the Week of Christ the King / Proper 29 / Ordinary 34
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Business (2)
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or BUSINESS.—1. The first recorded words of Jesus stand in the Authorized Version, ‘Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?’ (Luke 2:49). This is the only passage in the Gospels where the word ‘business occurs, and it is not without some sort of regret that we are obliged to acknowledge the greater accuracy of the Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885, ‘Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?’ The familiar rendering, however, finds a place in the margin; and indeed in this case, as in so many others, the Authorized Version well represents the inner meaning of the original words. Translated quite literally, the phrase (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου) means ‘in the things of my Father’: it denotes a person’s property or estate, and is equivalent to our colloquialism ‘at my father’s,’—the whole stress falling on the idea of ownership,—and in this way it is fairly frequently used in Greek authors. The closest parallel in Biblical Greek occurs in the Septuagint translation of Esther 7:9, where ‘in the house of Haman’ of the Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 is represented by the phrase ἐν τοῖς Ἁμάν, and it is clear that the gallows, fifty cubits high, must have stood in the precincts of the house, or on the estate, of Haman. (For other instances, see Excursus I. in Farrar’s St. Luke in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, where a summary is given of the essential points from an important monograph on the passage by Dr. Field of Norwich: this monograph has been reprinted in Notes on the Translation of the NT, by the late Frederick Field, Cambridge, 1899).
The Latin Versions render the Greek phrase as literally as the language allows, and throw no light on the interpretation. The Sinaitic Syriac has the suggestive paraphrase, ‘Wist ye not that I must be with my Father?’ The idea of a sympathetic relation with God is indeed of the essence of the passage; perhaps we can best render it by borrowing from the symbolical language of the parables, ‘Wist ye not that I must work in my Father’s vineyard?’
A passage of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. xxiii. 148) affords an interesting parallel to the translation of the Sinaitic Syriac just quoted: ‘For the dispensation of creation indeed is good, and all things are well arranged, nothing happens without a reason; in the things that are Thine must I be (ἐν τοῖς σοῖς εἶναί με δεῖ), O Almighty, and if I am there I am with Thee.’ In another passage (Strom. vi. vi. 45) the phrase is used with an even wider application; of the souls in Hades, Clement says that they are in the things (i.e. within the domain) of God. With this compare the teaching of the ‘Elders’ referred to by Irenaeus (v. xxxvi. 1): ‘For this cause they say that the Lord said that in the things of My Father are many mansions. For all things are God’s, who gives to all men the habitation that befits them.’ Thus what in John 14:2 is called ‘the house of my Father,’ is by the substitution of the phrase τὰ τοῦ πατρός μου extended to mean the whole Universe, including, as the context shows, heaven, paradise, and the ‘city’ of the re-created earth. In Protreptieus, ix. 82, Clement seems to have the incident of Luke 2:49 in his mind as implying the complete consecration of life: ‘But I suppose that when a man is enrolled and lives as a citizen and receives the Father, then he will be in the things of the Father.’
Godet (in his Commentary on St. Luke, ad loc.) points out that the phrase ‘I must be’ (δεῖ εἶναί με) conveys the idea of an absolute and morally irresistible consecration to the service of God on earth. To the awakening consciousness of the child Jesus the Temple at Jerusalem was the symbol of the Father’s dominion over all things; He said in effect to His parents, ‘Ye ought to have sought me in the place where men are occupied with the things of God.’
These first recorded words of Jesus then set a standard by which must be tested every manner of life. How far is it possible for a life spent in business, with which a linguistic accident connects these words for English readers of the Bible, to be lived in the things of the Father, according to the teaching of His Son? As an aid towards reaching an answer to this vital question, let us see what we can learn, from our Lord’s acts and words, of the attitude He adopted towards the business life of the time of His Incarnation.
2. At the next recorded visit of Jesus to the Temple, we find Him in conflict with men who conducted business improperly: those who bore rule there did not understand that they were ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός. It is well known that St. John (John 2:13 ff.) narrates a ‘Cleansing of the Temple’ as taking place quite early in the Lord’s public ministry, while the Synoptists (Matthew 21:12 f., Mark 11:15 ff., Luke 19:45 f.) describe a similar event as occurring in Holy Week. It is at least possible that the holy zeal of Jesus was twice displayed in this manner; but if a choice had to be made, there would be strong reasons for preferring the chronological arrangement of St. John. Without entering into this question, however, we can simply study the attitude of Jesus towards those who conducted the Temple market. The traffic was of two sorts, the sale of sacrificial animals, and the exchange of money: in both cases it may well have been legitimate in itself, and even necessary: the sin was connected with its being carried on within the sacred precincts. It seems obvious that the Sadducean rulers of the Temple, whose cupidity was notorious, must have made money out of the business carried on there; no doubt the sites for stalls within the Temple precincts would command a good rent; and, further, if the animals sold there were certified officially as being unblemished and fit for sacrifice, while those bought outside were liable to a scrutiny on being brought into the Temple, it is easy to see how the privileged tradesmen may have gained an almost complete monopoly, for which they would willingly pay a high price. If the conjecture (see Edersheim, Life and Times4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , 1887, p. 367 ff.) that this Temple market was identical with the unpopular ‘Bazaars of the Sons of Annas’ is right, then the notorious Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas had probably a direct interest in the trade carried on. It seems probable that the ‘changers of money’ (κερματισταί, John 2:14; κολλυβισταί, John 2:15, Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15) were the official Shulhanim (Lightfoot, Horae Heb. on Matthew 21:12; Edersheim, The Temple, p. 70 ff.) who sat to collect the half-shekel for a fortnight before the Passover: they were allowed to make a charge on each half-shekel whether change was given or not, and Edersheim places their probable annual gain from this source at £9000. Very likely the ordinary business of exchange of money was carried on, as obviously no corns bearing images or idolatrous symbols could be offered in the Temple. Moreover, the mention by Josephus (BJ vi. v. 2) of treasure-chambers in ‘the Temple belonging to private individuals suggests that ordinary banking business, including the receipt of money on deposit, may have been made a source of profit, which would be enhanced by the security afforded by the sanctity of the place. These considerations have been put forward to show that it is likely that the ruling priestly faction turned to financial account the consecrated character of the buildings committed to their charge. Probably it was this making money out of holy things, rather than the ceremonial violation of the sanctity of the Temple, that caused the severity of our Lord’s condemnation of the whole system which made His Father’s house into ‘a house of merchandise,’ according to St. John’s account, or in the stronger words of the Synoptists, into ‘a den of robbers.’ It is clear that Jesus would not suffer business to be carried on in a manner that interfered with the honour due to God: doubtless He would have applied this principle to the Day, no less than to the House, of His Father. The same lesson is taught in the parable of the Royal Marriage Feast (Matthew 22:1 ff.; cf. Luke 14:16 ff.).
3. But the Son of Man, to whom nothing human was void of interest, in no way stood aloof from business. Himself a carpenter by trade (Mark 6:3), He did not hesitate to tell the ‘fishermen’ Apostles that there was a likeness between their former worldly and their future spiritual vocation (Matthew 4:19, Mark 1:17); the would-be disciple, who wished first to bid farewell to those at his house, was told that he might have learned behind the plough the need of concentrating his whole interest and attention on the task he had in hand (Luke 9:62). Both before and after the resurrection (Luke 5:4 ff., John 21:1 ff.) Jesus granted special revelations of Himself to the disciples while engaged in their usual occupations. In the command to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21, and parallels), we are struck by the business-like recognition of actually existing circumstances. Several of the parables prove how fully Jesus understood and entered into the business spirit, and show that, when consecrated by devotion to God, it is necessary to those who seek the kingdom of heaven. The merchantman who sold all that he had in order to buy one pearl of great price, gave proof of that confidence in his own judgment, joined with willingness to stake all upon it, which is indispensable to success in great mercantile ventures, and is said to be even now characteristic of the Jewish nation (Matthew 13:45 f., cf. Matthew 13:44 ‘the hidden treasure’). In the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard the fulfilment of a contract is sharply opposed to the voluntary gift of money to those who had presumably been willing but unable to earn it (Matthew 20:1 ff.). A proper return is rightly expected from the ownership of land (Mark 12:7 ff., and parallels) and of money (Matthew 25:27, Luke 19:23). It is worthy of notice that the case just referred to of the ‘unprofitable servant’ follows in St. Matthew’s Gospel directly after that parable which shows how unbusiness-like neglect to buy oil on the part of the foolish virgins led to their exclusion from the marriage-feast. The man who failed to make correct calculations as to the cost of building a tower is regarded as a fit object for mockery (Luke 14:28 ff.). On the other hand, the unjust steward, who took advantage of his position of authority to make friends of his master’s debtors, showed a business-like shrewdness which would have been of value if employed honestly in a good cause (Luke 16:9 ff.).
4. A terrible warning of the danger of misusing business capacity is afforded, not in the imaginary story of a parable, but in the actual life of Judas Iscariot. St. Matthew (Matthew 26:14 f.) and St. Mark (Mark 14:10 f.) connect the determination of Judas to betray Christ with the anointing of His feet at the feast in the house at Bethany. St. John, in narrating the same incident (John 12:4 ff.), tells us that it was Judas who gave expression to the false idea that the giving of money to the poor was of greater value than personal devotion: ‘Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag used to take away (ἐβάσταζεν, see Westcott in Speaker’s Commentary, ad loc.) what was put therein.’ Judas, no doubt on account of natural aptitude, had been made treasurer to Jesus and His disciples; he was vexed that so large a sum of money as three hundred pence had been wasted in the pouring out of the ointment instead of passing through his hands for the supposed benefit of the poor. Comparing together these different passages, it seems clear that St. John traced the fall of Judas, culminating in the betrayal, to the misuse through covetousness of his business faculties.
5. It can be, and often is, argued that the morality taught by Christ cannot be strictly and literally applied in the conduct of business. Probably the impossibility is no greater in the life of the business man than it is in the life of any one who tries to live as a consistent Christian. The main difference seems to be that in business practical morality is daily, and often many times a day, put to a test the extent of which can be estimated in money, and failure to conform to a high standard is easily detected. The business man is obliged to have a definite standard of practical morality, high or low according to his own character and the exigencies of his trade, and according to that standard he must act. Self-deception in his case is practically limited to one particular form,—which, however, is extremely prevalent,—that of attempting to separate personal from business morality. The ordinary non-business man, on the contrary, generally has a curiously vague and more or less ideal standard, and it is a very difficult thing even for a man of honest thought to settle how nearly he lives up to it. Business morality in a measure analyses itself, while the morality of ordinary life almost defies analysis: a comparison between the two is thus extremely dangerous, as they are practically incommensurable quantities.
Jesus Christ evidently believed that the moral and religious truths which He taught were capable of being applied in business. We have seen above that He severely condemned the Sadducean hierarchy, who may be taken to represent the capitalist class of those days at Jerusalem, because their business was conducted on wrong principles: they maintained merely ceremonial purity, and would not put the ‘price of blood’ in the treasury (Matthew 27:6), but they did not shrink from making gain of holy things. This shows the uncompromising attitude of Christ towards what was morally bad. But there was a great difference in His manner of dealing with another typical class of business men, the Publicans. He did not follow popular opinion in regarding their occupation as absolutely unjustifiable; He looked on their calling as a legitimate one, while demanding honesty in carrying it out. The Baptist had taken the same line, ‘Exact no more than that which is appointed you’ (Luke 3:13). Zacchaeus, for his charity and earnest desire to avoid extortion, is declared to be truly a son of Abraham (Luke 19:9).
It is worthy of note that St. Luke places the parable of the Pounds in close connexion with the Zacchaeus incident, as if to teach us that lessons of eternal value can be learned in business. The slaves are rewarded with ten or five cities, according to the capacity which each had shown in trading with his pound.
This brings us to the centre of the whole matter: the life of business is a legitimate one for followers of Christ so far as it can be lived ‘in the things of the Father’; then it is a means of imparting training and of teaching lessons which can be used now and hereafter in the service of God. ‘God has set you,’ writes the Rev. Wilfrid Richmond (Christian Economics, 1888, p. 159), ‘in the world with other men to learn, by mutual interchange of the means of life, the laws of love. Your wealth, whatever it may be, little or great,—the wealth you make, the wealth you spend,—is treasure, corruptible or incorruptible, treasure on earth or treasure in heaven, according as it is or is not, in the making and in the spending, the instrument of love.’
Literature.—Besides the works referred to in the art., reference may be made to E. S. Talbot, Some Aspects of Christian Truth, 208; A. Whyte, Walk, Conversation, and Character of Jesus Christ our Lord, 59; C. R. D. Biggs, The Diaconate of Jesus, 19; S. Gregory, Among the Roses, 191; H. Bushnell, Sermons on Living Subjects, 243; Expos. 2nd ser. viii. [1884] p. 17. P. M. Barnard.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Business (2)'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/b/business-2.html. 1906-1918.
