Goose wrote:2. Its often difficult to discern the underlying moral of the story.
It sometimes is, but not so much in this case. The kingdom of heaven is like a hidden treasure/pearl; when you see it, you'll sell all you have to get it. There's precious little room for misunderstanding there... besides perhaps the notion of
buying your way into heaven, which I think most readers would easily reject. Beyond that as far as I can see the only question is whether the hard or soft interpretation is preferable: Are they saying that to gain the kingdom of heaven you
must sell or forsake all you own, or are they merely saying that the kingdom of heaven is worth all that you own should it ever come down to that choice.
The hard interpretation is obviously the one implied by the parables. Granted, it would not be a legitimate conclusion to infer from those parables
and only the parables a doctrine of selling/forsaking everything. But given that we know Jesus taught his hearers to lay up treasure in heaven rather than on earth, to sell their possessions and give to the poor, and that no-one can be his disciple without giving up all their possessions, these parables
further confirm that when he said all he really did mean all.
Goose wrote:So don't forget to address the following parables as well:
Matthew 7:24-27 " Parable of building on the rock " a parable about building a house on the right foundation.
Matthew 18:23-35 - Parable of the unforgiving servant " that ones all about money.
Matthew 20:1-16 " The parable of the vineyard workers " a parable about a land owner who hires laborers.
Matthew 25:1-13 - Parable of the ten virgins - where five prudent virgins took oil for their lamps and the five foolish ones who didnt were locked out by the groom while they were buying oil.
Matthew 25:14-29 " Parable of the talents " well that one is pretty much all about rewarding the servants who made the most money. The slave who made no money was punished.
In Matthew 7 he's saying to obey his teachings. Isn't he?
Matthew 18 is all about
forgiveness, explicitly so: "So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart."
Matthew 20 explains how equal reward for unequal work is not unjust.
Matthew 25:1-13 is about being prepared for Jesus' return.
Matthew 25:14-29 is the only one which could even remotely be construed as endorsing working for money; in fact at least two of the others you raised seem to weigh against the comfort, wealth and complacency of western Christianity. But even so, 'prosperity doctrine' teachers aside I'm pretty sure most commentators and readers would not view it as a teaching to make a lot of money. Some might view it as referring to
personal spiritual growth, but since the parable is about gaining talents for the master, I would guess that most would understand it as referring to
believers' efforts to grow the kingdom of God. And if so, then ultimately even this parable seems to teach against the common Christian doctrine to keep working, keep your time and possessions as your own, and give a few hours and a few tithes to the church each week: That seems to very closely resemble the attitude of a servant who thought that as long as he didn't
lose ground from where he'd started, that should be enough!
#####
Goose in post #72 wrote:
As near as I can tell, the purpose or main reasons for these commands are:
> Living by faith, trusting in God's provision rather than our own efforts
> Free time to spread the good news of the kingdom of God, rather than working for money
> Freedom from worldly attachments (treasure on earth), and consequently resilience in the face of persecution
> Relief from anxiety and stress over finding work, pursuing a career, or any material or financial losses
> Expressing true love, by helping the poor materially with more than just spare change
All well and good. But notice every point you make here, perhaps with the exception of free time to spread the good news, are all fundamentally issues of the heart. They arent addressed simply by removing material things from ones life as though one is free to serve God only if one doesnt own a house or have a job etc. If ones heart is not towards serving God it makes no difference whether one is wealthy or poor. Removing the temptation or distraction from ones sight doesnt at all deal with the underlying temptation. Its a heart issue, not a material issue. It always has been and always will be. Jesus knew this.
I would say that the first three all directly and heavily relate to one's material circumstances. Jesus didn't say that it's okay to lay up treasures on earth as long as your heart is in the right place, he said that your treasures show where your heart lies. You're right that obeying the material commands is not the be-all and end-all of discipleship; I think that Jesus would agree with Paul that "If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." And again, we might imagine that there's a few people in this big ol' world who might own cars and houses and still have a pure heart totally devoted to God. But the hypothetical exception doesn't make the rule, and it would be quite literally playing with fire eternal, according to Jesus, to ignore his commands on the assumption or hope that I am the rare paragon capable of somehow getting away with it.
And there's another... interesting... point which ought to be raised here. Persecution was a real threat for the first few centuries of believers, and having a job and permanent residence would certainly leave one with a lot more to lose and a lot more vulnerable to intimidation and arrest than more closely following Jesus' example would; short of trying to arrest him while he was teaching a crowd, they pretty much needed an inside man to find and nab Jesus. That hasn't seemed like a serious risk for most Western Christians in the dominant denominations over the past centuries or millennia, so it's easy to ignore that implication of the teachings. But for any Christians who take the Revelation seriously, it should perhaps be the one of the biggest issues weighing on their minds! Jesus' teaching of relying on God's provision and not working for money seems to directly tie in with the 'mark of beast' used to control all buying and selling. Perhaps Christians who have never taken a gradual transition of learning to cope without money now and who can rationalize their earthly treasures directly in the face of Jesus' teachings will find that when the choice is much starker and the transition immediate, rationalizing a credit card in their hand is an even easier option again. I'm obviously quite sceptical of that possibility, but it's hard to be completely dismissive when microchip implants are looking increasingly inevitable and remarkably similar to that 'mark.'
With that said, there's arguably two different models presented more or less clearly in the NT; the example and teachings of John the Baptist, Jesus and the twelve, and the example of the early Jerusalem church.
- Mark 6:7 He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. 10 He said to them, Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. 11 If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them. 12 So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent. 13 They cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.
That's a pretty clear description of the kind of ministry which Jesus and the twelve engaged in; the clearest (and only complete) description which the gospels saw fit to give us. The authors certainly knew that people would want to know what kind of example Jesus and the twelve had set... and there it is. Of course we might infer from that passage that normally they did take bags, spare clothing, some food, and their communal money bag mentioned by John; but they certainly traveled all around the region, staying with those who would welcome them whether rich or poor, sinners or self-righteous alike. Sometimes they ate the gleanings of the fields left there for the poor (Mark 2:23), Jesus himself said he was homeless (Matthew 8:20), and this picture of his ministry is consistent with the spartan lifestyle of John the Baptist - if anything, Jesus lived in relative luxury compared to his predecessor!
Youve argued this as
the model of the kind of ministry which Jesus and the twelve engaged in. But was this the model or was it a unique short episode which deviated from the norm? As you say we can infer that the normal practice was something other than the instructions given otherwise theres no need to give the specific instructions so late in the Gospel when so much evangelism has already taken place and its taken place mainly as a group up to this point. The problem for this model theory is that after the instructions given above where the disciples are sent out two by two with very little (and after Mark deviates into the fate of John the Baptist, 6:14-29) Mark then picks up again in verse 30 where the disciples have reconvened for a debriefing with Jesus. From that point on we see Jesus with his disciples once again continuing the ministry as a group. So, rather than being the model of how a follower is to live this short time of
Spartan-like ministry seems to be a special exception to the general model of travelling as a very well resourced group with, dare I say it, possessions and money.
Why Jesus sent out his disciples for a short time that way is another debate entirely.
Where are you getting the idea that they were a "very well resourced" group (besides having God on their side, I mean)? You earlier suggested that they must have been carrying around enough cash to feed five thousand, which seems to be a gross misinterpretation of the story - the idea of feeding the crowd seemed ludicrous to the disciples. Beyond that as far as I recall pretty much all we're told is that
- they carried some money in a communal bag, which Jesus let the thief Judas carry for them,
- they were sometimes hosted by various people (eg. Levi the tax collector, Simon and Martha of Bethany, Peter's family, Zacchaeus, the owner of their last supper room), some of whom later became disciples,
- they sometimes slept out in the open, for example in a boat while crossing the lake,
- some of their needs were provided for by women at home (presumably with non-believing husbands; eg, Joanna was married to Herod's steward) and some other women who traveled with the group,
- and they ate the gleanings of the fields, left there for the poor.
In short, they leaned heavily on both the charity of local homeowners (same as when he sent them out in pairs) and the charity of those women back home, counted themselves among the poor, and apparently didn't care about what little money they
did have. Maybe they owned a boat, or maybe they just borrowed one from time to time. It seems that more or less the only differences between their usual ministry and when they were sent out in pairs were the size of the group and those specific exclusions Jesus named (no bread, no bag, no money in their belts and not to put on two tunics). Again, the gospel authors certainly knew that
people would want to know what kind of example they had set, and the sending of the twelve is the only complete description they gave; and in case that were not clear enough or to counter any notion that it was just for the twelve/that occasion Luke added a second story of seventy disciples, with Jesus saying that "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest."
The model from Acts seems somewhat different, though it's also more ambiguous: We could suppose that for the most part the earliest Christians lived similar (albeit less itinerant) lifestyles and Luke simply wasn't very clear on all the details. Or we could suppose that even after Pentecost the apostles were not yet perfect human beings, and it took a spate of severe persecution to rouse them from the relative comfort of sedentary living they'd settled into. Or as yet a third option we could note that Luke was not an apostle, nor known for a close association with any of the twelve, and is known to have fudged the details on some occasions (eg. Luke 21:20-24), and thus question the veracity of his description of early church events some 50-70 years before he wrote. If there is any real discrepancy between the gospel model and the Acts model, the former is both clearer, better confirmed and more authoritative.
But since this might genuinely reflect the apostles' interpretation and application of Jesus' teaching, it's certainly worthy of consideration:
- Acts 2:41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread from house to house and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
Note that there's no mention of working for money there; if anything, meeting daily in the temple could imply the opposite. Small, low-maintenance local farms to feed themselves? Maybe; the passages are quite ambiguous as to how they handled real estate. Meeting "from house to house" does imply that the community kept hold of some of their properties, while "as many as owned lands or houses sold them" suggests the opposite! One possible resolution is that in the earliest months of chapter 2 they kept their houses, but as they found their footing by chapter 4 they were selling them all. Another possible resolution is that there were enough nascent disciples joining or interested, who hadn't yet sold their houses. Or one of the verses is simply imprecise or misleading. Whatever the case may be, what is clear is that they certainly did
forsake private ownership of their properties and possessions, holding all things in common.
Living frugally in community would satisfy/provide some benefit from the five points listed above. Heck, if modern believers kept working for money (despite no evidence the Jerusalem church did so) they could easily give 80 or 90% of communal income to charities, simply by selling some junk to make room for bunk beds, comfortably house 8-12 people in a three bedroom house and practicing freeganism. If giving to the poor were the main focus of it all, that'd probably be even more effective than the gospel model (albeit significantly losing out on the first two points). And if Christians followed the Acts model generally - even if they did keep working for money - and treated the gospel model as a learning, sharing and faith-building exercise which believers should do a few times in their life rather than constantly, it would convey a genuine intention and desire to follow Jesus' teaching as well as possible. The ambiguities and uncertainties in the NT as a whole (if not the gospels themselves) potentially leave a quite a bit of latitude there, perhaps even intentionally so. But it seems that overwhelmingly, Christians don't even try to follow the Acts model, let alone the example and teachings of Jesus himself.
This is all well and good but theres also no mention of
not working for money which is what we would expect if every member of the community just stopped working for money cold turkey. Meeting daily in the temple doesnt imply they were now all unemployed. It just means they were meeting daily. If they had small local farms to feed themselves, as you suggest, they werent relying on God to feed them now were they? What we see here is members of the community selling possessions to meet the needs of others in the community. Its all Gods anyway.
Further, you are arguing for
community ownership here. This is an entirely different argument you are making now.
That's not what I'm arguing
for, I'm just recognizing that it is an apparently different model or application, which the author of Acts (correctly or incorrectly) attributes to the apostles and should therefore be taken into serious consideration. Speaking of which, in one of your other posts you mentioned Peter going to the 'house of Mary' after leaving prison, which I would say is a case of identifying the house rather than indicating private ownership and contradicting these earlier verses, but does pretty conclusively suggest that the community didn't sell
all their houses; the possibility of it belonging to a newer follower is difficult to apply there.
I do actually think it is good and important that these different models are there: I mean if some Christian group were out there preaching that you must live
exactly as Jesus and the apostles did during his ministry and if you carry even so much as a second-hand mobile phone you are not a disciple and you're going to hell... I think we can all agree that would be some some pretty callous and petty legalism. Circumstances and precise applications undoubtedly will differ from time to time and group to group: Saying that it's what's in a person's heart that counts hardly seems like a valid reason to ignore Jesus' teachings altogether, but seems important and true when it comes down to those little differences in application. For example, the impression I get from one group who've been following Jesus' teachings for a few decades is that they seem to mostly live three or four apiece in mobile homes/camper vans - not as stringent as Jesus having "no place to lay his head," but not as comfortable as the communal houses of Acts either - while
sometimes venturing out with little more than the clothes on their backs like the twelve when sent by Jesus.
But what's particularly telling in reference to the Acts model - even if we assume that most of them did keep their paid jobs - is that
Christians overwhelming still do not even try to meet that much easier standard! Like I said, if they did (or any Christians who do) live frugally in community, perhaps even keeping their jobs but pooling and giving 80 or 90% of that communal income to charities (and particularly if their members also occasionally spent some time going out like the twelve and seventy), I for one certainly would not accuse them of ignoring Jesus' teachings to "give up all your possessions." Following the example of the apostolic church - which is still kind of 'out there' by modern standards - would indicate real interest and sincerity toward the NT message, even if it's not quite the same as the teachings and example of Jesus himself.
But as for Christians who won't even follow the example of the apostolic church, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that they have no more respect for Jesus and his teachings than I've retained - perhaps less! The
name of Jesus has usually been used by the emperors, kings and the institutional church for millennia as a tool for social control, political unification (or division) and fleecing the sheep of their tithes and offerings... but his teachings are almost diametrically opposed to those interests.
