He wasn't angry about capitalism, he was angry about sacrilege.
I also have to point out, when libertarians say shit about trade, we always need to remind them that buying and selling things is not capitalism by itself.
So, don't be libertarian, even if just for this one scene.
Not exactly. Jesus didn't mind regular merchants, though he's pretty clear and consistent that a love of wealth is incompatible with a love of God. The deal with the temple is that they were basically selling God, selling salvation, and profiteering off of faith. IIRC, you couldn't bring animals or offerings to the temple, you had to buy them there, their lambs, their doves, etc, because how can they make money if everyone just brings their stuff? It's pretty telling that after years of doing his thing, Jesus finally gets merc'd just days after this happened. Thankfully, though, we all learned this lesson and never ever did anything like this ever again. =)
"On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves"
Sounds like losing his shit with the capitalists to me.
I mean, only if you completely divorce that from all context. The temple was supposed to be a place of solemn worship, and that was being lost in the face of money changing (the Jews didn't fancy giving God Roman money with the faces of emperors stamped on it) and selling sacrificial offerings. It became a place a business first. Jesus would doubtless beat the brakes off of a lot of American Christianity with its giant steel girder crosses, enormous state-of-the-art presentation halls, and pastors zooming around in private jets living in giant manors, telling people to just go ahead and send their rent money to the hotline. Jesus saw the corrupting influence that money has on religious institutions and made it clear that it was a line he felt shouldn't be crossed. The intersection between money and faith is a theme that pops up all over the New Testament, and it seems probable that the Romans brought unbelievable wealth to some people in that region (and may have even elevated the overall prosperity of the people in that region at the time by connecting them into their trade network). Each time it comes up, Jesus is very clear that the two don't mix. You can have God or money; not both. That said, Jesus doesn't really beef with merchants outside of the temple, except to say that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven and advise them to choose a life of righteous poverty.
There weren't any capitalists around the time of Jesus' death. The word "Capitalist" refers to someone who extracts surplus value from labour by owning the capital - either machines and factories, or the financial means thereto - which workers operate. A capitalist can only exist in the context of industrialing or industrialised society, and there were no such societies during the Bronze Age.
The Joel Osteen brand of capitalism. Heretical religious capitalism.
Or movie theatre capitalism
Buying salvation was basically the tent pole of Catholicism as well prior to Protestant reformation which essentially (incredibly long story short) changed things a bit.
JB JAMES Chapter 5
5:1 Now an answer for the rich. Start crying, weep for the miseries that are coming to you.
5:2 Your wealth is all rotting, your clothes are all eaten up by moths.
5:3 All your gold and your silver are corroding away, and the same corrosion will be your own sentence, and eat into your body. It was a burning fire that you stored up as your treasure for the last days.
5:4 Labourers mowed your fields, and you cheated them – listen to the wages that you kept back, calling out; realise that the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
5:5 On earth you have had a life of comfort and luxury; in the time of slaughter you went on eating to your heart’s content.
5:6 It was you who condemned the innocent and killed them; they offered you no resistance.
Per the last verse, we need to start offering resistance then!
Technically it wasn’t Capitalism back then
Agreed, but “exploiters” probably would fit the situation
Absolutely, they were also above all else greedy which was probably the main issue Jesus had. And tbh nothing has changed with the bourgeoisie, if anything it got worse exponentially
Side point, but here's a neat article by Roland Boer on the intersections of communism, christianity, and christmas.
Roland Boer is the goat
Permanently Deleted
Don't forget about the fig tree he withered because he was hangry, but figs were out of season (Mark 11:12-21). This was on his way to flip tables and crack whips on the merchants.
Imagine being a God and annihilating a random tree for a hilarious and nonsensical reason. Anyone would do that at least once, especially if they were hangry lmao
Idk if you'll find this interesting, but this attempts to explain the fig thing: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-did-jesus-curse-the-fig-tree
I've always thought that was a weird one.
I'm not religious, so I'm not particularly invested, but I thought it was interesting.
Just gonna leave this here.
Akchually(, edit : should have read the other comments before posting, they explained it better than i do in the following paragraph).
I.m.h.o., the Christ criticized their lack of respect towards God, because if they were really faithful they wouldn't care about personal wealth in comparison to the Almighty, once you start serving the power of finance instead of God then you stop serving God, you can't have two masters.
But "don't do unto others what you wouldn't want to be done unto you", or prior to that "Thou shall not steal", is already all that we need to condemn the parasitic practice of lucrative properties, they'll gain money for "investing", as if it was risky(, not in the case of interests, nor for rent, but if they want to take a risk with actions by selling them at a higher price, then don't give them dividends that should belong to the workers, and/or eventually R&D and/or consumers), as well as salary differences, even companies with limited responsability have circumvented this concept of risk and, i mean, all the negative externalities should be enough to condemn the current application of neoliberalism(, not to say capitalism in general).
We oppose capitalism because it's immoral, if we're right then believers should have our back(, since morals/virtues are their domain). Since they don't it's either a mistake on our part or a lack of communist (counter-)propaganda.
