Plague of Inequality CHAPTER TWO The New Testament “THE EYE OF A NEEDLE”

Jesus said it according to Matthew 19: 23-24:  “Truly, I tell you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God (p. 71).”  The quote, Pope Francis in 2014, elaborates the point, reflecting a slightly modified 1 Timothy 6:9–10: “(Extreme) Inequality is the root of all social evil (p. 55).” Yes,  it is: As DIT clarifies, extreme inequality arises from a lack of empathy-with the other --- lack of empathy means the tendency toward evil framing --- causing the avarice within each person and overall state of pleonexia in the system, as represented on path 0G of Figure 1. 

More to Life than Just Money

Both Jesus and Pope Francis would have likely favored DIT, “as (the Econ) tends to replace God with an ‘idolatry of money’ and replaces a proper common-good-oriented ethics with bald selfishness (p. 55).”  The Ethic of path 0M could be influenced by God (see God is a Metaecon?  at  https://www.metaeconomics.info/post/god-is-a-metaecon   ), and is especially represented in  Christian (but also other religious) framing.   Paying attention to Christian theology one would work to temper the selfishness of path 0G with the common-good-oriented --- the empathy-based shared interest --- Ethic.

Three issues are raised.  First, “… biblical critiques of wealth, greed, and inequality cast a long shadow in Western moral and political thought … Second… critiques of wealth and greed in the New Testament call for serious attention in their own right (pointing to claims by Jesus, brother James, Paul and others) … that economic inequality necessarily fuels political domination and tyranny… Third … underemphasized or even ignored among some professed Christians, it is important to highlight them as part of the religious tradition (pp. 55-57).” On the third point, the Christian Nationalists playing an ever more substantive role in US Right-wing politics comes blazing into view.  And, one big difference that must be understood in reading the New Testament, and the different way it is interpreted by both true Christians and the pseudo-Christians:  Jesus and James were preaching to the poor.  Paul was preaching to the rich.

Poverty was Driven by Economic Practice

Nazareth, where Jesus and James preached, was in lower Galilee, a very poor area.  Historian Martin Goodman points to how “… much of their poverty can be attributed to the practice of predatory lending and subsequent land seizures….  violation of the Jewish law banishing loans with interest… (pp. 58-59).”  Seems excessive greed is primal, and clearly in play in Nazareth at the time of Jesus. “New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan has commented, wealthy lenders did ‘much better by heavy fines for nonpayment’ than they ever could have done with conventional loans where they expected timely payments (p. 59).”  Path 0G in play, on the edge of the vertical axis.  No small wonder Jesus and James were upset.  The citizens of Nazareth could not even afford to appropriately celebrate religious events that called for meat, fish and ceremonial bread, so it was both an economic & social/religious problem caused directly by extreme inequality.

Wealth was Close By

Wealth was close by,  in the Galilean city of Sepphoris. It was a short “commute” for the poor in Nazareth, who were paid barely subsistence wages. Jerusalem, a bit further away, was also relatively wealthy, run on as much as a 40% tax on limited profits for the rural dwellers.  Extreme inequality was rampant.

Intriguingly, Hebrew (Scriptures) framing was trying to address extreme inequality.  In particular:  “… in the ‘seventh year you shall let it [your land] rest and lie fallow, so that the poor of your people may eat … every seventh year you shall grant a remission of debts … all community members who are slaves must be freed… hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: you shall return, every one of you, to your property and every one of you to your family (pp. 61-62).”  Why? Well, “Scholars have consistently observed that these provisions were expressly intended to hinder the kind of capital accumulation … (p. 62)” that characterized extreme inequality. And, God would punish anyone not complying.

Few Followed the Dictates of Hebrew Scripture

Few followed any of said rules. “It was likely the confluence of high taxes, predatory lending, inescapable debt, drought, famine, and desperate poverty that was the most proximate cause of an angry peasant class (p. 64).” Intriguingly, it “… resulted in the proliferation of bandits throughout Roman Palestine … claiming to be agents of God, they plundered the homes of the wealthiest citizens and sometimes even redistributed their booty to the poor … noted in the Gospels … Jesus is recorded as suspecting that his arrest was on charges of banditry … and where he is crucified between two accused bandits (pp. 64-65).” The rich did not like the story about getting through the head of the needle. “New Testament scholar Richard A. Horsley has observed, whereas the elites feared and detested the bandits, the poor regarded these thieves as ‘heroes,’ frequently hiding and protecting them… (p. 65).  Banditry was eventually suppressed in violence based Roman efforts.

Along Came Jesus

And, while there is “… obviously far more to Jesus’s message in the Gospels (Williams focuses on the economic themes of)  … poverty, wealth, greed, and economically divided communities … (focusing on) Jesus’s economic lessons  … (Williams chooses to) approach the Bible as … other historical texts … primarily reading the books of the New Testament as a work of moral and political philosophy and simply as a ‘Great Book,’ which it surely is … (pp. 67-68).”

The focus turns to “… love of God and love of neighbor (p. 68)” as two major themes.  DIT has a placeholder in the notion of empathy (love)-based other-interest.  It arises from empathy-with going in every direction, in a search for common ground. It is a search for the Ethic that works. It is why “… the Bible so frequently condemns excessive wealth and seeks to promote greater equality (p. 69).”  In DIT terms, the focus shifts away from Extreme Inequality (path 0G) and Extreme Equality (path 0M) to find Optimal Inequality (path 0Z).

Jesus on Poverty

Jesus was very much concerned about extreme inequality as represented in the concern for poverty. As noted, “… that Jesus embraces the poor amid great inequality explains why he is confused with the bandits that populated Roman Palestine and menaced the wealthy ruling class in Judaea. When arrested, Jesus responds by asking the authorities, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit?” (Matthew 26:55; see also Luke 22:52). That Jesus might have been mistaken for a bandit due to his sympathy for the poor is confirmed by the Gospels’ depiction of him being crucified between two bandits (Matthew 27:38; see also Mark 15:27) (p. 70).”  It seems that rich and powerful people in the time of Jesus did not like to be chastised for not finding ways to alleviate poverty. 

Jesus on Wealth

And, on wealth in general: “Some Christians are reluctant to interpret Jesus as condemning great fortunes. But the fact is that he does so repeatedly and emphatically (p. 71).”  The eye of the needle story is well-known.  The story of Lazarus is perhaps  even more direct, with Lazarus upon death carried away by angels to be with Abraham, while the rich who did not help Lazarus --- well, Hades it was. The story is amazingly similar to that of the Myth of Er told by Plato’s Socrates, a story intended to temper pleonexia in the economy & society. Again, Socrates warned that one must not be “… ‘dazzled by wealth and other such evils’… wisest to ‘choose the middle life … avoid either of the extremes’ of wealth or poverty (p. 73).”  Well, yes: Seek to find path 0Z, as DIT makes clear.

Jesus on Greed

Important to distinguish greed and wealth.  The poor can also be excessively greedy, as was demonstrated in the case of Judas.  The concern was with pleonexia, the insatiable greed which could drive the move to extreme wealth. separable. “One need not be rich (wealthy) to suffer from greed. The poor can also suffer from greed insofar as they covet the possessions of the rich (p. 75).”

The Pharisees

Jesus saw the Pharisees “… as ‘full of greed and self-indulgence’ … a good moment to recall that Hillel—the rabbi who issued the prosbul, suspending the Sabbatical and Jubilee laws—was himself a Pharisee (p. 77).” It seems Hillel had gotten rid of all the constraints --- the Hebrew Law, in effect --- on the concentration of wealth and the power it bought.  The “… overarching theme of (Jesus) diatribe against (the Pharisees) is hypocrisy (p. 78).”   Sounds familiar.

Jesus Addressed Ways to Resolve the Extreme Inequality

Two frames came from Jesus.  First, restore the Mosaic Sabbatical and Jubilee laws. Second, move to the frame of love the neighbor. Notice how both ideas, in DIT terms, are about empathy-with the other. 

On the Jubilee laws:  “… (1) letting the lands go fallow so that the poor may eat from them, (2) remitting all debts, (3) freeing all slaves, and (4) restoring all property to its original equitable distribution as established in Exodus. According to the Pentateuch, the first three laws must be carried out once every seven years, and the fourth must happen once every half century (pp. 79-80).” The wealthy had never really paid any attention to said Laws, and the Pharisees had agreed to not enforce same. One can easily see how Jesus got into the crosshairs: It was even given a place in The Lord’s Prayer as  “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” 

In DIT terms, it was about bringing empathy-with into play, going in both directions: “…  wealthier citizens no longer view their fellow citizens as wallets to be exploited but rather as human beings deserving of forgiveness. Similarly, the poor no longer view the wealthy as oppressors but rather as forgiving fellow citizens  (p. 81).”  It was about finding path 0Z. It was also, then, about reducing “… the incentives for pursuing extreme wealth in the first place… it represents a structural check on greed itself (p. 81).”

On loving the neighbor as oneself:  Well, the frame here is also empathy-with the other.  As Jesus framed it:   ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (p. 82).  In DIT terms, it is about developing an empathy (in effect, love)-based shared other-interest, going in every direction. And, again, Jesus also called for joining in empathy with God, which was also a two-way attention to the other.

Williams makes an important point here:  “One might argue that loving one’s enemies plays into the hands of the wealthy. A wealthy oppressor can exploit this meek and forgiving philosophy to rack up the profits without resistance. But it is important to understand that Jesus issues this command while also evoking the Sabbatical and Jubilee laws. As such, this is emphatically a two-pronged program of economic and social reform…” So, it is not only about what DIT refers to as homonomy --- voluntarily considering the shared other-interest --- but also about heteronomy. The Jubilee Law was to be enforced.

James Makes it Clear the Wealthy Will Face Challenges With the Eye

Themes developed by Jesus were carried on by the younger brother James. And, calling for Jubilee Laws and empathy-with the poor, well, it did not play well. As James made clear,   “…  it was surely not the poor who orchestrated Jesus’s demise. It was those wealthy, “fattened” ones who wielded political power in Jerusalem. They did what the wealthy tend to do when threatened—they eliminated the threat. On this construction, Jesus was a poor Galilean, who championed the poor and oppressed throughout Roman Palestine. He questioned the morals and spiritual commitments of the rich and powerful. He cited inconvenient scripture. The natural response was to eliminate the man most responsible for challenging their wealth, status, and power (pp. 86-87).”   Just eliminate all consideration of tempering the excesses of path 0G, in the case of Jesus, eliminate him with the intent that path 0M never plays in bringing the better path 0Z.

James suffered more or less the same fate as brother Jesus.  “Evidence suggests that James had offended Jerusalem authorities, particularly the high priest Ananus, for exposing official corruption. The wealthy high priests in Jerusalem had been systematically seizing the tithes intended for lower level priests who were closer to the poor farmers. James condemned this act of greed by the wealthy against the poor and was subsequently sentenced to death by stoning (p. 87).”  Problem fixed.

James had also spoke to justification by works.  It was not highly accepted. James also spoke to impartiality, as in everyone treated the same.  The notion of the “general will” later championed by Rousseau came to be. Without the general (public) will, i.e., shared other-interest in DIT giving context, selfishness driven private  will come to dominate.

Paul Spoke More to the Wealthy

While Jesus and James had both pointed to the wealthy not doing so well in the afterlife, as excessive greed was in play, Paul was open to the possibility that the wealthy were not inherently prone to pleonexic. In fact, Paul acknowledged greed was also a feature of some of the poor. The issue shifted to striking good balance, like DIT clarifies is essential. Paul would have been a MetaEcon.  Paul also had been trained at worked at integrating pagan philosophy with the Hebrew scripture, which perhaps led to the balancing.  As pointed to in the Review of McCloskey’s work on the virtues (see Lynne 2025), it is essential to recognize all 7-virtues.

The 4-pagan virtues include prudence, temperance, courage, and justice/ The 3-Chrisitan virtues are - faith, hope, and love.  It seems Paul may have one of the first to acknowledge some balance in all said virtues was essential, as is recognized in DIT.

So, while Paul acknowledged the rich would work at operating on path 0G, and a certain amount of nudging in providing alms for the poor coming from path 0M could lead to some path 0Z better for both rich and poor, than path 0G. The rich were nudged to sacrifice a bit, as in according to their means, which was about:  ”… finding a ‘fair balance’ between one’s own means and the needs of the impoverished, such that ‘the one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little’ (p. 90).” Such is path 0Z. And, finding path 0Z was about homonomy driven by empathy-with the poor rather than heteronomy in forced redistribution. 

Yet, Paul did condemn greed, at least in excess, especially as related to “… sexual immorality, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, thieves, and the like (p. 92).”   It seems Paul sees some path 0Z as better, recognizing the possibility of some acceptable level of money greed, tempered by moral and ethical considerations. 

Overall, Jesus and James required the wealth to operate on some path 0Z, which was essential in order to not avoid difficulties in the afterlife.   Paul was more into asking the wealthy to consider helping, being generous, to achieve the best path 0Z. 

Seneca Helped Justify Wealth

Seneca was a wealthy Roman, a stoic, who made the claim that being wealthy was not a bad thing, as along as one did not in effect dwell on it.  A wealthy person could be virtuous, which is to say, the virtues --- reflecting the shared other-interest of path 0M could and had to influence path 0G.  If it did, all is well.  Paul took some justification from the frame of Seneca.

Paul on Empathy-With and Love of Neighbor

Paul was very much into virtue, empathy-based of love thy neighbor as thyself.  It was about empathy going both ways, as DIT clarifies. It was such empathy-with --- love --- that led to the general will, the shared other-interest in DIT terms. It was about calming tensions, finding common ground on some path 0M. Greed was considered a threat to that shared interest, that general will. Paul clarified one was to be influenced by the other: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interest of others” (p. 95).” It seems Paul is looking for path 0Z.

Conclusions

Jesus, James, and Paul all share core commitments … to the dignity and special status of the poor … the importance of almsgiving …  inveigh against greed … celebrate neighborly love … (said)  values offer a consistency and coherence across the New Testament and speak to anyone reading these texts in search of insight and wisdom into the problem of inequality (pp .95-96).”

And, it had influence, as in the “… early Eastern Church …  emphasized the lessons of Jesus and James regarding the dangers of wealth, greed, and inequality …  (citing a Saint Basal) possession of great wealth is evidence of greed or pleonexia. The fabulously rich cling to their wealth as if it were their most prized possession—more than their limbs, much less their souls (p. 96).”

The views spread to the West “--- Pelagian work… accumulation and possession of wealth were understood to be evil in the context of a zero-sum economy where every addition to a wealthy man’s fortune came at the expense of the suffering poor (p.97).” Overall, “… much of what one finds in the New Testament regarding wealth, greed, and inequality parallels Plato’s explorations … employ the same Greek word of pleonexia … havoc on society at large. Jesus, James, and Plato share the assumption that the very possession of wealth itself is an indication of the presence of greed and its ignoble effects on the soul … all three are determined that the solution to problems both of society and the soul require fairly radical measures, up to and including threats of divine punishment for acquiring too much wealth (p 97).”

But, Christianity has had more enduring effects than framing by Plato:  Athens to include Plato was about reason.  Christianity about God.  “There are more than two billion Christians worldwide, eager in their own way to embrace the principles found in those texts. And as Strauss suggests, for many of them, those texts speak to them with indisputable authority—it is, for them, the word of God. For various reasons, Jesus and James’s condemnations of wealth and inequality are commonly downplayed at the expense of other teachings—by priests and pastors, by public interpreters, or by individuals at home with their Bibles. But it is also undeniable that those very same Bibles in the hands of billions of people draw stark and dramatic attention to these same problems (p. 98).”

“The celebrated philosopher Jürgen Habermas, among others, has argued that the Enlightenment project has effectively stalled out and that ‘pure reason’ is unlikely to motivate vast majorities of citizens to action on their important moral and civic responsibilities. This is in some ways the great shortcoming of a school of thought associated with thinkers like Immanuel Kant—that all one needs to do is to articulate reasoned arguments in a free society and then can witness the inevitable public enlightenment (p. 98).”  Well, yes, it is about finding sufficient reason, but perhaps not only from science.

Williams (2024, p. 98) continues:  “Yet far too often the carefully reasoned arguments of philosophers are ignored because relatively few find themselves motivated by mere arguments. In this ‘postsecular’ context, Habermas argues, it may be helpful to acknowledge and commandeer the motivational forces of religion insofar as they have the unique capacity to inspire the fulfillment of moral and civic duties. … if one acknowledges the inevitability of religious appeals in the public sphere, as Habermas suggests we might, it would seem foolish to ignore the remarkable tradition of religious texts on questions so vital to contemporary debates.”  So, yes, it is about serious inquiry using both science & humanities, the latter to include consideration of religion.