 shows us that people from all over the known world (including Parthia–the land of the Wise Men) routinely arrived in the region of Jerusalem during Holy Day pilgrimage festivals. These Holy Days generated so many people descending on Jerusalem and surrounding towns (such as Bethlehem) that it could result in all inns being filled with travelers. Indeed, Jerusalem would host vast numbers of people during Holy Day seasons and there were many inns to handle the predictable influx of people. Only during a Holy Day season would one expect a situation to rise where every room was taken in the entire region around Jerusalem. How could Jesus have been born in the Autumn Holy Day season of ancient Judea if his birthday is now celebrated on December 25th?
Now for necessary information which most Christians do not consider, but which is well-documented in historical literature. As Harper’s Bible Dictionary notes, “The actual date of Jesus’ birth is unknown. There is no evidence of celebrating the nativity before the 3rd century.” Why was the date of December 25t eventually chosen in the early church? Harper’s continues: “Although there are various theories on the selection of December 25th, the most widely accepted is that this date had already been a major pagan festival…[a winter solstice festival of Rome celebrating the birth of the Sun]. It was Emperor Constantine who blended themes from pagan Rome with themes of Christianity as he fashioned a Christian State Religion which he thought would unite the pagan and Christian portions of his empires. Constantine was a politician who made concessions to both factions in his new State Religion. How is this relevant? When we understand that Jesus was not born on December 25th (the Bible keeps his birthday a secret), it is still apparent from the scriptures (and history) that he was born at a time when massive crowds filled all the inns in Bethlehem. This is typically what happened during Holy Day festivals where pilgrims from all over the world would fill every inn in Jerusalem and those in surrounding towns (like Bethlehem). The fact that every inn in the vicinity of Jerusalem was packed with travelers indicates that Jesus was born in the Fall festival season.
It was also customary that massive numbers of lambs, turtle doves, pigeons, etc. would be sacrificed during Holy Day seasons. While the priests (and merchants) would surely try to estimate the need for sacrificial animals, it would be possible to “run out” of some categories of animals during such “high demand” times. Caesar’s taxing decree would have made the crowds even larger than usual for a Holy Day, and this increased the possibility that the supply of sacrificial animals would “run out.” Since Mary’s pregnancy was far advanced, Joseph’s party (however large it was) had to travel slowly to the Bethlehem/Jerusalem region. The fact that all rooms in all inns were taken by the time they arrived in Bethlehem confirms this fact. They were among the last to arrive for the Festival. When it came time for the sacrifice mentioned in Luke 2:21-24, the supply of sacrificial lambs may have been exhausted because vast numbers had already been sacrificed during the just-concluded Holy Day season. There may have been no lambs available at any price at the time of their family sacrifice in Luke 2:21-24. How would that situation have been handled? Keep in mind Joseph and Mary were observant Jews in a Torah-observant community.
While I do not claim to be an authority on Orthodox Judaism, I spent a week in Israel in August, 2000 with the Orthodox Jewish community. I had the opportunity to have Torah-related discussions with rabbis and Orthodox Jews. Based on my experience, it is my view that Jewish religious authorities would choose “the next best thing” in the Torah if a requirement of the Torah was impossible. As you pointed out, the “next best thing” in the Torah to a sacrificial lamb offering was the sacrifice of turtledoves or pigeons (Lev. 5:11 and 12:6-8 allow for substituting birds for lambs as sacrifices in cases of financial need). I believe it likely that a Jewish priest in Jesus’ time, if faced with a situation where a sacrifice for a new-born child would normally call for a lamb but where the supply of lambs was exhausted due to a Holy Day season being just concluded, would have directed that the Torah-approved alternative (birds) be used for a family sacrifice. This is what I think occurred in Luke 2:21-24, and I think this explanation is entirely consistent with the biblical evidence that Joseph’s family had considerable financial means. We know Joseph had plenty of money on hand to afford accommodations at an inn when he arrived in Bethlehem for an extended stay, so he surely had the means to afford one sacrificial lamb 8 days later. I think all the scriptures are satisfied by an understanding that Joseph was well-able to afford a sacrificial lamb, but none were available to purchase because the supply had been exhausted by the teeming throngs who had just been in Jerusalem for the Autumn Holy Day season. John 2:13-15 confirms merchants sold sacrificial animals at the Temple in Jesus’ time, but the supply of each category of animal was finite. If the supply of lambs was exhausted, the Torah would indicate that a sacrifice of acceptable birds would be the required alternative sacrifice. That is exactly what Joseph and Mary offered.