The Story of the Rich Young Ruler - Are We Hypocrites?

[Drew]

All right, let's go with the theory that Jesus' words are intended for the rich young ruler because of his particular personal issue with putting wealth ahead of Jesus. I do not like this theory all that much because I see no reason to make such a "person-specific" presumption in this case and not in other interactions Jesus had. But to show I am a sporting type I will, for the sake of argument, agree that Jesus is not talking to us all when he says "give everything to the poor". Let's see where such a position leads us.

Presumably, you will all agree that the story of the rich young ruler is in the Bible because it has some kind of relevance to people other than the rich young ruler. Therefore, I think that we would all agree that some of us alive today are like the rich young ruler and that for that group of people, Jesus' words do apply. And what did Jesus say? Did Jesus say to the rich young ruler: "Go away and get your priorities straightened out, but you can keep your stuff"? No. He said "Sell everything you have and give to the poor". So if we are going to be consistent we need to say that for those of us who suffer from the same problem as the rich young ruler, we are being asked to actually give up our all our stuff.

Note that I think Jesus is engaging is a little bit of an overstatement when he says "sell everything" I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that he is saying "sell everything except the bare essentials". Ironically, I suppose one could argue that I am taking a "softer" position than Jesus when I make this assumption and that we should indeed sell everything. I will not debate such a position (yet) since those Christians who have responded to this thread argue that I am being too "severe" in my interpretation of this story - not too soft.

Note that if we "conservative evangelicals" are going to be consistent in how we interpret the scriptures, we really do not have the option to say (for those of us who are like the rich young ruler) that Jesus is calling for a "change of heart and that we get to keep our DVD players". Consider Jesus' admonition against lust. If we applied the "you need to change your heart but you can keep your stuff" type of philosophy here, we would wind up with something like "OK, you can keep your sexually impure thoughts, just make sure that you are more focussed on me than on your sexual fantasies". My point is that I really think there is no middle ground here - to "keep our stuff" really cashes out to not putting Jesus first. There seems to be a place where can we feel that we can keep our DVD player and still love Jesus more, but I think a real analyis shows otherwise. This analysis now follows.

Suppose that we Christians are seated in giant auditorium. On the left side of the stage are a number of starving Africans and a number of children with cancer. On the right side of the stage is piled all the things we own that are not real necessities. So the pile will include TV sets, any car costing more than, say, $15,000, our plane tickets to Disneyland, our leather sofas, diamond engagement rings, etc. etc. The needs manifested on the left side of the stage are not imaginary - they are real and we can do something about them - we can convert the stuff on the right side of the stage into money (e.g. by selling it to the non-christians who have never claimed to follow Jesus' self-sacrifice - and admittedly that is another issue) and then buy food for the starving Africans and cancer research for the dying children.

What is my point? Well, I suspect Forest Gump would say "Selfish is as selfish does". Here is where the middle ground that we Christians cling to disappears. Quite simply, how can we possibly say that we love Jesus more than our stuff if we are not willing to convert it into $$$ to help "the least of these"? So I am saying that the only possible world in which we get to keep our pool tables and swimming pools is one where there are no dire needs that could be redressed, at least in part, by giving up our luxuries. So yes, it is possible to be wealthy and love Jesus more than our money, but only in a world where all of these needs have already been met. We clearly do not live in such a world.

Please do not tell me I am being "self-righteous" - I will clearly say that I probably have about the same amount of "non-essential" stuff as the rest of you.

 

[Featherbop]

Many thoughtful points in this thread.

I have many things that are not essentials. Although I am not wealthy by any means(materially). However, I do not think it is a sin to own non-essentials. Has any human even ever lived that way completely? I can't think of one.

However, greed, selfishness, stinginess, storing treasures on earth...Yes that would be a sin. I don't think I do these things, generally, there have been and are times for everyone.

I could donate more to charity, give away possessions, help others more.....but I do not do these things to my maximum, and I have no excuses for it. Most people who live in the US have more than any other people in the world....Christians included.

 

[destiny]

Drew shouldn't the word 'give'' be a continuous verb? If we give all we have to the poor, wouldn't we then become poor also, and how then could we help anyone?

From what i've been reading the early chuch practiced equality....


Acts 4:34 ‘There were no needy persons among them. For 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.

1 John 3:17 ‘If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him’.

2 Corinthians 8:13 ‘Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality’

Nowhere here do I see anyone giving up everything, but I do see them selling out of their abundance so that others would have also.
If we had nothing, we would have nothing to give.

I will admit this isn't practiced today.

 

[lovely]

My late husband tirelessly gave to the elderly, and single mothers in our life. He moved us out to a farm to raise our own animals and food. We were rehabing a small farm house, and building a barn as we went. It was hard work, but very nice. We saved for ourselves, and he shared what was left by paying bills, and buying food and such, for friends who had less. He just gave from his heart because he really wanted to be conformed to Christ. There was no thought of LCD tv's, or anything else like that, he just didn't work that way. My husband worked for a prominent investment firm, btw.

We, since his death, have had to rely on the generosity of others. I saw how much my husband gave to others, his money and his time, it was not his idea of something noble, but rather the very least he could do with his time as a responsible Christian man. I don't think he would even like me mentioning it. Now, I see first hand how much it meant to those people. I heard testimony after testimony at his funeral...things that I wasn't even aware of him doing for others. Sometimes, just when I need it, a family member, or a friend will send a gift. Just when we need something fixed, or have a doctor's bill or something, it appears. It reminds me of the Psalm, "I shall not want". We can make it on our own most of the time, but sometimes we need a bit of help, and God always sends it. We home educate, and our local curriculum store discounts our books 50% every year when we purchase books.

Now, I am certainly able to work. I worked in the biomed field prior to my oldest son's birth. I have opted to stay home, though many disagree with that decision, to continue home educating my children. The church agrees, and helps me when I need it, along with family and friends. It sometimes sounds so much easier just to go back to work, so that my children can shop somewhere other than the local clothes closet. I feel it is more important to stay home with them.

I realize, now, how important it is to be generous. There are things my children and I do to help others. I think before, I wouldn't have even considered it. I didn't have any insight into how those who need just the basics in life feel. I never understood why my husband gave away so much. Now, I am amazed at how insightful he was. I even resented it his giving, I am ashamed to say. I suppose that maybe that is why God has allowed me to learn this lesson of needing others, and of teaching me how to give. Even if I do not have the money, I have time. I am grateful God has taught me these things, and has blessed me in my life with love and lessons richer than riches.

I think that the spirit of this parable is doing what we can do for Christ, no matter the personal cost. It's a mindset that He would like for us to have. That nothing is above following Him. Not our time, not our money, not our status, not anything. It's about making hard choices joyfully, naturally, consistently. If it comes down to going on vacation, or helping out a single parent, or an elderly neighbor...what should we do? If it comes down to spending a day out at the spa with the girls, or driving an elderly or handicap neighbor to the doctor's office, what should we do? Sometimes it could be something as simple as taking a phone call from a friend who is needing to talk, rather than doing whatever was on the schedule for that morning. I am not saying that we can never enjoy a luxury or two, but I am saying that it should not be a priority for which we earn money, and never come before serving Christ through helping others. And, I believe that the life I live now is far more enjoyable, and priceless, than when I was watching my husband give, and worrying over what the cost was to us. The cost comes when we don't give.

Just my thoughts....

 

[Gary]

Some wonderful thoughts and examples which glorify Jesus and God. Praise the Lord! May these people and their families be blessed.

P.S. Drew, I sent you a Private Message.

 

[Drew]

Drew shouldn't the word 'give'' be a continuous verb? If we give all we have to the poor, wouldn't we then become poor also, and how then could we help anyone?

From what i've been reading the early chuch practiced equality....


Acts 4:34 ‘There were no needy persons among them. For 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.

1 John 3:17 ‘If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him’.

2 Corinthians 8:13 ‘Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality’

Nowhere here do I see anyone giving up everything, but I do see them selling out of their abundance so that others would have also.
If we had nothing, we would have nothing to give.

I will admit this isn't practiced today.

Destiny, I am glad that you are willing to engage this very challenging subject.

The argument that if "we gave everything away, then we would be poor and have nothing to give" just does not work. Let's say Fred is a software engineer. Let's say that he earns $100,000 per year. Let's say that the value of all Fred's "luxuries" (TV, sports car, $300,000 house when a $150,000 house would do, etc.) is $300,000. If Fred gives this $300,000 away, he has done a lot of good and has in no way diminished his earning capacity - his future capacity to do good by giving away a healthy portion of his $ 50,000 after tax income (Fred, the poor sap, lives in Canada!). Giving away the $ 300,000 does not affect his future capacity to give except, of course that he may never be able to give a big lump sum again. But, so what? Is that an argument that Fred should not give his $300,000 away right now?

Also, I think that the verses you quote only serve to strengthen the argument that I am making - that we need to give till we are down to the bare essentials. Look at 1 John 3:17. There are hundreds of millions of people in the world "in need". If we don't help them, then how can the love of God be in us?

I see your point about equality and I totally agree. But to be fair to the position I am taking, I have tried to be clear that I do not think we are being asked to give up everything. However, this "less radical" position is not justification to keep a pool table, a $ 1000 TV, a trip to Florida, or a sports car - it is only justification to keep food, clothes, some learning material, whatever "tools" we need to help others, and a humble roof over our heads.

Destiny, I would love to be convinced that tithing, or even giving 20 % would establish this equality on a global scale - I don't want to give up my stuff anymore than the next guy. I think it is clear that this would not be enough. How many Christians do you think there are that would be willing to step up to the plate and at least tithe? Answer: not many. The more money Christians make, the less likely they are to tithe: 8% of those making less than $20,000 a year tithe, while 4% of those making $40,000-$59,999 tithe, and only 1% of those making $75,000-$99,999 tithe (Barna Research Group,Ventura, CA 1999).

How large is the need when you consider not only people who lack food, but people who lack health care, security, even people in the wealthy west who are being cut down early in life by diseases that are crying out for research dollars? Answer: the need is huge. I admit that I have not "done the math", but I would be shocked that anything less than "giving till we are down to the bare essentials" on the part of the tiny fraction of Christians who are really serious about this would establish anything close to the equality you rightly point out as being the target. Please, somebody, show me that 10 % or 20 % would establish this equality. I would love to believe this! I really would. And I will again say, I am smack dab in the middle of those who have more than enough and yet are not (yet at least) willing to part with it as I do think Jesus is asking in the story of the rich young ruler.

 

[bibleberean]

I have met many Christians who have "packed their bags and went on a guilt trip" because they have many possessions.

I have also met and talked to many Christians that have "bleeding hearts" and want every one to feel guilty for having material possessions while people around the world are starving.

The parable of the "rich young ruler" is often misused to badger Christians into feeling guilty and defensive about owning anything at all.

First of all Jesus was addressing this man specifically. Jesus did not command the young man to give up all that he had and follow Him he told them that in order to be perfect he needed to give up all that he had in order to lay up riches in heaven.

In Matthew 19 we are given more information.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Jesus had already told the rich man what he needed to do to have eternal life.

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Jesus was physically on the earth and talking specifically to this young man. It is impossible for us to follow Jesus the same way the rich man could. The apostles left everything to follow Jesus. They left their homes, their wives and families but after the death of Jesus they went back to them.

Abraham was wealthy as was Jacob and many others. God blessed these men and called them faithful.

If we were to give up all of our wealth in order to be good servants why didn't Jesus tell Zacchaeus the tax collector that he didn't do enough for the poor?

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

Zaccahaeus had become wealthy by working with the Romans to collect taxes from his own people.

Jesus not only doesn't rebuke zaccheus but commends him.

Luke 19:9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

It was a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea that gave Jesus a burial plot after his death.

Christians should be generous givers. None of us should give out of constraint or manipulation because some greedy pastor or bleeding heart liberal wants to look good.

If anyone is a hypocrite it is those who piously point accusing fingers at people and try to badger and harass Christians into doing what they themselves couldn't do.

These phonys need to sell there computers, cars, bicycles books and clothes and go live under a rock somewhere in order to be true to their convoluted logic.

In my opinion the reasons more Chrisiitan posters didn't want to post in this thread because they probably are quite generous and don't want to write how much they give.

To those of you who are worried about other Christians and how much they give or don't give my advice is look at yourself and see if you are practicing what you preach.

I believe we should be as generous as we can with what God has blessed us with. We should care about others. That is what should be preached. It isn't necessary to sanctimoniously look around and badger others into giving.

2 Corinthians 9:5 Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness.

2 Corinthians 9:6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

And when you give try not to be a hypocrite.

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matthew 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

Matthew 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Some men sound a trumpet by piously accusing others of not being generous. What they are implying is that they are.

It absolutely gags me... :smt078

Abraham, Isacc and Jacob were blessed greatly by God with riches. As a result of their riches they were able to hire servants etc. and bless others.

Giving away all your wealth at this time is a decision an individual could choose to do if he wanted to.

It is your wealth to do as you please with. We will give an account to God for what we do on this earth with what he has blessed us with.

I think a person that is "guilt ridden" by what he or she considers too much wealth would do better to practice what they preached then to try to draw others into their pitiful plight.

 

[Quath]

Bibleberean makes an interesting point. It takes money to make money. The more money you have the more you can help.

But I think there are problems with it. Drew showed that the more you have, the less as a percent you give. Also, DVDs, vacations, sports tickets, etc do not make you more money.

So if a person wanted to be rich and follow what Jesus seemed to suggest, they should forgo all pleasure buying and only buy to make more money. Any money that would have been spent on pleasure buying should be redirected to helping people or making more money.

However, at some point, the government gets it or you donate it. If you make a billion dollars and die before you can help the poor, I don't think you have helped the poor unless you willed it to them.

Drew makes some really good arguments for following the Christian rule to help the poor. However, there is a lot of internal feelings we all have that he is speaking to also. So I think this is a great thread. I hope to continue to see such thought provoking posts.

Quath

 

[Drew]

After some "internet research", there seems to be little doubt - my "take" on this story is not held widely among Christians. Here is an example of the more common way people view this text:

"It isn't wrong to have money and possessions; it is wrong to build your life around them. Paul doesn't command the rich to give all their money away and take a vow of poverty, but he does give specific guidelines to follow when dealing with material things."- John McArthur.

Trust me, I am trying as hard as I can to "talk myself out" of the position I have been arguing for. And, at least for the present, I am not selling my DVD player and my sports car. I really think there is a problem, though, with the spirit of McArthur's quote and the conventional "you need not take a vow of poverty" view. One of my objections is that the "McArthur" position (if I can refer to this view that way) is that it conveniently leaves unresolved precisely what the real world implications of "not building your life around your riches" or "putting your wealth ahead of Jesus" actually turn out to be. I think there is a kind of psychological trick that we play on ourselves here. You see, it is easy for us to agree with the abstract notion of putting Jesus ahead of our wealth. Because we are mentally "lazy" (me too!), we can kind of say to ourselves "Of course, Jesus has to come first". We can even be inspired by the nobility of such a stance - "I am not going to be materialistic". The intentions are good, make no mistake.

Of course, the problem comes when we "unpack" this abstraction and see what it amounts to in the real world. But this requires a little mental work, and we just do not get around to it - we retain in our minds the statement "I will put Jesus ahead of my possession" with a little mental "check mark" beside it. However, if we go the next step we are faced with the severe implications of our commitment.

One of the pervasive problems in our society is the absence of the skill of analysis - of "opening up" or dissecting our concepts to find out what they really mean. So what does it mean to follow Jesus, to put Jesus ahead of our wealth? How can we make this concept less fuzzy? Well, what about the following text from Matthew 25:

"He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left. Then the King will say to those on the right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.' "Then these righteous ones will reply, `Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' And the King will tell them, `I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!" (bolding mine)

Will anyone deny that this is part of the essence of following Jesus? Putting Jesus first means doing precisely what is described in these words (plus other stuff as well). And doing what is described in these words cost big bucks, really big bucks.

Another problem with constructing a Christian viewpoint "verse by verse" (you know, the whole idea of establishing a view on subject "X" by looking for a single set of Bible verses that directly address X) is that we never get around to putting the pieces together - to looking at the Bible more "wholistically". This shortsighted way of interpreting the scriptures seems to be at work right here. If we actually look at the Matthew text together with the story of the rich young ruler and actually consider their inter-relationship, it seems clear (at least to me) that putting Jesus first means (among other things) doing the stuff in the Matthew text. Given the magnitude of the need and the small pool of Christians who can be expected to step up to the plate, how does this not mean we need to give up all our luxuries? Am I wrong? How?

 

[bibleberean]

Luke 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

Luke 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

Luke 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

Luke 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

Luke 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

Luke 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

Luke 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

Luke 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,

Luke 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

Luke 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Luke 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

Luke 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

Luke 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

This story that Jesus told shows that...

1. The father of the son had more than the bare necessities of life and was not rebuked for it by Jesus.

2. The son was entitled to do with the portion of the goods entrusted to him as he so chose.

3. That the son Chose to squander his money instead of being wise with it.

4. Having an extravagant celebration wasn't necessarily evil but could even be good.

5. That forgiveness is extended to those who do not use there wealth wisely.

6. Being wise and enterprising with the money you have is of great benefit to others in need...

While Jesus walked this earth His disciples did not need anything because those who followed Christ had all of their needs met.

Look what the Lord told His disciples when the time for His death came.

Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

If someone stated that Christians need to be better stewards of what God has entrusted to them and be more aware of the needs of his brothers and sisters and meet those needs then I would agree with them.

This thread shows the danger of focusing on one passage of scripture and twisting it to promote a legalistic man made doctrine.

 

[destiny]

My thoughts are that we can no more feed and clothe the world than we can save the world, a true believer walks by the appointment of the Holy Spirit and touches the lives that God appoints.
If we take on such a yoke we will find no more joy in this life, and I don't believe God works that way.
A friend of mine told me once how she used to do all kinds of good christian works, she said she would come home so tired from all the good things she was doing until she finally ended up miserable.
She said one day she got on her knees and asked God "what happened, i'm doing all these good things for you yet i'm very tired and miserable"?
She said he spoke to her and said, "You became mans servant instead of mine."

The moral of this true story is...

Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Matthew 11:28-3O

Anytime God has ever given me an appointment, whether it was giving, planting seeds or any kind of work for him, it was never a burden and never a drudgery.
He's even sent us on vacations before, I remember a time in my marriage that he orchestrated a getaway for my husband and I because we desperately needed to spend some time together.

My husband has every tool under the sun, he has a little garage that he uses as his shop to fix anything from cars to whatever anybody brings over, my oldest son and his friends are always out there with him.
This shop has been a ministry, that wouldn't be possible if he sold everything he had off.
God uses that shop, God used that vacation to draw us closer to each other, and God can use our possessions for His glory.

I dont believe we should live extremely extravagant like Jan and Paul Crouch the owners of TBN, but I do believe God gives his people increase and blessings.
We can be good stewards or we can be foolish stewards, the choice is ours and ours alone.
I have seen first hand the law of sowing and reaping in action, and I firmly believe that this is a spiritual law set by God.

The entire context of Gods word, old and new testament gives us so many examples of being a good steward.
I absolutely believe giving is a heart thing, and I absolutely know without a doubt that God is able to show us where to give, and I know from personal experience that when he does it is a pleasure and a blessing to do so because he will cause your heart to be 100 percent in it.
"His yoke is easy, His burden is light".

"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
2 Corinthians 9:7

A cheerful giver is one who gives from the heart or under the unction of the Holy Spirit, but not because man expects it of us.

 

[Quath]

My thoughts are that we can no more feed and clothe the world than we can save the world, a true believer walks by the appointment of the Holy Spirit and touches the lives that God appoints.

How about another type of comparison? Say you buy a DVD player. However, if instead of doing that, you sent the money to Africa to be used on immunizations. You may save 1 to a few hundred lives.

Is your DVD player worth more than the lives of others?

Quath

 

[destiny]

My thoughts are that we can no more feed and clothe the world than we can save the world, a true believer walks by the appointment of the Holy Spirit and touches the lives that God appoints.

How about another type of comparison? Say you buy a DVD player. However, if instead of doing that, you sent the money to Africa to be used on immunizations. You may save 1 to a few hundred lives.

Is your DVD player worth more than the lives of others?

Quath

For one thing you don't know where I do send money to, for another you don't know that the DVD player isn't going to be used to the glory of God.
We can't sit in judgment of each other when it comes to personal giving.

 

[ThinkerMan]

If we take on such a yoke we will find no more joy in this life, and I don't believe God works that way.

I am often told on this forum that we, as humans, are incapable of understanding God's greater plan. That the perceived injustices we see in the world aren't accurate to use to describe God since we cannot fathom his reasons.

In short, it is said that we can't use reason and our own ideas of fairness and justice because they are not God's.

So why do you choose to do so here?

 

[destiny]

If knowing God could only be through expounding scripture, legalities, rules and regulations, then who would won't to serve Him?
James 4:8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.

If I seek first His kingdom, then he is faithful to add everything else. Matt.6:33

I will never in this life know EVERYTHING there is to know about God, but I can still know God, and I can know His will for my life.

If we don't know God in spirit and in truth but only through legalities, rules, regulations, and what we can perceive with our natural intellect then we will never please God, we will only seek to ease our own human conscience....this is where you'll find the yoke of slavery and expectation of man.

Thats all for me, this is getting too hair splitting.

 

[Drew]

Luke 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

Luke 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

Luke 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

Luke 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

Luke 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

Luke 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

Luke 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

Luke 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,

Luke 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

Luke 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Luke 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

Luke 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

Luke 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

This story that Jesus told shows that...

1. The father of the son had more than the bare necessities of life and was not rebuked for it by Jesus.

2. The son was entitled to do with the portion of the goods entrusted to him as he so chose.

3. That the son Chose to squander his money instead of being wise with it.

4. Having an extravagant celebration wasn't necessarily evil but could even be good.

5. That forgiveness is extended to those who do not use there wealth wisely.

6. Being wise and enterprising with the money you have is of great benefit to others in need...

While Jesus walked this earth His disciples did not need anything because those who followed Christ had all of their needs met.

Look what the Lord told His disciples when the time for His death came.

Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

If someone stated that Christians need to be better stewards of what God has entrusted to them and be more aware of the needs of his brothers and sisters and meet those needs then I would agree with them.

This thread shows the danger of focusing on one passage of scripture and twisting it to promote a legalistic man made doctrine.

Regarding point number 1: Neither does Jesus rebuke the son here for his "riotous living". Does this mean Jesus approved of it? Surely you will want to reconsider your implication that the absence of a rebuke is a tacit sign of approval. Surely everyone Jesus met had problems with many different sins. If Jesus explicitly rebuked everyone he met for all their sins, the New Testamant would be 2000 pages long.

Regarding point number 2: I am not sure what you mean when you say the son was "entitled" to use his money as he chose. If you are saying that it was not sin for him to use the money for riotous living, well, need I say more? We are never entitled to engage in sin.

Regarding point number 3: I will agree with what you are saying, of course.

Regarding point number 4: Again, the fact that Jesus did not condemn the celebration does not mean he approved of it. This just does not follow logically. Again, if Jesus explicitly rebuked all sinners he met or told stories about, the New Testament would still be in the process of being written.

Regarding point number 5: Are you actually arguing that the availability of forgiveness is licence to sin (e.g. blow your money on riotous living in this case)? It certainly sounds that way. Do you want to clarify?

Regarding point number 6: I agree, but this does not give us licence to use the money for personal luxuries. Sure, investing and using the money for others is good. This point was made by Quath and I certainly agree with it. But be careful, you don't get to use the money for a vacation in Disneyland or a $1000 TV.

Finally when you say "If someone stated that Christians need to be better stewards of what God has entrusted to them and be more aware of the needs of his brothers and sisters and meet those needs then I would agree with them.", I totally agree. I just think that what this actually means include giving up all luxuries. Are you prepared to argue that converting our "non-bare essential" possessions into $$$ for the milllions who are "the least of these" is not what it means to care for the needs of our "brothers and sisters"?

 

[Soma-Sight]

How about another type of comparison? Say you buy a DVD player. However, if instead of doing that, you sent the money to Africa to be used on immunizations. You may save 1 to a few hundred lives.

Is your DVD player worth more than the lives of others?

Quath

That is the way to look at it.

A true Christian rejects materialism for the greater good of helping suffering souls as the Master Jesus did in His earthly stay.

 

[bibleberean]

The Words of Christ

Mark 14:3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

Mark 14:4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

Mark 14:5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

Mark 14:6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

Mark 14:8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

Mark 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Mark 14:10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.

Jesus Himself allowed this woman to pour expensive ointment on Him. He understood perfectly that this money could have went to the poor. He didn't need the ointment to be poured on Him.

The problem with hypocrites is that they want us to use our money to help the poor and are very critical of us.

However, instead of practicing what they preach and sell their computers and help the poor and suffering they won't. I mean sell your computer, take that money plus your monthly charge for using the internet and go for it. You have my blessings. :-D

In John's account it was Judas that made the biggest fuss over the money.

In this account Judas went right out after the self righteous Judas and some of the other disciples showed their indignation and betrayed Jesus.

I think that sums it up nicely for me.

The people in the world who are so worried about how others spend their money would be a lot more credible if they spent their own on the causes they expound.

What a bunch of frauds...

 

[Drew]

My thoughts are that we can no more feed and clothe the world than we can save the world, a true believer walks by the appointment of the Holy Spirit and touches the lives that God appoints.
If we take on such a yoke we will find no more joy in this life, and I don't believe God works that way.
A friend of mine told me once how she used to do all kinds of good christian works, she said she would come home so tired from all the good things she was doing until she finally ended up miserable.
She said one day she got on her knees and asked God "what happened, i'm doing all these good things for you yet i'm very tired and miserable"?
She said he spoke to her and said, "You became mans servant instead of mine.
.......
A cheerful giver is one who gives from the heart or under the unction of the Holy Spirit, but not because man expects it of us.

I appreciate that Destiny has become exasperrated, but I feel that I must respond to the above.

How has the case been made that "giving to the bare-essentials" is man's law or man's expectation? It is Jesus who gives the directive to the young ruler.

And what about the fictional Fred, who is desperately unhappy in his marriage? Using the logic of this post, couldn't Fred argue that divorce is justified because he has no more "joy in life" or is "tired and miserable". Is this justification to ignore the admonition against divorce? Not to most evangelicals. So why do we let ourselves off the hook the re the "give till the bare essentials" directive which I have argued applies to us who have luxuries in a world of hundreds of millions of needy? Believe me, I want someone to point out the error in my reasoning.

 

[destiny]

How has the case been made that "giving to the bare-essentials" is man's law or man's expectation? It is Jesus who gives the directive to the young ruler.

If you tell me to do it or that God expects me to do it, yet I don't interpret scripture as you do nor do I feel direction from God to do it that particular way, then who am I trying to please, you or God?