Aves 1

John Paul Benedict B. Aves

Jeffrey Alester T. Teh

English 13

28 November 2018

The Christian Manifesto: A Marxist Analysis of the Gospels

Introduction

Jesus Christ and Karl Marx are two of the most influential thinkers in history. Their

words and works gave birth to ideologies that still boast a global following. Christianity is a

religion which accepts that salvation can only be gained through the belief in Jesus Christ as the

Son of God (Harnack 8), and Marxism is a socioeconomic theory theorizing a materialist

conception of history, a dialectical view of social transformation, and the foundation for the

theory and practice of communism (Heilbroner 171). The previous helped shape the last two

thousand years while the latter is responsible for some of the major events of the 20th century.

Today, Christianity remains the largest religion in the world with over 2.4 billion

adherents (Molloy 3). On the other hand, even if Marxism has been declining from its zenith in

the past century, guerilla movements all around the globe are still being waged in its name and

socialist ideas continue to be used in forming state policies (Uchida 2). Needless to say, the ideas

of Jesus Christ and Karl Marx still sustain their power and importance in society up until this

day.
 Aves 2

Similarities of Christianity and Marxism

Christianity and Marxism share a few things. Both converge theory and practice and

attempt to change not only how we see the world but also the world itself. Some thinkers even

postulated that these similarities go as far as Judeo-Christian influences on Marxism (Eliade

554). Ted Benton attempted to draw parallels between the main doctrines of Christianity and

Marxism. According to him, the Marxist doctrine of creation can be found in the evolution of

matter, its idea of original sin in the division of labor, its conception of salvation in the

revolution of the proletariat, and its totalitarian source of truth, like the ecclesiastical view of the

Church, in the Party (qtd. in Eliade 554).

We could also view both as being concerned with the question of liberation, albeit from

different things, and how and why it should be achieved. Christianity attempts to answer how

man can liberate itself from sin while Marxism is largely concerned with how society can

liberate itself from class conflict. In a way, both suggest that this liberation is the most important

task of mankind and that through it, mankind finds a panacea to all evil and suffering. It is

interesting to note that what the two consider to be the root of all evil and suffering are almost

identical. For Christians, it is the love for money (NIV, 1 Timothy 6:10) while for Marxists, it is

private property (Marx and Engels 6).

Differences of Christianity and Marxism

However, as Marxism is a materialist ideology and Christianity a spiritual or idealist one,

the two tackle the question of liberation quite differently and at times, contradictorily. The most

known contradiction between the two is Karl Marx’s outright rejection of religion. The main

Marxist criticism of religion is that it is just a human construct, violating the fundamental idea of
 Aves 3

historical materialism of the reality of a purely material world devoid of non-material or spiritual

beings. Marx argued that religion is only an illusion (Bockmuehl 49). On this matter, Marx

expounded:

Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man's self-

consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has already lost

himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world

of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted

consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world… It is the fantastic

realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true

reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that

world whose spiritual aroma is religion (71-72).

Second, Marx characterizes religion as a tool used by the economic and political elites to

hide the social realities of oppression and inequality. He posited that as a result, religion alienates

people from truth and reality, and provides an illusion of liberation through salvation or a better

life after death. “Religion is the opium of the people,” Marx famously said. He further discussed

in his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:

Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest

against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a

heartless world, and the soul of soulless circumstances (71-72).

Certainly, Christian thinkers also have qualms about Marxism. The most outward is their

criticism of the fact that the ideology, as practiced by communist thinkers, parties and

movements, today is largely a godless one (Bancroft 9). In his objection to the use of Latin

American Catholic priests of Marxist ideology for their theologies of social justice, then-superior
 Aves 4

general of the Society of Jesus Father Pedro Arrupe, in a message approved by the Vatican,

highlighted what he considered to be the incompatibilities of the two: (1) the internal

contradiction of Marxism in attempting to lift up man while actually devaluing him, (2) its

eternal dialectic view of social transformation never going beyond matter, lacking ethics, being

insufficient and having distorted reality, (3) the privileged moral purity and special historical

character Marx places on the proletariat, and (4) its recognition of a purely human center of

history, considering only prehistory then history, effectively excluding Christ and salvation (253-

267). This came in a time when liberation theology, a philosophy which tried to reconcile

Marxist thought and Christian morality as a basis for the socioeconomic and political liberation

of man, gained momentum in Latin America.

Nevertheless, these seemingly irreconcilable differences cannot dismiss the notion that

the general similarities that Christianity and Marxism share are too significant to ignore. Thus,

this paper will delve into the perennial question of the compatibility of Christianity and Marxism

by examining the acts and statements of Jesus Christ himself.

In order to investigate their similarities, their main sources must be examined. The Holy

Bible, as the most venerated and important text of the religion, serves as the prime material

containing the main philosophy of Christianity. The Gospels, or the books of Matthew, Mark,

Luke and John, are the only accounts in the Holy Bible directly narrating the supposed life and

ministry of Jesus Christ (Funk and Hoover 3). The Gospels have proven to be a rich literary

work, having been the subject of countless interpretations not only in the field of theology but

also in philosophy, sociology, psychology and anthropology (Dungan 23). Thus, it is only fitting

that these books be used as the chief reference material in examining the words and works of

Jesus Christ.
 Aves 5

Socio-Political and Economic Context of First Century C.E Palestine

A literary criticism of the Gospels through the Marxist lens yields to a rich analysis of

how Jesus Christ apparently regarded private property, class conflict, ideology, utopia and the

working class in the historical and socioeconomic context of that time. However, the primacy of

class consciousness in the words and ministry of Jesus Christ can only be understood by having a

full grasp of the prevailing social, economic and political structures and relations in Judea, where

Christ spent most of his life. Thus, before diving into the analysis, let us first discuss and

establish the socio-political and economic context of first century C.E Palestine.

For the purpose of this paper, following the lead of scholars studying Jesus Christ, the

Gospels will be treated not as a mythological account but as an actual historical document, nor

will Jesus Christ be viewed as a supernatural being, as he is otherwise viewed by adherents of

Christianity, but as an actual historical person, a Galilean who lived in Palestine in the first

century (Horsley 3). Helder Luis Carlos, in a related essay, focused on four general socio-

political and economic features of Palestinian society in the first century: “the first century

Palestine as a peasant society, the first century Palestine as a subject society, the first century

Palestine as a purity society and the first century Palestine as a patriarchal society” (6). This part

puts emphasis in first century Palestine being both a peasant and a subject society as these two

are the most relevant socio-political and economic features that must be underlined in a Marxist

analysis of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

First century Palestine was a peasant society. Peasants are farmers in rural areas whose

surpluses are taken by the ruling class to maintain their standard of living and supply the rest to

other members of society who do not cultivate crops (Wolf 3-4). First century Palestine was a

peasant society because its only source of wealth was the farming of peasant tenants of land
 Aves 6

(Draper 83). This peasant society functioned in a centralized government with a tributary mode

of production where the extravagances of ruling kings required forced labor and tribute (West

517) and where failure to comply made one culpable of disloyalty to God since kings were

viewed as God’s appointed servants (Gottwald 163). This exploitative system was most apparent

in its social hierarchy where the peasants, who produced all crops and were the most populous,

were at the bottom. In the Gospels, Christ interacted with peasants, and in fact, some passages

and parables are widely interpreted as being about peasants and their plights.

It was also a subject society. Palestinian society “had been subject to one imperial

regime after another” from the Babylonians to the Persians to the Greeks (Horsley 3). When

Jesus Christ came into the scene, Palestine was already under Roman control for almost a

hundred years (Horsley 3). The colonizers secretly and forcibly collected tributes and numerous

tolls from the subjects (Horsley 7) to the point that peasants had to sacrifice a day’s meal to pay

additional tax to the Romans (Draper 87). To paint a benevolent image of themselves, the

Romans depended on local rulers and landlords to seize surplus and tributes from the peasants

(Horsley 9). Compared to the books in the Old Testament which largely dealt with the problem

of and revolved around colonial subjugation, the Gospels did not really touch the matter

extensively. It can be said, however, that the Roman empire, through its leaders in Judea,

considered Jesus Christ to be a threat, as evidenced by his capture, conviction and execution.

The historical context in which the Gospels are situated in is marked by socio-political

and economic oppression. The economic exploitation already experienced by peasants through

the unjust extraction of surplus and the tributary mode of production was even intensified by

colonial subjugation with its oppressive system of taxation, creating several layers of oppression

in first century Palestinian society. These were the harsh and widely unequal socio-political and
 Aves 7

economic conditions that served not only as a backdrop but also as an influential factor to the

words and works of Jesus Christ.

Framework

This paper will scrutinize the compatibility of Christianity and Marxism by examining

the words and works of Jesus Christ, as recounted the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,

which will be analyzed collectively as the Gospels. This paper will employ Marxist literary

criticism based on both the orthodox tradition of Marxist analysis, drawing from the main ideas

of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and the theories and analyses of contemporary Marxist

thinkers which were found to be relevant to the study.

According to Meyer Howard Abrams, Marxist critics generally view literature “not as

works created in accordance with timeless artistic criteria, but as 'products' of the economic and

ideological determinants specific to that era" (149). Literary theorist Terry Eagleton also

depicted Marxist literary criticism as being concerned not only with how a particular work is

published and how it illustrates class struggle but also with its form, styles and meanings, and

how they relate to the socioeconomic conditions of that time (46). The historical context and

socioeconomic conditions where the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and his followers were

situated in and how their attitudes and actions were influenced by such setting will be viewed

through this lens.

Additionally, Marxist literary criticism does not only seek to analyze the literary work

and its socioeconomic context through the Marxist lens, it also involves a critique of the function

of literature as a whole. Literature is both a reflection of the dominant social institutions which

produced it and an institution itself, serving some functions of ideology (Delahoyde 6).
 Aves 8

Especially now that it is accessed through digital and other new forms, literature holds a huge

and rooted influence on the outlook and behavior of individuals and institutions in society. Thus,

the ideological function of the text will be investigated by following Louis Althusser’s theory of

ideology and concept of ideological state apparatuses (128).

Additionally, its ideological function will be further explored by examining not only what

is readily presented in and traditionally drawn from the text but also and more importantly what

is absent and concealed in the text. Pierre Macherey’s conclusion of literature as a tool which

“produces new outlooks and contexts, parodies and deforms ideology, exposing its limits and

gaps, but does not recognize or condemn it” in his Theory of Literary Production will be

followed (1-14). How the Gospels conceal certain notions and fail to demystify textual and non-

textual gaps will be criticized in relation to its ideological effect on unwary readers or

specifically, its firm adherents and faithful believers.

Furthermore, this analysis will also use Marxist thinker Fredric Jameson’s concept of

utopianism and delve into how the text presented a utopia through the idea of heaven and how

that represents the experience of a historical class position and compares to Marx’s structural and

anti-humanist communist utopia.

Analysis

This analysis will be divided into the major themes the researcher found to be most

relevant in a Marxist literary criticism of the Gospels: the relationship of Jesus Christ with the

oppressed class, the view of Jesus Christ on the rich and private property, the position of Jesus

Christ on economic and imperialist exploitation, the ideological function of the work, and the

representation of heaven as a utopia.

 Aves 9

Jesus Christ and the Oppressed Class

Jesus Christ had a particularly special relationship with the oppressed class as he openly

favored the poor over any other sector of society. They were mostly the beneficiaries of his acts

of miracles, his teachings and his ministry in general. He himself was poor as he is traditionally

known to be a “carpenter” (NIV, Mark 6:3) or a “son of a carpenter” (NIV, Matthew 13:55). He

generally advocated for material poverty. Father Pedro Arrupe’s criticism of Marx’s having

assigned an “unprecedented moral purity” on the proletariat can also be used against Jesus

Christ’s partiality for the poor. In Luke 6, he declared “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours

is the Kingdom of God.” This is evident in his grand pronouncements assuring the poor of an end

to their sufferings in the afterlife. He went as far as saying that those who suffer now will not

suffer in the kingdom (NIV, Luke 6: 21-22). This is best illustrated in a parable where Lazarus, a

rich man, and a poor, diseased man found themselves in heaven. The poor man was by

Abraham’s (an important patriarch in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths, thus called the

Abrahamic religions) side while Lazarus was in anguish. He then begs for mercy, to which

Abraham responds: “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while

Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony” (NIV, Luke

16:25).

It can truly be observed that an unparalleled moral ascendancy is placed by Christ in the

poor, as Marx placed in the proletariat. Both are, in a way, given a heroic position. As the

proletariat is seen as a revolutionary class with a unique historical position, the poor is rewarded

with an assured spot in heaven. The extraordinary relationship of Christ with the poor is further

emphasized by the fact that it is also from among the ranks of the working class that he recruited

most of his valued disciples. He called the fishermen Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John
 Aves 10

(NIV, Matthew 4:18-21), the thief Judas (NIV, John 12:4-6), the tax collector Matthew (NIV,

Matthew 9:9-13), the tentmaker Paul (NIV, Acts 18:1-3) and Simon the Zealot (NIV, Luke 6:15)

to be part of his twelve apostles. They may not have been very poor because they belonged to the

middle class but in the peasant and Roman-controlled society of first century Palestine, they

were still subject to exploitative taxation by the Romans and thus, were indeed part of the

oppressed class.

Jesus entrusted to these apostles, most of whom were from the oppressed class, the holy

mission of liberating the world from sin by giving them the power and authority to spread his

teachings, cure diseases and drive out demons. They evangelized people or spread the “good

news” of Christ, preached the Christian ideology of living a good and moral life and built the

foundation of the Catholic Church, all in an effort to turn people away from sin and towards

Christ, who for them is the way to eternal salvation. This parallels the Marxist view of the

proletariat, an oppressed class, as the revolutionary force which will emancipate all oppressed

classes and bring an end to class exploitation and class itself. The proletarians are also tasked to

spread the communist ideology or raise class consciousness, mobilize against the capitalist

system and wage the revolution that will build the foundation of a communist society.

The unprecedented moral purity Marx ascribed to the proletariat is paralleled by the

unprecedented confidence and trust Jesus placed in the poor. This led Christ and Marx to place

little significance in their low rank in society and to instead focus on their evangelical or

revolutionary potential. When confronted about his alignment with sinners, offenders and poor

people, Jesus answered, “it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to

call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (NIV, Luke 5:31-32).

 Aves 11

Jesus Christ on the Rich and Private Property

The extraordinary relationship of Christ with the poor is directly contrasted by his disdain

towards the rich. This is made known in several passages in the Gospels. “Woe unto you that are

rich for you have received your consolation” (NIV, Luke 6:24). This recurring sentiment is also

the main theme in several other parables (NIV, Luke 12:16, 16:19, 12:1) that portray rich people

to be hypocritical, selfish, greedy, sinful and less worthy to receive salvation. In Luke 18:25, he

declared that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to

enter the kingdom of God.” His contempt for the affluent is not only due to the pro-poor nature

of his ministry but also because he viewed their interests to be incompatible with his philosophy.

He stated that “one cannot serve both money and God” (NIV, Matthew 6:24). By this alone, the

Gospels already exhibit inherent similarities with Marxist thought in, to put it simply, pro-poor

and anti-rich or pro-oppressed class and anti-oppressing class themes.

Private property, on the other hand, is an ambivalent topic in the Gospels. Jesus idealized

simplicity over luxury and rebuked the influence and power attributed to wealth. While he did

not expressly attack the very institution of private property, he once told a rich man that the

secret to eternal life is to go sell whatever you have and give it to the poor (NIV, Matthew

19:21). Similarly, Zacchaeus, after giving away half of his possessions to the poor, was praised

by Jesus and told that he will receive salvation (NIV, Luke 19:8-9). These and other passages in

the Acts of the Apostles are usually quoted by some to reinforce their claim that Jesus was a

proto-socialist or a communist. However, it should also be noted that he still defended the right

to freely and legally own property. In Matthew 20:1-16, he told the Parable of the Workers in a

Vineyard where he sided with the vineyard owner’s decision to pay his workers as he wished,

reasoning that it is lawful for one to do as he wishes with his things, something which one can
 Aves 12

argue to be the core idea of private property. With these contradictions, we can evaluate Christ’s

view on private property to be leaning towards the principle that while it is lawful for the owner

to freely use his private property, it must be for the benefit of many.

Jesus Christ on Economic and Imperialist Exploitation

To further understand Christ’s criticism of the rich, one only needs to be reminded of the

socioeconomic conditions of his time. He preached in a feudal society where the rich owned vast

areas of land which were then rented by poor tenants and daily laborers (NIV, Mark 12:1). Thus,

the wealthy elites maintained their very extravagant lifestyles, as vividly painted in Luke 16:19,

by squeezing out maximum taxes and rents from the poor. His recognition of class exploitation

can be further shown in his declaration that the “the kings of the earth collect tribute not from

their children but from others” (NIV, Matthew 17:24-27). His criticism of the wealthy elite

follows the tradition of the prophets of the Old Testament to criticize feudal lords or those who

own vast landholdings. Isaiah warned, “woe to you who join house to house, who connect field

with field, till no room remains” (NIV, Isaiah 5:8).

Nevertheless, his recognition of class struggle did not go as far as outright condemnation

of the unjust and exploitative economic conditions of his time. Many of his parables also

emphasized debt, something which was common with the relatively high rate and unjust system

of taxation imposed by the Romans on the Jews. One parable recounted how a person who was

unable to pay his debt was tortured until he was able to do so (NIV, Matthew 18:34). However,

the moral he accentuated in these parables was the ideas of just compensation and the

responsibility of the debtor to duly pay his debts. The opportunity to condemn the unjust

economic system was never taken. When asked about his thoughts on the Romans’ taxation

system, he gave a somewhat safe answer, saying that Jews should “give back to Caesar what
 Aves 13

is Caesar's and to God what is God's” (NIV, Mark 12:17). In other words, he was generally for

the maintenance of the status quo, which included the continuation of the exploitative economic

system of the Romans, something he was very aware of, as long as it did not hurt his agenda.

On the subject of imperialism or at the very least, on the Roman subjugation of the Jews,

Christ is far from the anti-imperialist revolutionary that some Christian New Testament ethicists

paint him to be (Kim 8; Wink 65). He may have been seen a threat by the Romans and their

client rulers in Judea, something which eventually led to his capture, crucifixion and death. His

teachings were considered to be subversive, conflicting with the more restrictive Jewish laws

promoted by dominant religious authorities allied with the Romans, as evidenced by his lengthy

and scathing criticism against the pharisees in Matthew 23:1-39. Jesus was accused of blasphemy

as he violated Jewish traditions (NIV, Mark 2:24; 3:6; 7:5) and declared his authority as the son

of God (NIV, Mark 2:7; 3:22; 11:27-28; 14:53-64; 15:29-32, 39). He was even, at times, defiant

to Roman authorities as he downplayed Herod’s threats to kill him and instead called him a “fox”

(NIV, Luke 13: 32) and continued doing the things which they considered blasphemous.

However, his goal was not political in that he did not set out to dismantle the Roman

empire. He even acknowledged the authority of Roman emperor Augustus Caesar to impose

taxes upon his subjects (Mark 12:17). His holy purpose of establishing the Kingdom of God is

often misconstrued by some Christian New Testament ethicists, as did the Romans, as being

insurrectionary (Horsley 35). Yet, his acts and statements prove that he was largely unconcerned

with worldly political realities as his crusade was clearly spiritual. Responding to Roman

governor Pontius Pilate, he professed, “my kingdom is not from this world. If it were, my

servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another

place” (NIV, John 18:36).

 Aves 14

The Ideological Function of the Gospels

Louis Althusser’s critique of the Church as a religious ideological state apparatus (ISA)

(97) is well exemplified by Jesus Christ in the Gospels. At best, Christ was for a more moral,

ethical and virtuous society which reveres the Christian god and values, something which even

he implied is possible under an imperialist regime. This can be interpreted as turning a blind eye

to the oppressive and exploitative socioeconomic and political systems that go along with

imperialist control. While he claimed to ally with the poor, he did not direct his sizable influence

and following to criticize or to try challenging the oppressive ruling institutions, like the Roman

empire, which were the reason why they remained poor and exploited. He even preached that

workers must be content with their wages (Luke 3:14). Considering the unequal economic

distribution of the time, we can say that those wages were just enough for subsistence. Thus, his

pacifist and generally pro-establishment leanings essentially go against his anti-elite sentiments

and his recognition of class conflict. This alone not only discredits the radical conception of

Christ as an anti-imperialist revolutionary. More importantly, it also points to his being an

unwitting agent of the oppressive establishment and, in a way, his functioning as an ISA.

His view that duly obeying the law is part of a moral life, as stressed in his belief that it

was within the authority of the emperor to tax his subjects (Luke 20:25), contributes to the idea

of the ideological function of the Gospels in that it represented “the imaginary relationship of

individuals to their real conditions of existence” (Althusser 109). On the surface, his ministry

also exhibited ISA features by having a material existence as manifested in rituals, symbols and

prayers, which encouraged, aside from piety, contentment and meekness. The miracles Christ

performed, the rituals and prayers he taught and the worldview he promoted then fostered

passive attitudes among his followers and beneficiaries such as obedience to and dependence on
 Aves 15

authorities which, in effect, made it easier for the state to control its subjects. With a self-

proclaimed messiah who advocated for material poverty and acknowledged Roman authority, the

oppressed class was thus being led by an appeasing figure who was inadvertently working for the

preservation of the exploitative modes of production, laws and systems of Roman-controlled

Judea.

We can also look at the ideological function of the Gospels in terms of how they mask

internal contradictions and conceal absences to advance the Christian ideology. On this, Pierre

Macherey expounded, “the literary work is simultaneously a reflection and the absence of a

reflection: this is why it is itself contradictory. It would therefore be incorrect to say that the

contradictions of the work are the reflection of historical contradictions: rather they are the

consequences of the absence of this reflection" (128). There are several internal contradictions

and inconsistencies in the Gospels (Watsons 14) like the differing genealogical record of Christ

in Matthew and Luke (Vermes 42) and many other conflicting details such as the accounts of

what happened in his tomb in Mark and Luke (Barton and Muddiman 997). They even offer

disputing ideas on the divinity and humanity of Christ as it is only in the Gospel of John that he

is presented to be a preexistent diving being who became human (Ehrmann 74). However, the

Church has been consistent to maintain their position of the infallibility of the scriptures by

downplaying these contradictions and refuting that they do not affect the historicity of the

Gospels and the authenticity of Christ (Brown, Fitzmeyer and Murphy 1023-1033). Unwary

readers might miss these internal contradictions and inconsistencies and be led to assume that the

Gospels are free from error as a historical document, an idea that the text itself is advancing

through its ideological features. This, in effect, contributes to its apparent legitimacy which

makes it more effective as an ISA.

 Aves 16

Aside from dissecting the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Gospels, it is also

important to read absences in it. What is omitted or deemphasized in the text is very telling of its

ideological purpose. In this case, the personality of Jesus Christ is something that must be

scrutinized. In promoting a nonviolent and pacifist image of Jesus Christ, it would have been

problematic to shed light on the radical figures within the ranks of the apostles. It is interesting to

note that Jesus aligned himself with one of the Zealots, a sect of political revolutionaries and

freedom fighters founded by Judas of Galilee in the year 6 CE against the tax reform of Quirinus,

Roman Governor of Syria (Josephus 18.1.6). Researchers Brandon and Hegel, who

independently studied this subject, concluded that the Simon in the Gospels was indeed part of

such movement but later left and abandoned his revolutionary past to follow Jesus. While it has

been established by Hengel and other researchers that Jesus was not a Zealot as much of his

teachings was contrary to their philosophy, this only shed light on how Christ attracted

revolutionary elements. Some scholars also speculate that Judas Iscariot was part of the Sicarii, a

fragment of the Zealots that specialized in assassination using small daggers (Van Iersel 167).

However, these matters were never touched in the Gospels and compared to other apostles, little

is known about both Simon and Judas.

By failing or choosing not to shed light on Simon and Judas, the Gospels decisively omit

information which, based on its aims, is contradictory to the non-violent image of Christ,

However, such details are crucial to the understanding of the apostles. Failing to read such

absences manipulates readers into believing that the followers of Christ did not use violence to

achieve their common aims. It fails to reflect the historical realities of the time and, to some

extent, neglects or discourages revolutionary ideas which are vital to the struggle of the
 Aves 17

oppressed. This is perhaps the best example demonstrating the Machereyan idea of how absences

in the text facilitate its ideological function.

Similarly, the Gospels also underwent revisions in order to change unwanted information

which do not support its agenda. For example, the later Gospels became keener at promoting the

non-violent and pacifist image of Christ in that they have fundamental disagreements with each

other on his predictions about the destruction of the Temple. In Mark, the earliest written Gospel

and the material source of both Matthew and Luke (Koester 44-46), it is reported as more direct

and apocalyptic: “And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there

shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (NIV, Mark 13:2). In

Matthew, however, it is depicted that the statement was only an accusation by the people against

Jesus in order to blaspheme him (NIV, Matthew 26:60-61; 27:39-40). John, an even later Gospel,

further revised this and portrayed a more passive picture by reporting that Jesus talked about the

destruction "of the sanctuary of his body" (NIV, John 2:19-21). On one hand, these

disagreements dispute the prophetic and messianic persona of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it

sheds light on how the later Gospels revised Mark and tried to present a more consistent pacifist

and nonviolent Christ. These efforts further support the ideological function of the Gospels by

painting Jesus Christ as a peace-loving, nonaggressive and prophetic divine figure, in the

Machereyan fashion of concealing absences and contradictions.

With the ideological point of view, the position of Jesus Christ becomes more

ambivalent. Beyond his generally pro-poor ministry and anti-rich rhetoric is a powerful

ideological weapon that serves the interests of the ruling class. How Christ performed his

ministry and interacted with the ruling institutions and of his times and, even more so, how the

Gospels manipulated the narrative very much show how they serve as ISAs.
 Aves 18

Heaven as Utopia

Another manifestation of the ideological function of the Gospels is the idea of heaven as

a utopia. In the Gospels, the many allusions to heaven or the “Kingdom of God” can lead us to

consider it to be the Christian utopia. The Gospels devoted seven parables to paint a picture of

heaven as a place of priceless value and material prosperity (NIV, Matthew 13). It is a utopia for

the poor as it is also traditionally viewed as a paradise where there is no more pain, poverty or

suffering (NIV, Luke 23:43). Since the real world is still marred by pain, poverty and suffering,

heaven fits Fredric Jameson’s utopian idea as it is something which “keeps alive the possibility

of a world qualitatively distinct from this one and takes the form of a stubborn negation of all

that is” (Jameson 1974 110-111).

It also shares the function of utopian writing in that it stimulates an alternative reality

which challenges people to improve present conditions. It is common knowledge that heaven is

where Christians aspire to be in the afterlife. As it is reserved for righteous people who believe in

Christ as the son of God (NIV, Matthew 5:17-20), Christians then strive to live a moral life based

on Christ’s teachings in order to earn that spot.

How heaven is portrayed in the Gospels is closer to Jameson’s reading of Thomas More’s

utopia as opposed to Marx’s communist utopia. According to Jameson, More’s utopia is more

psychological and humanist as it focused on changing attitudes and eliminating greed or

individual property relations while Marx’s is more structural and anti-humanist as it emphasized

the elimination of the collective means of production and eventually class itself (Jameson 2004

37). Likewise, the view that there is greed in property relations (NIV, Luke 12:15), rather than

the Marxist view of the inherent evil of private property, was the position Christ took. The

Gospels indeed focused on the individual in that Christ taught his followers how to live good
 Aves 19

lives in order to enter heaven. The argument of Jameson that utopia is a “desubjectification”

which leads to the loss of individuality is therefore not valid in this case because while heaven is

traditionally viewed to be an egalitarian paradise, Christ still puts significance on the individual’s

agency to enter heaven (Jameson 2004 41).

The presentation of heaven fits Jameson’s idea that utopia “springs from a specific class

position and its thematization also reflects that historical class position” (Jameson 2004 50). As

the “utopian thinker,” Christ conceived heaven based on his class position and as a reflection of

the class experience and perspective of the poor. This is evidenced in how he told the poor that

they have an assured place in heaven (Matthew 5:3), impressing upon readers that heaven is a

special place for the poor. How the parables portrayed heaven using farming terms like yeast,

mustard seeds and vineyards also support that idea in that they were tailored for the poor peasant

class which constituted a great number of Christ’s followers. As such, Christ’s conception of

heaven reflects the class position, experiences and perspectives of the oppressed class.

This can be seen in two ways. On the surface, it affirms that Jesus Christ sided with the

oppressed and that the purpose of his ministry was to lift them up from the scarce conditions of

their time. However, on the ideological level, the idea of heaven also distracts them from

confronting the reality of the oppressive systems and institutions that are causing their misery by

presenting socioeconomic emancipation as something that only comes in the afterlife. In that

way, it becomes the “opium of the people,” as Marx famously said. So, while it reflects the class

perspective of the oppressed, it also inculcates passive and submissive attitudes that can be used

as an ideological tool to the advantage of the ruling elite. Indeed, the idea of heaven as a utopia

in the Marxist tradition is an ambivalent subject. In the most extreme, it can be a deceptive

instrument which the oppressive powers that be can manipulate to protect the status quo.
 Aves 20

Conclusion

No one can measure with certainty just how “Marxist” Jesus Christ was. A Marxist

literary analysis of the Gospels, however, reveals that he was not the anti-imperialist and proto-

communist revolutionary that some radical thinkers are painting him to be. He may have allied

with the oppressed class of his time, occasionally rebuked the ruling class and acknowledged the

existence of class exploitation in first century Palestine. However, he was still for the very

institutions that were oppressing the poor – the feudal system of production, the exploitative

taxation scheme of the Roman empire and Roman imperialism itself – in that he failed to use his

stature and influence to challenge them. At best, he was somewhere between an egalitarian and a

social democrat or perhaps both as he was more concerned with the betterment of the lives of

individuals, albeit through spiritual growth.

The socialist Christ is further discredited when looking at the ideological function of the

Gospels. How it precedes the Church today as an ISA is evident in how it unwittingly served the

interests of the Roman empire by failing to take a more assertive stance against the evils of

imperialism and by instilling values of subservience to authority. It also blatantly concealed and

undermined its internal contradictions and consistencies and chose to omit certain things to

advance the view of Christ as the Messiah. Even the idea of heaven as a utopia for the poor can

be easily weaponized to the advantage of the oppressors.

So, while we can find compatibilities between Christianity and Marxism in how they

align with the oppressed and work for their liberation, analyzing the words and works of Christ

in the Gospels is not the best way to start. One will only come across an ambivalent figure who

avowed an alliance with the poor and the oppressed but had no qualms about the maintenance of

the exploitative political and socioeconomic systems of his time.

 Aves 21

Works Cited

Abrams, Meyer Howard. "Marxist criticism." A glossary of literary terms. Heinle & Heinle,

1999.

Althusser, Louis. "Ideology and ideological state apparatus (Notes towards an investigation).”

Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Ben Brewster, 1971. 127-186.

Arrupe, Pedro. Justice with Faith Today: Selected Letters and Addresses--II. Institute of Jesuit

Resources, 1980.

Bancroft, N. "Marxism Requires Atheism, Implications For Religious Believers." Journal Of

Ecumenical Studies 22.3 (1985): 567-575.

Barton, John, and John Muddiman, eds. The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press,

2007.

Bockmuehl, Klaus. "Secularism and Theology." With Heart, Mind and Strength: The Best of

Crux 1979–1989. Ed. Donald Lewis. Credo, 1990. 39-54.

Boer, Roland. "The Immeasurably Creative Politics of Job: Antonio Negri and the

Bible." SubStance 41.3 (2012): 93-108.

Brandon, Samuel George Frederick. Jesus and the Zealots. Manchester University Press, 1967.

Brown, Raymond Edward, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, eds. The new

Jerome biblical commentary. Prentice Hall, 1990.

 Aves 22

Mack, Burton L. "Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth (recent

scholarship about the historical Jesus)." Humanist in Canada 120 (1997): 12-13.

Carlos, Helder Luis. "THE SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION IN THE

FIRST CENTURY CE PALESTINE: THE EARTHLY MINISTRY OF JESUS AND

THE PROGRAMME OF RENEWAL FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL." Wordpess, 3

July 2014, https://heldercarlosdotcom.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/the-socio-political-and-

economic-situation-in-the-first-century-c-e-palestine-the-earthly-ministry-of-jesus-and-

the-programme-of-renewal-for-the-people-of-israel. Accessed 21 November 2018.

Delahoyde, Michael. "Introduction to literature." Academia, 22 June 2016,

http://www.academia.edu/22945921/Introduction_to_Literature_Michael_Delahoyde.

Accessed 22 November 2018.

Draper, J. A. "Jesus and Economic Justice." Discovering Jesus in Our Place: Contextual

Christologies in a Globalised World. Ed. Sturla Stalsett. ISPCK, 2003. 80-99.

Dungan, David L. A history of the synoptic problem: the canon, the text, the composition, and

the interpretation of the gospels. Vol. 4. Anchor Bible, 1999.

Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and literary criticism. Routledge, 2003.

Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium. Oxford University Press,

1999.

Eliade, Mircea. The encyclopedia of religion. Ed. Charles J. Adams. Vol. 16. Macmillan, 1987.
 Aves 23

Funk, Robert W., and Roy W. Hoover. Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? the Search for

the Authentic Words of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.

Gottwald, Norman K. The Hebrew Bible in Its Social World and in Ours. Scholars Press, 1993.

139-64.

Harnack, Adolf. What is Christianity?. Book Tree, 2006.

Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible. McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World

Languages, 1999.

Heilbroner, Robert L. Marxism: For and against. WW Norton & Company, 1980.

Hengel, Martin. The Zealots: investigations into the Jewish freedom movement in the period

from Herod I until 70 AD. T & T Clark, 1989.

Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the spiral of violence: Popular Jewish resistance in Roman

Palestine. Fortress Press, 1993.

Jameson, Fredric. Marxism and form: Twentieth-century dialectical theories of literature.

Princeton University Press, 1974.

Jameson, Fredric. "Politics of utopia." New left review 25 (2004): 35-40.

Josephus, Flavius. The antiquities of the Jews. BoD–Books on Demand, 2018.

Kim, Seyoon. Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the writings of Paul and

Luke. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.

 Aves 24

Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2. Walter de Gruyter, 1995.

Marx, Karl. "Towards a critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction." Karl Marx:

Selected Writings. Ed. David McLellan. Oxford University Press, 1977. 81-95.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The communist manifesto. Penguin, 2002.

Resch, Robert Paul. Althusser and the renewal of Marxist social theory. University of California

Press, 1992.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Zondervan House, 1984.

Uchida, Hiroshi, ed. Marx for the 21st Century. Routledge, 2004.

Van Iersel, Bas M. Mark: A reader-response commentary. A&C Black, 1997.

Vermes, Geza. The nativity: History and legend. Image, 2010.

Watson, Francis. Gospel writing: A canonical perspective. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013.

West, Gerald. "Tracking an ancient Near Eastern economic system: The tributary mode of

production and the Temple-State." Old Testament Essays 24.2 (2011): 511-532.

Wink, Walter. Jesus and nonviolence: A third way. Fortress Press, 2003.

Molloy, Michael. The Christian experience: An Introduction to Christianity. Bloosmbury, 2017.

Wolf, Eric R. Peasants. Prentice-Hall, 1966.