bjs wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
You do realize that the problem Jesus had with the Pharisees in these particular passages is that they were
ignoring the plain meaning of the teachings found in the Tanakh, right?
It’s a bit of a side note, but I really disagree with this assessment. Jesus’ main problem with the Pharisees was that they kept the letter of the law, the “plain meaning of the teachings found in the Tanakh,� but they lacked love for God and compassion for people. They would “give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God.� (Luke 11:42)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply
Love and justice plainly are taught in the Tanakh:
> "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18)
> "He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." (Deut. 10:18-19)
> "You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge." (Deut. 24:17)
> "Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. . . . Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow." (Isaiah 1:13-17)
> "I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6)
In his criticism of this aspect of pharisaic behaviour Jesus was echoing a major theme of
most of the prophets: So their fault (particularly in those two examples JW highlighted) was indeed failure to follow the plain meaning of the teachings in the Tanakh... but in particular, while pretending that they were righteously keeping it.
As I noted, Jesus himself more or less rejected a number of earlier Scriptural teachings, such as regulations on divorce, ritual cleanliness and - amazingly - arguably two of the ten commandments by working on the Sabbath (gathering grain, which Moses would have punished with death; Mark 2:23ff, Numb. 15:32) and not honouring his father and mother (Matt. 23:9, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 14:26). So it's not as if he held the view that those earlier traditions were perfect and infallible; his biggest gripe with the 'Pharisees' was their hypocrisy in pretending that they actually were following all those teachings.
By implication, it would seem that a person making a carefully-considered, honest and conscientious decision to
reject Jesus' teaching of forsaking all would ultimately be more similar to Jesus in their core attitudes than someone who just pretends that they are following what Jesus taught and that he didn't "really" teach it at all.
bjs wrote:
Okay, to the general question: I do not think that Jesus commanded his disciples to give away everything they owned. His first believers did not act that way.
In Acts 4 we are told that among the believers “From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.�
That is a great material sacrifice, but notice that in order to sell land and give away the money, they first had to own land. So when these people, who were called “believers,� first converted they did not give away everything they owned. The continued to own things, though they put the needs of others before ownership of material things.
That very passage pretty clearly states (Acts 4:32) that "All the believers were one in heart and mind.
No-one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had." Trying to use it as a proof text to show that they retained private ownership of their stuff seems to be rather selective reading! Earlier in Acts (2:44-54) we read that "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."
Now whether or not that model of frugal living and communal ownership was following what Jesus actually taught, strictly speaking, is open to dispute, but if Christians actually followed that model from Acts - the example and teaching of the apostles, if not quite the example and teaching of Jesus himself - it might be reasonable to then argue that the more extreme gospel example is not a universal thing: Perhaps an exercise in extreme faith that
most folk should do perhaps
a few times in their lives, but not a constant absolute.
But the fact is that Christians overwhelmingly don't even meet the much easier goalpost of that Acts example! It seems rather ironic, almost perverse, to highlight that as if it were some kind of defense or would-be refutation of Jesus' teachings.
bjs wrote:
Luke 14:33 does not include the word “possessions.� Jesus called us to give up “everything.� In context, this seems to refer to something more than material possession.
NASB
33 So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.
NIV
33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
NKJV
33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
Hyparchonta means "possessions, goods, wealth, property" (
Strongs) and of 14 occurrences in the NT was translated by the KJV as 'goods' seven times, 'things which (one) possesses' twice more and simply 'that (one) has' four times. Once again this response seems to be a quite a stretch, to say the least.
bjs wrote:
Ultimately, I think that giving away everything we own would be much easier. A Pharisee of Jesus’ day could have done that. We could sell everything we own, give all the money away, and still care nothing for God or other people. That is an external thing.
Jesus is ALWAYS after the heart. He wants people who love God and put compassion for people above material wealth. We could be very wealthy and still put people before money and love God with all that we are. We could own nothing and still lack love for other people while exalting ourselves for our great show of “humility.� (“Look at how good I am! I gave everything away! Focus on me!�)
If I gave everything away and starved to death, that would be selfish. If I gave everything away and relied on taking charity from others, that would be selfish. If I kept some possession and treated them as things belonging to God for which I am only a steward, then I think I get a little bit closer to what God wants of me.
Does God need our money and our earning potential to shelter, feed and clothe ourselves and others? If so, then arguably what you're saying has merit. Quite dubiously so of course, because "I can accomplish more good by earning money and living securely" quickly becomes (in the overwhelming majority of cases) "Well I have to at least be comfortable, God wouldn't expect me to be uncomfortable, and if I strive to earn a lot more just think of how much good I can do with it!" Promising to give to others tomorrow is all well and good, but often tomorrow never comes.
But if God doesn't need our money and our earning potential to shelter, feed and clothe people in the first place, then there doesn't seem to be even that dubious merit in the argument. Remember how seemingly little concern Jesus evidenced for the poor when he was anointed with expensive perfume? By all appearances, he didn't tell his disciples to forsake all so much for the benefit of the poor, but for their own benefit:
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot work for God if you're working for money! For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink...
bjs wrote:
The more I am focused on me, the less I am focused on God.
Big, showy actions that are supposed to show others how much I care (notice that the focus is on me) are things of romantic comedies. Selflessness, faith, compassion, and genuine humility are things of God.
How are we focused on God if we're spending forty hours a week working for money and most of the rest of the time either worrying about grocery lists and mortgages and bills or relaxing from all that stress?
Of course you're right that following [this part of] Jesus' teachings can be perverted into something hollow and ultimately pointless. But Jesus also taught things like don't do your acts of charity to be seen by others, don't pray to be seen by others either for that matter (which the church seems to not only ignore but deliberately flaunt), and to actively
serve others rather than merely throwing money at them. How many people do you really, honestly imagine there are who go to the lengths of forsaking all their worldly possessions in obedience to Jesus' teachings whilst overlooking or ignoring these others? A quarter of those who forsake all? Maybe even a third?
By contrast, even among the most genuine and sincere Christians there is surely an overwhelming majority who, having decided
not to forsake all, end up spending virtually all of their wealth on their own luxuries and throwing maybe a tenth or a fifth of it into church coffers, so they can get a nicer sound system or bigger building for their Sunday mornings. There's no faith or trust in God's provision in that, precious little selflessness or compassion, and often precisely the opposite of humility in having a nice car, home and 'Sunday best' clothing.
No doubt one can be a 'good' person under either general approach, but which of them offers the more insidious and widespread snares, do you think? Honestly? Jesus rated worldly possessions and cares right up there with
persecution and with
Satan himself as reasons why the gospel fails to bear fruit (Mark 4).
The thing is, what money
is is a medium of exchange; a way of keeping score. Odds are you could ask virtually any billionaire and that's what they'll tell you, that it's "not about the money," that's just a way of measuring success amongst their peers. But it's also true for virtually all of us, most of the time, that if we're keeping score we're going to want to do better. It's a part of human nature, it seems.
For my part, many core elements of gospel ethics remained with me even after I stopped being a Christian. I worked at McDonalds throughout all of my twenties, never even wanting to progress to a management position, and for most of that time I was content and often genuinely happy (if somewhat cynical). Then I left and got a higher-paying and more responsible job, and quite rapidly - within a matter of months, I would say - I found myself wanting to earn even more money, and eventually even dissatisfied with what I was getting.
It seems to me that Jesus' kingdom of God, at least in part, is about working to meet genuine needs in a spirit of love; not working for money to make a profit for the landowner or (in our day) multinational corporation. If the love of money is the root of all evil, what does it say when we're devoting so much of our lives and psychological efforts to getting it - so much more than we do towards helping our fellow human beings?
Judging by his teaching and actions, Jesus was far more concerned about the subversive power of money than, say, alcohol. No doubt a person can use either of them without becoming overwhelmed by their negatives, and indeed Jesus did
use money; but he very clearly said that his followers should not
work for money, because if they were working for money they would not be working for God.