"The First Socialist???"
When I was about to leave university, a man in our year was surprised to hear that I had become a Christian and said to me, "Ah yes. Jesus. The first socialist."A series on the Discovery Channel once attempted to major on Jesus as 'the subversive'.
Both are enormously wrong. Certainly, Jesus warned of the spiritual dangers of the misuse of worship of wealth - but this was little more than the full meaning of the Commandment which forbade idolatry.
In the same manner, he enjoined believers to give heavily to the poor and showed a respect and compassion for the poor which was arguably rare in his day and age.
Compassion is not the preserve of socialists as some might claim, quite the opposite!
He most emphatically did NOT advocate forms of government which would use taxation as a weapon nor made wild claims about the 'redistribution of wealth' by force.
He told us how to act in Matthew 25 in The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. The wealth problems of The Rich Young Ruler were very specific. He had wealth as a barrier between him and God - there are many such barriers out there.
Note too how Jesus replies to the disciples after the 'camels and needles' remark.
Jesus, subversive? - If requiring the religious people in authority to stop basking in their own self importance was subversive - then perhaps. BUT, not once is there a shred of evidence of Him confronting the Romans. No zealot, He! No politician, He!
Note too the picture. Could it be more wrong?
