Dmitry Chernikov’s Blog

Mises may have considered Jesus to be a nihilist:

One thing of course is clear, and no skillful interpretation can obscure it. Jesus’ words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor. … In God’s Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer. Later revisers have tried to soften the words of Christ against the rich…, but there is quite enough left to support those who incite the world to hatred of the rich, revenge, murder and arson. … This is a case in which the Redeemer’s words bore evil seed. More harm has been done, and more blood shed, on account of them than by the persecution of heretics and the burning of witches. They have always rendered the Church defenseless against all movements which aim at destroying human society. The Church as an organization has certainly always stood on the side of those who tried to ward off communistic attack. But it could not achieve much in this struggle. For it was continually disarmed by the words: “Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the Kingdom of God.” (Socialism, 419ff)

Further,

It is only in this way that we can understand why, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus recommends his own people to take no thought for food, drink, and clothing; why he exhorts them not to sow or reap or gather in barns, not to labor or spin. It is the only explanation, too, of his and his disciples’ “communism.” … The primitive Christians do not produce, labor, or gather anything at all. The newly converted realize their possessions and divide the proceeds with the brethren and sisters. Such a way of living is untenable in the long run. (414)

Finally,

Never and nowhere can a system of social ethics embracing social co-operation be built up on a doctrine which prohibits any concern for sustenance and work, while it expresses fierce resentment against the rich, preaches hatred of the family, and advocates voluntary castration. (421)

Mises is being too harsh here. For example, he misrepresents the first beatitude which says “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Mt 5:3) which signifies humility (a virtue complementary to magnanimity and includes even such things as ardent desire to learn which entails submission to (1) truth and (2) one’s teacher), dependence on and service to God, and fear of and obedience to the natural and divine laws, not material poverty. The key to understanding the blessings and woes of Lk 6:17-26, to which Mises may be alluding, is that one is blessed “because of the Son of Man,” and because people who are like the prophets in holiness are often poor, hungry, sorrowful, and hated. The world rejects them. Yet God welcomes them. On the other hand, the false prophets tend to be rich, well-fed, mocking, and well-received by men, yet God has no use for them. One only needs to look at the present state of our political culture to see how right Jesus is.

He also argues that Jesus’s disciples were convinced of His return within their lifetimes, a claim I’ve often heard but one that I think is simply false.

When Jesus invokes the lilies who “do not labor or spin” (Lk 12:27), He advises His followers to love the universal good more than the temporal goods, but adds: “seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.” (Lk 12:31) In other words, saying “love God more than your stomach” does not entail “do not enjoy food.” Similarly, if one’s family is an obstacle to doing God’s will, then God’s will takes precedence even to the point of leaving your family. But “love Me more than your wife” does not entail “do not love your wife.” In other words, there is no abrogation of duty to care for one’s family except in extraordinary circumstances. So, Jesus nowhere says that we must neglect temporal prosperity. This passage may well be interpreted as a parable of God’s love: that if grass is so beautiful, how much more then are human beings. “Do not worry” (Mt 6:25) does not mean “do not work”; it means, trust in God that an opportunity or ideas how to satisfy your worldly concerns will come to you; don’t despair. In order to “find,” Jesus fully admits that one should “seek.” (Mt 7:7-8)

In saying “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys,” Jesus is talking to His apostles, those who will build the Christian Church, especially those who will evangelize, not necessarily to everyone.

As for castration, Mises probably refers to the requirement of celibacy for Catholic priests. Whatever the proper position on this issue, (1) it feels fitting that the guy through whom transubstantiation occurs is not engaging in bizarre sex or any kind of sex, and (2) no one forces anyone to become a priest. Jesus was (and is) a priest and a virgin, and so merely human priests imitate that virginity. Which may be a smart move from the point of view of self-interest, as virgins are given a special reward in heaven called an “aureole,” an extra adornment to the crown of glory. Some “have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 19:12), Jesus says. But why take it as an implication that everyone ought to do that? There are many paths to the kingdom of heaven. Where does Jesus deny that married life is perfectly acceptable for most people? In addition, nowhere does He repeal the first commandment given to mankind, namely, to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen 1:28)

It’s also supererogatory to give everything to the poor. It’s a counsel not a precept of salvation. Moreover, it is a counsel to an individual who is contemplating a religious vocation. Jesus does not address it to society. He does not anywhere at all say that everyone should be poor. Being God, He obviously knows economic theory, in particular that having the poor who cannot work taken care of presupposes high civilization, market economy, and the existence of plenty of the rich and middle class folks. Far less, being the prince of peace, is he promoting the welfare state with its institutionalized robbery.

The rich man in purgatory in Lk 16:19-31 (it was not hell) is punished for his contempt for the poor, not for being rich. The widow in Mk 12:41-44 is praised for giving more in proportion to her wealth than her rich counterparts and for defying in a manner of speaking the law of diminishing marginal utility. Nowhere is Jesus denying that it would be still better if the widow herself was rich while retaining her generosity.

The parable wherein God tells a rich man “You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” at which point Jesus comments that “This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.” (Lk 12:20-21) is once again about loving God more than temporal goods, not denying yourself temporal goods. In fact, a man who has an abundance of perfections is more tempted to be “rich in spirit” than a less gifted man, and if he overcomes his temptations, then more glory is due to him, as Aquinas well understood.

We see therefore that Jesus is far from the destroyer of private property, family, wealth-building, and society that Mises paints Him to be.