SIN–CHAPTER 11

            In Chapter 11 of his study,. Gary Anderson focuses on texts (Biblical and rabbinic) that he believes are of relevance to the discussion of the concept of a treasury in heaven, and of almsgiving to the poor as a way of making deposits in that treasury which will provide and pay off outsized stock dividends in both this life and the life to come.  He chooses to focus on a familiar text in Mark, the story of the so-called rich young ruler (Mk. 10.17-31), on the assumption that when Jesus refers to ‘treasure in heaven’ he is referring to the concept of a treasury of merit in heaven.   The modus operandi for this scrutiny will be a brief exegesis of Mark 10 and a more extended treatment of rabbinic texts, with then a turning back to Mark to show how they help one read the Markan text properly.  Besides the inherent dangers of anachronism in this approach, it needs to be said that pre-70 Judaism and later rabbinic Judaism don’t always agree on things such as we are discussing in this chapter.

            One of the interesting motifs that Anderson is able to find multiple examples of in rabbinic literature is the notion that almsgiving is equivalent to fulfilling all the commandments, or at least close to doing so, or perhaps differently said, almsgiving is equal to all the other horizontal commandments  (5-10 in the Big Ten), indeed some would say equal to doing all of the horizontal commandments.  Indeed, giving alms to the poor is seen as equal to offering an sacrifice in the temple, as both are viewed as giving gifts directly to God.

            Reading Mark 10 in light of tractate Peah from the Mishnah,  Anderson concludes: 1) Jesus only mentioned commandments 5-10 as the horizontal part of the 10 commandments, in order to focus the young man on a further and more vertical commandment, if he wished to be Jesus’ disciple— the commandment to give alms, which was seen as equal to sacrifice in the temple.  The problem with this analysis is that on any showing from either the OT and NT, the imperative about almsgiving is both horizontal (it helps the poor) and vertical in character, not just one or the other 2)  Anderson suggests that Jesus chose almsgiving as a further requirement to be his disciple because there was not fixed limit on almsgiving in the OT, thus one can distinguish one’s self by generosity, going beyond what is required.  The problem with this analysis is that if you take the imperative on almsgiving in their larger context of the discussion of money and wealth in the OT, you discover there were limits placed on almsgiving, and not just in later rabbinic literature. Generosity is urged, but making one’s self destitute is not encouraged in the OT.  Jesus is making a more radical demand on this young man than we find in the OT. 3) and most importantly, Jesus does not make a promise to the young man about rewards in the Kingdom, he makes a promise to his own disciples who are already his followers and have already made major sacrifices to follow him. This is a different matter.  What Jesus demanded of the young man was because he was rich, and he needed to leave behind his object of ultimate concern so that Jesus might become that object. This was an entrance ritual for him because it is coupled in the text with ‘and come and follow me….’There is no evidence Jesus demanded this of all his disciples. Indeed, there is the contrary evidence of folk like Mary and Martha who did not even become traveling disciples.  In other words, there are some significant differences in the Markan text and what we find in earlier and later Jewish discussions, and the caution of Ed Sanders long ago about Strack-Billerbeck applies here— an incautious reading of the NT in light of later rabbinic sources too often leads to a distortion of what the NT says.

And one more thing….. Jesus does not actually say ‘sell everything and give everything to the poor.’  He simply says ‘give to the poor’, though it may be implied that he meant everything. But this can be debated.  

            It is the reading of Anderson that Jesus demanded a total abandonment of one’s family in order to follow him, at least for a time.  This clearly is not true, as Jesus himself made the household of Peter’s mother in law his home basis in Capernaum, and furthermore, the disciples continued to fish, as various accounts show. In other words, the demand of Jesus was not for an absolute de facto renunciation but for a dropping everything and prioritizing the following of Jesus, which various disciples did.  The Gospel stories should not be read in light of later tales about mendicant friars and the like.  One must evaluate Jesus’ demand in light of Jesus’ whole praxis, and when one does so, it becomes clear that Jesus was not understood to mean what Anderson takes him to mean— otherwise the question of Paul in 1 Cor. 9 about did he not have a right, like the other apostles to a wife who travelled with him makes little sense.  Paul knew the actual praxis of the apostles, and it wasn’t as Anderson assumes.  But Anderson is right about one thing— early Christianity did not see almsgiving as a means of self-redemption, anymore than most early Jewish writers did.  They did however see it as a means of increasing their rewards in heaven or in the kingdom.