Was Jesus rich?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
I was reading and in John 19:23,24 “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rent it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They Parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lost. (Ps. 22:18). These things therefore the soldiers did.” (KJV)
Scince his coat was a nice one and nice cloathes coast nice money leads me to think that he was rich. But, before I go of on an assumpion here and make a fool out of myself at school or what have you with something that might be idiotic, What does the rest of scripture (and Tradition) say on the issue and how would I fit John 19:23,24 into it? Thanks and God bless.
 
Although he had “no place to lay his head,” he surely took much comfort from the Bethany family, and if you look between the lines, you can see that Lazarus & Co. were “comfortable” (If not, how could they entertain Jesus and the gang, apparently frequently? and Lazarus had a tomb . . . There was also the Joseph of Arimathea connection.).

That Jesus’ garments were ‘respectable’ is likely a testimony to the generosity of his friends and followers, since he apparently had no identifiable source of income other than the common purse that Judas stole from.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that he was personally wealthy or that he went around preaching the “health and wealth” gospel.
 
Montie Claunch:
I was reading and in John 19:23,24 “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rent it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They Parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lost. (Ps. 22:18). These things therefore the soldiers did.” (KJV)
Scince his coat was a nice one and nice cloathes coast nice money leads me to think that he was rich. But, before I go of on an assumpion here and make a fool out of myself at school or what have you with something that might be idiotic, What does the rest of scripture (and Tradition) say on the issue and how would I fit John 19:23,24 into it? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
How does a seamless coat imply it was expensive?
 
The seamless cloak would suggest an expensive piece of clothing. However, this cloak was not our Lord’s.

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him scourged. 2 And the soldiers wove a crown out of thorns and placed it on his head, and clothed him in a purple cloak, 3 and they came to him and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly.
4 Once more Pilate went out and said to them, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” 5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And he said to them, "Behold, the man!
 
Could the cloak have been one made by his mother? Everything, no matter how nice, was handmade back then. Perhaps his mother, or another woman, made hit for him.
 
40.png
jaz1976:
The seamless cloak would suggest an expensive piece of clothing. However, this cloak was not our Lord’s.

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him scourged. 2 And the soldiers wove a crown out of thorns and placed it on his head, and clothed him in a purple cloak, 3 and they came to him and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly.
4 Once more Pilate went out and said to them, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” 5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And he said to them, "Behold, the man!
Click to expand...
You quote John 19:1-5, but we read in Mark 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes back on him.
[When quoting Scripture, courtesy demands that we indentify the passage].
Tradition with a small “t” holds that Mary, the Mother of the Lord, made his clothes. He was most definitely NOT wealthy.
 
40.png
Strider:
You quote John 19:1-5, but we read in Mark 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes back on him.
[When quoting Scripture, courtesy demands that we indentify the passage].
Tradition with a small “t” holds that Mary, the Mother of the Lord, made his clothes. He was most definitely NOT wealthy.
Click to expand...
Terribly sorry to offend you Strider. An honest error on my part and in no way done to upset you.

We also read in Luke 23:11 we see that Herod “garbed him in resplendent garb” before sending Him back to Pilate. So, is this what He was wearing at the time of the crowing with thorns. We do not know for sure, but arguments can be made on both sides using all 4 of the gospels. Luke and John seem to support that the clothing He had on was from somewhere else, while Matthew and Mark seem to support that it was His own clothing.
 
jaz,
Not offended, just sharing a courtesy.
Luke does not tell us what hapened to the fancy clothes, unfortunately and the way I read John, he just doesn’t mention the purple cloak again. Matthew, as you note, in chapter 27, verse 31 states directly that they “put his own clothes back on him.”
I think that if two of the evangelists state something specifically, we should take that as “gospel” (couldn’t help the pun. Sorry).
In any event, I’ll repeat that Jesus was not rich. There is no Biblical or Traditional teaching that he was.
 
40.png
Strider:
jaz,
Not offended, just sharing a courtesy.
Luke does not tell us what hapened to the fancy clothes, unfortunately and the way I read John, he just doesn’t mention the purple cloak again. Matthew, as you note, in chapter 27, verse 31 states directly that they “put his own clothes back on him.”
I think that if two of the evangelists state something specifically, we should take that as “gospel” (couldn’t help the pun. Sorry).
In any event, I’ll repeat that Jesus was not rich. There is no Biblical or Traditional teaching that he was.
Click to expand...
And I’ll repeat, He (or at least His “organization”) had enough money to require a treasurer.

DaveBj
 
The fact that the cloak was seamless by no means implies it was expensive. If it was the Jewish police who arrested him would have stolen it from him. Jesus’ possessions were only the clothes he stood up in. His cloak would have doubled as a blanket in the freezing nights spent sleeping in the open in the Galilean and Judean hill country.

The soldiers who crucified people divided their clothing among them because
a. a condemned man forfeited his property.
b. Before synthetic fabrics and spinning and weaving machines were invented, ALL clothing was much more valuable than today. Most people had just one set of clothes which they wore for decades. It would have been a waste to just destroy it.
c. It gave them something to gamble over to relieve the boredom of hours on guard duty waiting for the victims to die.
d.In Jesus’ case, the authorities probably told the soldiers to make sure Jesus’ followers didn’t get their hands on His clothing, for fear that they would use it as objects of veneration and symbols of resistance to their authority, or dress another man in them to claim that Jesus had risen as he had predicted.
 
40.png
DaveBj:
And I’ll repeat, He (or at least His “organization”) had enough money to require a treasurer.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
Having a treasurer doesn’t necessarily imply a lot of money. It could mean that they simply pooled their resources (however meager) and put 1 person in charge of the funds. That would make them a community instead of just a group of individuals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top