Was Christ impractical?

[marco]

Christ told his followers to be perfect like God. Asked for advice on how best to lead a life satisfying to heaven a rich young man was told to give everything up. From Matthew the maker of tall tales we learn: "Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.�

Jesus didn't need money when he had miracles of course. This idiotic advice was followed by the adolescent Anthony of Egypt, made a saint for his silliness. Anthony inherited wealth from his parents and gave it all away to live in a cave, entrusting his poor sister to the care of some townswomen. Anthony, in completely ignoring the needs of his sister, followed Christ's advice.

According to Jesus it's easier to reach heaven from a cave than a castle. Monks who hide from the world and contribute nothing to humankind are following Jesus. If we all behaved like this we would be Neanderthals. Christ forgot that some people have to labour, some have to mark human progress and wealth is a requirement.

Was Jesus being impractical in his advice?

[otseng]

In another thread, I commented on this passage.

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.�

It's doubtful Jesus was commanding that everyone should sell everything and give to the poor here. It's not a bad thing if someone chooses to do this, but it's not mandated by Jesus. As far as I know, he never said this to anyone else. The reason he said this to the young man was he trusted in his riches.

[Mar 10:22 KJV] 22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

It's not having a lot of money that is an issue. It's the love of money that is a snare.

[1Ti 6:10 KJV] 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

[Mithrae]

According to Jesus it's easier to reach heaven from a cave than a castle. Monks who hide from the world and contribute nothing to humankind are following Jesus. If we all behaved like this we would be Neanderthals. Christ forgot that some people have to labour, some have to mark human progress and wealth is a requirement.

Was Jesus being impractical in his advice?

Where did Jesus say to live in a cave? Seems to me he said the opposite; go into the world to preach the good news. He sent his disciples out in small groups from town to town, to preach and help people and stay with whoever was worthy to accomodate them. That's a stark contrast from modern Christians cloistering themselves away in churches and comfy family houses.

I wonder if we would smilarly argue against the "impracticality" of education; that if everyone in the world spent all their time in school we'd have no viable civilization? Jesus knew that precious few people would be willing to forsake everything for the sake of his 'kingdom of God,' or stop working for money and start working for love; in the very story you've cited he said with perhaps a little hyperbole that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Pointing out an imagined difficulty that might occur if 70 or 80% of humanity followed that example seems a rather strange argument given the obvious, inevitable and explicitly-recognized fact that not even 1% of Christians follow it!

[marco]

Where did Jesus say to live in a cave?

I was using cave in antithesis to castle, and employing metonymy for rich and poor.

Seems to me he said the opposite; go into the world to preach the good news.

You are right. Christ often contradicts himself so it is interesting to look for a contradiction when we read his reported advice. Instead of giving to the poor he suggested that it was good to lavish rich ointment on him.

I wonder if we would smilarly argue against the "impracticality" of education; that if everyone in the world spent all their time in school we'd have no viable civilization?

A curious thought. I suppose if we all became fishermen or fiddlers there would be labour shortages everywhere. I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make, if any. It's useful to remember Jesus was speaking not to a symposium of philosophers but to fisherfolk. Spotting fascinating examples of hyperbole or finding profound thought might be a modern take on a simple theme.

Pointing out an imagined difficulty that might occur if 70 or 80% of humanity followed that example seems a rather strange argument given the obvious, inevitable and explicitly-recognized fact that not even 1% of Christians follow it!

Nice observation - Christ's chat is largely ignored for its impracticality. It is surely permitted to ask what might happen if people took Christ seriously. He did so himself.

[marco]

It's doubtful Jesus was commanding that everyone should sell everything and give to the poor here. It's not a bad thing if someone chooses to do this, but it's not mandated by Jesus. As far as I know, he never said this to anyone else. The reason he said this to the young man was he trusted in his riches.

I don't see any justification for localising Christ's advice. When asked by someone for a definition of neighbour, he speaks in general terms. When he talks of wealth he effectively condemns it as being an impediment to entry into paradise. So he is being consistent when speaking to the young man.

It's the love of money that is a snare.

Possibly but the young man is portrayed as seeking to be moral and good. We have to insinuate selfish thoughts to him. The advice to throw away all his possessions seems, on the face of it, rather silly. There are many rich people who make excellent charitable use of their wealth without themselves becoming beggars.

In Timothy we are told "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." Jesus appears to think that possession of wealth itself is wrong. In his wanderings Jesus would have required money not good intentions.

[otseng]

I don't see any justification for localising Christ's advice.

As I mentioned, Jesus does not make the statement to anyone else. In addition, there's no mandate from any passage in the NT that everyone must give away all their money. So, what justification can you present that it is a requirement that everyone should give away all their money?

When he talks of wealth he effectively condemns it as being an impediment to entry into paradise.

It is hard for a rich man to enter heaven, but it's not because of the money itself, but because of the heart condition.

The advice to throw away all his possessions seems, on the face of it, rather silly.

If one interprets it as a commandment that everyone must follow, I would agree. But, there is little justification for this interpretation.

In Timothy we are told "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." Jesus appears to think that possession of wealth itself is wrong. In his wanderings Jesus would have required money not good intentions.

Possession of wealth in itself is not wrong. But, if one's trust and desire is in wealth, then it is wrong.

[Zzyzx]

.

Possession of wealth in itself is not wrong. But, if one's trust and desire is in wealth, then it is wrong.

How does one acquire wealth without 'trust and desire in wealth' (other than inheritance -- which is another can of worms)?

[marco]

I don't see any justification for localising Christ's advice.

As I mentioned, Jesus does not make the statement to anyone else. In addition, there's no mandate from any passage in the NT that everyone must give away all their money. So, what justification can you present that it is a requirement that everyone should give away all their money?

I accept that in normal terms one swallow does not make a summer; and it is wrong to generalise from a single instance. However, we are dealing not with Martin Luther or Aquinas, but with God's representative on Earth. He had a very limited time and it wasn't his purpose to offer individual nuggets of advice but his words are usually taken to apply not just to those around him and not just to his time. The various stories are in fact instances from which a rule might be extracted, just like Kant's categorical imperative. The young rich man approaching Christ is the personification of wealth; it is a practical example of the camel going through the eye of the needle. Were it a private story it would really have no place in the gospel. So too with the advice given regarding the adulteress; Christ's advice is meant to be taken as a model for other situations.

It is hard for a rich man to enter heaven, but it's not because of the money itself, but because of the heart condition.

We can easily see that but the condemnation of riches is wrong then; it should be a condemnation of greed, or love of money. It is perfectly possible for rich people to use their wealth for good purposes. The young man is not sinful for possessing wealth; I do not see anywhere that he is one who sinfully loves money; he may have been willing to contribute to helping the poor so through his advice Christ deprived some poor souls.

The advice to throw away all his possessions seems, on the face of it, rather silly.

If one interprets it as a commandment that everyone must follow, I would agree. But, there is little justification for this interpretation.

It is sufficiently silly if it is applied to the young man who is seeking a route to morality. As I say, Christ is not having private chats with private individuals; his words are the Way, the Truth and the Life. Presumably his advice applies not to the whole world, since few of us are in the millionaire class. I think if millionaire mark two approached with the same question, he'd get the same answer. If not, there are pieces of the jigsaw missing.

[marco]

.

Possession of wealth in itself is not wrong. But, if one's trust and desire is in wealth, then it is wrong.

How does one acquire wealth without 'trust and desire in wealth' (other than inheritance -- which is another can of worms)?

Well the young man, being young, probably inherited his wealth. A moderate Jesus would have said: "You don't need vast resources. Give my unit some, and give some to the poor, and I think you'll find heaven waiting for you."

Instead: "Forget your responsibilities to family and friends. Just get rid of everything and come with me." That seems drastic but to be fair to Jesus, he's being reported by Matthew. He probably said no such thing.

[Peds nurse]

Christ told his followers to be perfect like God. Asked for advice on how best to lead a life satisfying to heaven a rich young man was told to give everything up. From Matthew the maker of tall tales we learn: "Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.�

Jesus didn't need money when he had miracles of course. This idiotic advice was followed by the adolescent Anthony of Egypt, made a saint for his silliness. Anthony inherited wealth from his parents and gave it all away to live in a cave, entrusting his poor sister to the care of some townswomen. Anthony, in completely ignoring the needs of his sister, followed Christ's advice.

According to Jesus it's easier to reach heaven from a cave than a castle. Monks who hide from the world and contribute nothing to humankind are following Jesus. If we all behaved like this we would be Neanderthals. Christ forgot that some people have to labour, some have to mark human progress and wealth is a requirement.

Was Jesus being impractical in his advice?

Hello my wonderful friend, Marco!

I have some thoughts....whatever they are worth. I don't think it is about the money or that God needs our money. It is about the condition of our hearts and what we put value on instead of who we put value in. When you were dating your wife, and you knew that you wanted to spend the rest of your life with her, what would her answer had been if you had the love of another? Do you think she might want you to give up the other woman so that you could be committed solely to her? Notice that Jesus knew what was difficult for the man to give up. He saw that his heart was committed to material things, not eternal things. Jesus is not willing to share us with the world, we cannot have a divided heart and stand upright, nor can we serve two masters. If our loved ones desire our full commitment, then is it not right that God desires the same for us?