Worry and trusting God to provide?

[carlos123]

It is just as difficult for a serial adulterer or thief or someone who does not honor their parents to enter heaven as it is for a person, rich or poor, who puts money before God and makes it their idol.

In one sense I agree with you Fez. I mean NONE of us can enter heaven without God's power working in us to create us into new creatures in Christ through the Gospel. We are simply incapable of saving ourselves and it takes the awesome POWER of God to do that.

So yeah it's impossible for us all to get to heaven in that sense.

But just something of note Fez (and I am not trying to pick on the rich in this life...it just happens to be what we are talking about) I am not aware of a single instance where Jesus said how hard it is for adulterers and thiefs and other "sinners" to get into heaven. He only said this of the rich.

And I think you correctly point out that it is because the rich have a tendency (note I said tendency) to put money before God and to trust in their riches instead of in God.

"Sinners" who know they are sinners don't have anything to trust in in that regard. What they have isn't worth a hoot and their eyes are more readily able I think to look up and see God's salvation.

Carlos

[gdemoss]

Riches are responsibilities and not rewards. Rewards are revelation of the mysteries of God unto the heart of man. Man has a two fold problem. He is carnal and must be born again in order to understand spiritual. Even after the new birth there is a battle between carnal understanding and spiritual because of sin. Jesus words were spirit and truth. Although there may be carnal counterparts to the spiritual teachings he taught, the emphasis is to always be on the spiritual understanding and to identify those who are not spiritual by seeing their focus that cannot see anything but the carnal.

It might take one selling all of his possessions and giving to the poor in order for him to every understand the true spiritual lesson Jesus was teaching those he spoke to but a man who is circumcised in heart has no need to rid himself of all his worldly goods. He can and will be a good steward of that which God has put in his possession. Covetousness isn't a spiritual condition. Idolatry isn't either. Nor is theft. These are all carnal conditions and have laws written against them. Love, joy, peace, patience, temperance, goodness, meekness etc are all spiritual conditions that have no laws against them. A wealthy man filled with the spirit is no better or worse off than a poor man filled with the spirit. Each will do what is right by the other if they are made perfect in love. Neither will have any reason to fear judgment in the day of judgment.

Mat 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

What has God trusted you with, both carnally and spiritually? (Rhetorical question)

In His Love, In My Poverty, But Through His Riches and Grace,

Gary

[carlos123]

Although there may be carnal counterparts to the spiritual teachings he taught, the emphasis is to always be on the spiritual understanding and to identify those who are not spiritual by seeing their focus that cannot see anything but the carnal.

Gary, I am not sure as to what you are saying above. Can you elaborate a bit?

Specifically what is a carnal counterpart? Can you give an example?

Also are you saying that none of Jesus's teachings have to do with practical, perhaps carnal matters (depending on what you mean by that) as in your view all of Jesus's teachings were spiritual in nature?

Lastly are you saying that the emphasis of all that Jesus taught was to identify unbelievers?

Again I am not sure as to what you mean by what you said and would appreciate some elaboration or clarification.

Thanks.

Carlos

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

Luke 14:26 (and following) NASB

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.“Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

I have highlighted and underlined some parts that I want to draw attention to.

The parables of Jesus in support of what He said talk of a man building a tower and king going out to battle. The one building a tower first sits down and calculates the cost of constructing the tower to make sure he has enough to complete it. The king also determines whether he has enough forces to win the coming battle before he engages in battle.

The "So then" is saying...in view of these parables and in view of what I have said about disciples hating everything and anyone when contrasted with the love they have for me....none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.

The "Therefore" again connects what He is about to say with what He just said.

Namely that if people do not live as His disciples on His terms that they are fit for nothing with respect to the Kingdom of God!

Now the first question is...did Jesus actually tell people to sell ALL, give to the poor, and follow Him? Is that really what He meant people to do? To that question I believe there can be no other answer than YES! That is EXACTLY what He told people to do.

LOL your exegesis is not exactly sound. Jesus did not say to give all your possesions away to the poor. Jesus was stemming a lot of emotional fervor during this part of His ministry and is telling the people what it will cost them to be His disciple. He uses a couple of analogies: The rash building, the rash king. He wants them to count the cost. He mentions taking up a cross, which had major social implications at that time.

When he refers to giving up their possessions, the Greek word is in the dative and means "to say goodbye to" or to renounce. It is the surrender of self, that Jesus has in mind. He is not saying that having possessions (a car or a house,etc) will keep you from being his disciple. His point is that following Him requires a selfless surerrender and a renounciation of the world and what the world values as important. Nothing in that passage says anything about giving up everything you own to the poor, and would actually contradict several biblical values such as a man's ability to provide for his own family.

That's it! I don't give a hoot about the practical problems involved in applying something Jesus said to do. I could care less about such considerations. I DON'T CARE!

And that is at the heart of your error. The Bible is intensely practical and Jesus acknowledges the practical wisdom in counting the cost before launching out into any endeavor.

The only consideration on your heart as it is in mine is to understand what Jesus taught and to apply it in so far as we are to apply things today.

And so far, you have't properly framed Jesus' words, much less applied them as Jesus meant to be understood.

Quote

“Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

While these verses and what they say is not found in Matthew, Luke is describing the same time of teaching where Jesus spoke of the birds of the air and the lilies of the field in Matthew 6. It undoubtedly was something that Jesus taught in connection with this issue that was simply not mentioned in Matthew 6.

But the idea of selling all, giving to the poor, and following Jesus is not just found in Luke 12.

The problem was that this teaching of Jesus was misapplied by the early believers in Acts chapter 2. They did sell all they had and the church in Jerusalem became a church of beggars in constant need of support from the other churches all over the world. Not only did they not alleviate poverty but they impoverished themselves and ended just making everyone poor and now there was no one to help the poor because they took what Jesus said and tried to keep it to the letter, instead of understanding the spirit or pinciple Jesus was trying to teach. Jesus never said that own property was inherently sinful. What Jesus' point was that we need to be building spiritual treasure in heaven and not focus on the temporal matierial things of this world. In effect there was some hyperbole in play in Jesus' words.

Look at what He said to the rich young ruler who came to Him and asked Him what he could do to inherit eternal life.

Quote

Luke 18:22 NASB

He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

And here is Jesus teaching on what it takes to be His disciple (i.e. to trust Him and follow Him as a Teacher from God and as the Messiah).

Yeah the social context of what was going on here needs to be understood. Jesus told him to sell all he had in order to expose his sin. He pretended to want to be Jesus' disciple, but when Jesus challenged him to give up everything, it demonstrated that the man was actually owned by his possessions. He could not bring Himself to give up his vast wealth. Jesus used the man's own imprisonment to wealth as a filter to expose his insincere request of Jesus.

This is not a commentary agasint having possessions or of being rich, nor is Jesus declaring any virtue in poverty. He was simply demonstrating a fact about the all-consuming power of wealth and the trap that it can snare us with if we are not careful.

[saved34]

This is a really good thread with some solid wisdom and advice that I need to put into practice myself. I can see Carlos's side and I can see what Shiloh is saying. To me God is not against riches, or saving up money, or material things in and of themselves, it is our hearts that is the root of the matter. As pilgrims we should be ready at a moments notice to let go (if necessary) of any worldly possession, position, or place in this world. Nothing should be an anchor or weight to us. The problem is, our hearts are so easily over run with greediness, and misplaced love. Some of us would be devoured by satan if God allowed us to be well off or rich, while others know how to manage better with riches, they still have their heart set on the things of God. Being poor can push a man into idolatry and sin just as quick as being rich can. Being poor can push a man to pilfering, and desiring, and not being able to help others in time of need, not to mention feeding and caring for his family, which if he deliberately does not do, he is said to be worse than an unbeliever.

[carlos123]

LOL your exegesis is not exactly sound. Jesus did not say to give all your possesions away to the poor.

I agree with your interpretation of what Jesus said with respect to His NOT having said to give all your possessions to the poor (with the exception of your LOL which is really rather rude I think even if my exegesis is entirely off the wall).

I never said that we ought to give all our possessions to the poor!

Please read my post a bit more carefully.

I said "did Jesus actually tell people to sell ALL, give to the poor, and follow Him?". Three distinct things. Sell ALL, give to the poor, and follow Him.

Selling all does not mean giving everything to the poor. It means making everything one has available to meet needs in other's lives or to advance the Kingdom of God. Including giving alms to the poor.

But including does not imply all.

When he refers to giving up their possessions, the Greek word is in the dative and means "to say goodbye to" or to renounce. It is the surrender of self, that Jesus has in mind. He is not saying that having possessions (a car or a house,etc) will keep you from being his disciple. His point is that following Him requires a selfless surerrender and a renounciation of the world and what the world values as important. Nothing in that passage says anything about giving up everything you own to the poor, and would actually contradict several biblical values such as a man's ability to provide for his own family.

I agree that nothing in the passage says give all to the poor. That is most certainly NOT in there.

But selling all means selling all whatever form of exegesis you care to apply to what is written. That may or may not apply to us today but when Jesus said that to those who listened to Him he meant exactly what He said. Sell all. All means all.

We of today tend to spiritualize away what Jesus said in the plain meaning of the words used and ignore it's plain meaning but the people who heard Him would have understood Him to mean sell all.

That's it! I don't give a hoot about the practical problems involved in applying something Jesus said to do. I could care less about such considerations. I DON'T CARE!

And that is at the heart of your error. The Bible is intensely practical and Jesus acknowledges the practical wisdom in counting the cost before launching out into any endeavor.

Except for one thing Shiloh. I have already counted the cost and have decided that I want to follow Jesus no matter what the cost. That is not an error as you call it.

Rather not caring what the cost is as I said it should be taken as the words of someone who has counted the cost and has found it to be less than worth anything at all when contrasted with the value of following Christ and becoming intimate with Him.

In other words I don't care what the cost is because I have come to conclude that whatever the cost is...it is nowhere near the value to be derived by following Jesus.

The only consideration on your heart as it is in mine is to understand what Jesus taught and to apply it in so far as we are to apply things today.

And so far, you have't properly framed Jesus' words, much less applied them as Jesus meant to be understood.

And as usual you don't properly frame what I said and make me out to be saying things I did not in fact say or misconstrue what I said.

The problem was that this teaching of Jesus was misapplied by the early believers in Acts chapter 2. They did sell all they had and the church in Jerusalem became a church of beggars ...

Huh? I never heard the church described in those terms. I see no indication that they became a church of beggars. Where do you get that idea from?

I daresay that to state that they misapplied Jesus's teaching is quite presumptious given that the very one's who were heading that church were the one's that Jesus taught directly. I acknowledge that they were imperfect men and could have strayed from what Jesus said but to say they got it wrong better be something that is grounded in something more than just opinion.

What makes you think they got it wrong? The "fact" that they presumably became beggars?

Jesus was trying to teach. Jesus never said that own property was inherently sinful. What Jesus' point was that we need to be building spiritual treasure in heaven and not focus on the temporal matierial things of this world.

Agreed. But to build spiritual treasure in heaven, at least by Jesus' teaching, means a willingness to give up temporal material things of this world (other than those we need to meet our own needs) to meet needs in the lives of others and to further His Kingdom. It does not mean as we of today are so fond of believing. That we should consider everything of less value than Jesus in attitude while hanging on to everything and living for ourselves.

Yeah the social context of what was going on here needs to be understood. Jesus told him to sell all he had in order to expose his sin. He pretended to want to be Jesus' disciple, but when Jesus challenged him to give up everything, it demonstrated that the man was actually owned by his possessions. He could not bring Himself to give up his vast wealth. Jesus used the man's own imprisonment to wealth as a filter to expose his insincere request of Jesus.

Absolutely agreed on this one Shiloh. But Jesus also did not test him without it also being something He would not have wanted him to do as the rest of Jesus's disciples had already done.

Matthew 19:27 NASB

Then Peter said to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?”

What Jesus told the rich young ruler to do was what the disciples had already done. Giving up all to follow Jesus. It was not just a spiritual test of one's committment to follow Jesus without also being a practical application of discipleship.

Don't get me wrong. I am not entirely sure about some aspects of this and am not entirely sure how much of what Jesus taught the disciples we are to apply today or in what way but to say that Jesus was simply teaching a spiritual lesson that was not also a practical command dealing with what they needed to do is definitely not good exegesis. At least not by what is written.

Carlos

[carlos123]

To me God is not against riches, or saving up money, or material things in and of themselves, it is our hearts that is the root of the matter.

Absolutely right on Saved!

I agree.

It is no sin to have wordly riches, to have a savings account (I have one myself in fact because my bank won't let me have a checking account that is free without a savings account), or material things. The sin that occurs is in our hearts where we start relying on these things instead of on God to provide for us.

It is not these things that are sinful in and of themselves.

It is interesting to note that Jesus said that salvation had come to the house of Zachaees when he stood up to declare that he was giving away 50% of his money. Unlike the rich young ruler I don't think Zachaees was idolizing his income and so Jesus dealth with him differently in the sense of not asking him to sell all. I still need to pray and think about that difference some more but it is noteworthy I think.

But the richer we get the more of a snare our riches become to our faith. The more readily we end up starting to rely on our riches, bank accounts, and material possessions and the harder it becomes to give them up at a moments notice to meet needs in other's lives or to further the Kingdom of God.

I read somewhere that Christians give less than 1% of their income to anything having to do with the Kingdom of God. If that statistic is to be believed it exposes a HUGE amount of covetedness and hoarding on the part of Christians such that if Jesus were around today He would likely rebuke us!

Carlos

[Fez]

What Jesus told the rich young ruler to do was what the disciples had already done. Giving up all to follow Jesus. It was not just a spiritual test of one's committment to follow Jesus without also being a practical application of discipleship.

Don't get me wrong. I am not entirely sure about some aspects of this and am not entirely sure how much of what Jesus taught the disciples we are to apply today or in what way but to say that Jesus was simply teaching a spiritual lesson that was not also a practical command dealing with what they needed to do is definitely not good exegesis. At least not by what is written.

Carlos

Both Shiloh and myself are in agreement with the fact that Jesus used the man's love of money as an example. As I said earlier, he thought that he had done everything he needed to do to "get into heaven".

Jesus was pointing out to him that his love of money was a sin he was not prepared to deal with.

Ever notice how Jesus almost always, in His answers to questions, never answers the question directly, but uses it as an opportunity to teach? That is what He was doing here.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 17 May 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

LOL your exegesis is not exactly sound. Jesus did not say to give all your possesions away to the poor.

I agree with your interpretation of what Jesus said with respect to His NOT having said to give all your possessions to the poor (with the exception of your LOL which is really rather rude I think even if my exegesis is entirely off the wall).

I never said that we ought to give all our possessions to the poor!

Please read my post a bit more carefully.

I said "did Jesus actually tell people to sell ALL, give to the poor, and follow Him?". Three distinct things. Sell ALL, give to the poor, and follow Him.

Selling all does not mean giving everything to the poor. It means making everything one has available to meet needs in other's lives or to advance the Kingdom of God. Including giving alms to the poor.

But including does not imply all.

Okay, so I sell all my possessions, give the proceeds to the poor and that is how I follow Jesus? Really, I dont' see how there is any real fundamental difference. The bottom line is that you are mishandling the passage to say that we must impoverish ourselves if we intend to follow Jesus, which is not what Jesus was saying. Whether you give all your possessiions away or you sell them and then give all of the money away, the end result is the same. It's like you're arguing over the differnce between cutting down a tree, and chopping down a tree.

I agree that nothing in the passage says give all to the poor. That is most certainly NOT in there.

But selling all means selling all whatever form of exegesis you care to apply to what is written. That may or may not apply to us today but when Jesus said that to those who listened to Him he meant exactly what He said. Sell all. All means all.

Okay, and then what? After someone sells all they have, what are the expected to do with all of the money? All means all except when one is using hyperbole. You taking a face-value hyper-literal approach to the text. Jesus also said to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin. Do approach that passage with same approach you do with the passage in Luke?

We of today tend to spiritualize away what Jesus said in the plain meaning of the words used and ignore it's plain meaning but the people who heard Him would have understood Him to mean sell all.

I am not spiritualizing anything. I am simply holding up your rather errant application to the rest of Scripture, which teaches that we are to be wise, we are work, prepare for the future, and set aside enough to meet our family's needs.

Except for one thing Shiloh. I have already counted the cost and have decided that I want to follow Jesus no matter what the cost. That is not an error as you call it.

Rather not caring what the cost is as I said it should be taken as the words of someone who has counted the cost and has found it to be less than worth anything at all when contrasted with the value of following Christ and becoming intimate with Him.

In other words I don't care what the cost is because I have come to conclude that whatever the cost is...it is nowhere near the value to be derived by following Jesus.

I see. So you think that homelessess and poverty are virtues of following Jesus?

Huh? I never heard the church described in those terms. I see no indication that they became a church of beggars. Where do you get that idea from?

I daresay that to state that they misapplied Jesus's teaching is quite presumptious given that the very one's who were heading that church were the one's that Jesus taught directly. I acknowledge that they were imperfect men and could have strayed from what Jesus said but to say they got it wrong better be something that is grounded in something more than just opinion.

What makes you think they got it wrong? The "fact" that they presumably became beggars?

In Paul's letters we find him always having to raise money on behalf of the church in Jerusalem. The whole church was poor and needed the support of the churches all over the world. Why would headquarters be broke? You would think that the church in Jerusalem would be the "mother church" and be the primary source of support for the other younger churches, but that is not the case.

They were zealous new believers and in their zeal they probably sold and gave away too much and ended up having to live on charity themselves. It happens when you are young and zealous over your new faith and it probably felt good at first for people to see you giving all you had. The problem is that when reality sets in and needs set in, they discovered that they went overboard in their zeal and now they are subject to having to live on the charity of younger believers.

You might also note that NONE Of the other churches did what the chuch in Jerusalem did. We don't read of those people being instructed to give up all their possessions. That is because the apostles learned from their mistakes in Jerusalem. How could they have had the money to support the church in Jerusalem if they had give up everything they had as well??? As the apostles matured, they did not repeat the same practices they had done initially in Jerusalem.

The description in Acts is not held up as the ideal way to do things. It is simply a short history of the early church, not a doctrinal prescription on how to live. You don't see any epistles referencing Acts 2 as the model for church life.

Agreed. But to build spiritual treasure in heaven, at least by Jesus' teaching, means a willingness to give up temporal material things of this world (other than those we need to meet our own needs) to meet needs in the lives of others and to further His Kingdom.

No, it doesn't. If we were to follow what you are putting forth, it would mean having no savings, no prepreation for the future, no health insurance, no life insurance and that is simply not tenable and is rather foolish. It is not Christ-like at all.

What Jesus told the rich young ruler to do was what the disciples had already done. Giving up all to follow Jesus.

But they remiained fisherman. Jesus was still a carpenter. Jesus was an itineret preacher and He even had a house! Peter was married and had to look after his wife, which means he had a house as well. They all had to have some manner of income coming in to suppport their journeys. Jesus had to look after his mother and support her as He was the eldest son and it fell to Him in that culture to assume the role of family provider.

They had given up "all" in a hyperbolic sense, but they had not literally given up every single possession to follow Jesus.

[Believer1997]

I agree with your analysis Shiloh357. We are to give up our lives and un-Christian ways of life to follow Christ and devote ALL to Him. Sometimes I think there are some men (and women) who choose to use the words of Scripture to defend their carefree lifestyles. Perhaps they have forsaken work or jobs and a traditional life of work, taking care of family responsibilities and the day to day obligations we all make to support our Christian obligation, our family obligations and the obligation we all have to be contributing members of our community. I do not think it makes us any closer to God to disavow all responsibility and promises we've made to wives and families so that one may live without the encumbrances of jobs, supporting children, etc. In fact, I believe God expects and wants us to live a Godly life and support our obligations - to Him and others. There are many ways to serve God and to spread the Gospel - while meeting moral responsibilities. Blessings!