Another of the ongoing series (here, here, here, here, here and here) where we look at biblical passages that touch on economic issues, matters of poverty and wealth.
Today, we’ll look at a story told to King David by his advisor, the prophet, Nathan, in 2 Samuel.
This was just after David had treacherously killed a faithful leader (Uriah) in his army so that David might have Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba – adding her to his already vast harem of wives and concubines (sorta makes you wonder exactly when it was that David was a man after God’s own heart, as we’re told).
In 2 Samuel 12, we see Nathan approached the haughty and mighty king to confront him, saying:
"Judge this case for me! In a certain town there were two men, one rich, the other poor.
The rich man had flocks and herds in great numbers.
But the poor man had nothing at all except one little ewe lamb that he had bought. He nourished her, and she grew up with him and his children. She shared the little food he had and drank from his cup and slept in his bosom. She was like a daughter to him.
Now, the rich man received a visitor, but he would not take from his own flocks and herds to prepare a meal for the wayfarer who had come to him. Instead he took the poor man's ewe lamb and made a meal of it for his visitor."
In Nathan’s story, King David was clueless and outraged.
"Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, "As The Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity."
Nathan’s brave response (to a king who could have him killed)?
“You are that man.”
Now, I’ll admit that this story seems marginally related to wealth and poverty, since the story being told is a morality story setting up David to see his own sin. But I think it is just another example in the Bible associating great sin with great wealth and power.
David as a poor young man had been faithful to God, had learned to depend upon God. But as David became the horribly wealthy and powerful KING DAVID famed in song and story, his center of faith and morality shifted. He was able to justify all manner of naughtiness to support his licentious ways.
And that is yet another reason why I think that the consistent biblical lessons we find about wealth and poverty is not that money = bad, but rather money = a trap. For the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil.
I think the only problem with calling wealth – especially excessive wealth – “merely” a trap is that it’s all too easy to agree. “Yep. It sure is. And most folk out there ought to be careful that they aren’t consumed by consumerism. Fortunately, I’m on my guard, so a small smackerel of consumption on my part is not a bad thing. But you ought to be careful…”
A Very Simple Christmas to us all?
30 comments:
That parallel can certainly be made-- you have --but you're reading into Nathan's "story" a underlying message that is simply not there. It is, as you described, a prick against David's conscience; an appeal to his sense of justice. Not a wholesale treatise against the "Evil Rich." Why not let the Bible say what it says, where it says it, without reading into it some private interpretation? That's the problem with the modern church... too many people pulling out private interpretations and building whole denominations upon them....
"Horribly Wealthy"? Come on... how horribly biased of you to use that specific adverb. Let's be fair... is it horrible to BE rich? Or does being rich BECOME horrid when the human heart uses wealth to serve its own ends?
In context.... David made a singular mistake because of slothfulness, the real root of his crime... not his horrid wealth.
From 2 Samuel 11:1-2
"And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried still at Jerusalem.
2And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. " [Emphasis added]
David stayed at home when all the men went to war... then lazily stayed in bed 'til early evening... the result? He saw something he shouldn't have, and gave in to temptation. He did not, because he was horribly rich, decide to abuse his privilege as King.
You use the term "Horribly Rich" as a epithet against the character of David, which is utterly false since the bible calls him "a man after God's own heart". Dan Trabue may commit a "horrible" murder but that hardly makes him evil simply because of how much money he has in his bank account.
I am of the mind that one can be too wealthy - that is, have too much stuff. A fella who fills his pockets full of gold and jewels is ill-suited for swimming for his life. There is great freedom and liberty in letting go of that which would weigh us down.
In that circumstance I just created, the swimmer would indeed be horribly wealthy and life and freedom would come in letting go of some of that stuff.
David had a much simpler and more beautiful life before he became entangled in the affairs (ahem) of being a king and all that ensued in his case.
As I noted, wealth need not necessarily weigh us down BUT it IS consistently identified as a trap, a danger, warned against in the Bible. Over and over, I'm thinking easily dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times, it is warned against, used as a bad example, identified with oppressive or otherwise naughty behavior.
I have not use the word nor implied the meaning "evil rich" - I would agree that being rich does not make one evil. Just to be fair, I have not said that, Eric. I specifically said, "NOT that money = bad," right?
And I have acknowledged that the point of Nathan's story was to bring to David's attention his sin, but it is just another example in this series of how money issues are talked about in the Bible.
Exactly, El.
Had David been a poor man, not having two shekels to rub against one another, but had had Uriah killed so he could have his wife, would it then be OK since he wasn't rich?
Covetousness and murder aren't the sole proclivity of the wealthy.
If anything the story illustrates the danger of acquisitiveness. If a person gets their thrill from continually having more, there is never a limit.
But then again, acquisitiveness isn't the realm of the wealthy alone.
We all agree, then, that it would have been wrong for David to kill Uriah even if David had been poor? Good, no disagreements there.
Are we also agreed that there are no such morality tales found in the Bible? No stories warning us not to be like this "evil poor man who went out and did bad things"?
You are free to ignore the preponderance of warnings against the dangers (that's "dangers" not "evil") of wealth found in the Bible. I think it's a poor idea to do so, but knock yourself out.
In this particular story, I'll say again for the third time, it's not specifically a warning at all against the dangers of wealth. I didn't say it was. I said the Biblical writers use here, once again as they often do, a wealthy man to portray the bad guy.
I find some significance in that. Not enough in and of itself to say, "because of this one story, we should be wary of the trappings of wealth," but rather, as I've noted, just another drop in the bucket or warnings against wealth and power.
And I agree with you, Eleutheros, that covetousness and greed are not the sole proclivity of the wealthy. Consider Paul's words to Timothy (and us all)...
Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.
And Jesus tells us all, "be on guard against every form of greed; life is not in possessions..."
We would be right for all of us to be on guard against every form of greed, rich or poor. No disagreement there, at all.
But Jesus in his day, his brother James, Paul, the OT prophets often DID single out the wealthy ("Woe to you who are rich now!" "Is it not the wealth who oppress you?") and cast the wealthy and powerful as the villains in their stories and parables - and this in the midst of their often-poor listening audience. Were they merely playing the class warfare card, you think?
Or can we learn something from that tradition?
Aren't most of us in this country, even the poor -- not counting the absolutely destitute -- rich compared to much of the rest of the world?
Or is rich relative?
Does the admonition against building up treasures on earth, as opposed to the kind where moth and dust doth not corrupt, mean what it says, or not?
Why were the moneychangers tossed out of the temple?
Why did Jesus not have a place to lay his head -- and why is that in the Bible?
Isn't the only reason to acquire anything at all (beyond subsistence) so we can give it away?
Now, in my mid-40s, for the first time, I see a real moral (as opposed to personal practical-financial) reason to get out of debt: So I can have something TO GIVE AWAY.
Personal debt as sin? Yes, I'm afraid, if it's a shadow of selfishness.
Lord, I could repent of that for the rest of my life and STILL die in debt.
ER,
"Personal debt as sin? Yes, I'm afraid, if it's a shadow of selfishness."
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
Dan,
"the Biblical writers use here, once again as they often do, a wealthy man to portray the bad guy."
A parable which has as little bearing on David's wealth, as Peter's vision of unclean beasts had on the eating of unclean foods....
Okay, Eric.
ER, I'll repeat my agreement with you: I certainly count myself amongst the wealthy, as I do most US citizens. And, perhaps more important, I think I and most of us are involved in hyperconsumptive lifestyles that have oppressive results.
Which is why I think the teachings of Jesus and the Bible as it relates to money matters are especially important for us today.
This is a good post and I think you hit on a key point that being rich is not a sin, but it is a trap. And, it is not the dollar amount in our income, and how we use that income.
I do believe that those who are wealthy can do great things for God with their resources, but it can be a trap for our own personal relationship with God. David, as you pointed out, fell into the trap. At the same time, he did use his wealth to raise money for the temple and motivated other rich people to do the same. So was the net effect better or worse? That's a discussion for another day.
So what separates those who can and cannot handle wealth? I'm not completely sure, but this is my theory: those who actively pursue wealth are more likely to fall into this trap. Those who simply follow God's direction in their life in their career and finances are less likely.
It is important to note that since God does not care about social classes or social standing then we should not either. Take a look at David, he was the King of Israel, anointed by God to lead his people and yet, he is still subject to Gods law no different then beggars on the street. A lesson I take from this is no matter how much (or how little) wealth and status you accumulate you are still subject to the Lord. If the Lord blesses someone with great riches then I envy them, if the world blesses someone with riches, I do not envy the price they will pay. The world rewards those who are loyal just as the Lord does.
Can you be too rich? I say yes, if it causes you to serve the wrong master.
ER:"I see a real moral (as opposed to personal practical-financial) reason to get out of debt: So I can have something TO GIVE AWAY."
Chance:"And, it is not the dollar amount in our income, and how we use that income."
This is a theme repeated again and again in Dan's increasingly inaccurately named "Economics" posts. Let me express the contrary opinion, and what I will say is the root to all the misunderstanding and probably most of the evil concerning money as well .....
It is not how you spend it, it's how you got it to begin with that matters.
Otherwise we find ourselves being comfortable with the mindset of going about breaking people's legs, taking all their goods, making crutches out of those goods, selling them the crutches and then deeming ourselves righteous people because we have made the lame walk!
If a person wants to live an a 7000 sq ft house and heat it to 80 degrees all winter, and they can do that without force, fraud, plundering common resources, and enslaving other peoples, then they are perfectly morally justified in doing so.
Can you do that? I most certainly misdoubt it! If someone's ample posterior is warming a cushy chair while they uselessly shuffle papers from one side of the desk to the other, they are living a comfortable life because somewhere resources are being plundered and people are bing forced to produce things and turn them over to the slug.
Before we want to play Rockefeller or Moses and disburse our ill gotten largess, let's do what almost no one in America does ... look FIRST to where your wealth comes from.
I don't know that anyone here disagrees with that sentiment, Eleutheros.
This is why I'd love to hear more thoughts from you, E (and anyone else) on what makes for a just job.
Taking me, for example...
Is the fella who works for the water company - putting pipes in the ground, repairing them, making sure we have clean, safe water. Is that a just job?
How about the woman who works in the office, keeping track of the water company's resources? Is she a mere paper pusher or is her work just?
How about the fella [dan] who creates and sells her the software that helps her keep track of their resources? Useless paper pusher or just job?
Why or why not?
1 Corinthians 10:31
31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
I once heard a man say "honest work that feeds your family cannot be demeaning" I know he was talking about people who mow lawns or wash dishes for a living put the same principle applies to all areas of the work force. Everyone from the CEO who keeps stock prices up and protects 1000s of jobs to the guy who washes his car, they are all providing a service that has a positive influence. Any positive action can be done for the Glory of God.
Matthew 7:1 (New International Version)
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
On the issue of too much money, I am well aware that there are people who spend more money on shoes in one day than I will make all year. On the same token I make more money in one day then some people do in a week. If you expand this to third-world countries the disparity much larger. However from were I am looking at those richer then me I don’t feel they are wrong for having what they have for two reasons.
1. They didn’t take it from me (except for lawyers and politicians)
2. God has given me what I need.
Should they give more and live with less? Sure, but I don’t hold any kind of judgment since I too have many frivolous things in my house. I would go so far as to say I have more frivolous things then necessary thing.
Edwin said:
Any positive action can be done for the Glory of God.
Well, yes. But one thing I'm pondering is how easily we can assumet that just because we don't intend to do any harm that we're not doing any harm.
The fella who is taking care of people's yards for a living is just trying to do the best job he can to God's glory. But what if he uses pesticides and herbicides in the process. They're sold out there on the market, right? They wouldn't sell anything that is BAD, would they?
And what if the herbicides AREN'T bad, if this fella were the only one using them. BUT, if a billion of us use them, they make our groundwater toxic and contribute to destroying God's Creation. Have we entered over into sinful or wrong behavior?
I'm thinking that some - maybe a lot - of what we do is of that corporate sin sort of nature. All our driving, buying, poisoning, consumption DOES have negative effects in the real world.
People get sick and die because of these negative decisions - and again, not because people are choosing to be sinful especially, but because it's easier to go along and do what everyone else is doing.
You think?
Edwin also said:
However from were I am looking at those richer then me I don’t feel they are wrong for having what they have for two reasons.
Carrying on my previous thought... But what if our collective decisions - our System of doing things and of consuming - has oppressive results? The OT is full of warnings against oppressive systems - unjust scales, unjust business practices, excessive charging of interest.
I'm not saying that anyone is wrong merely because they have stuff. But I'm questioning HOW did you and I get this stuff in the first place? If we can get this "little lamb" as in Nathan's parable - and get it at a decent price or for free! - then it's still not all right if others have to suffer for our getting it cheap or free.
If I can acquire a bicycle from Walmart for only $50 - how cool! But what if Walmart could sell it for that cheap only by having it built by near slave labor in the Phillipines? By dumping the toxic wastes into the nearby river instead of being responsible?
Then, that $50 bike isn't cool, but rather the little lamb that belonged to someone else that I got at a steal to make myself more comfortable - but at someone else's cost.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I just don't buy the whole environmentalism is Christian point of view. Sure we are stewards of God creation but I also think that gives us the right to consume it as we see fit.
While seeking followers Jesus said "Let the dead bury the dead. . ." I feel the same way about people who think Gods call to be stewards for a dying planet is as serious as the Commandments and the Great Commission.
Wow, drood.
How about the warning God gives in Revelation 11:
And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth. ?
Aside from the notion that being good stewards of God's creation would suggest we respect it and treat it well, I think there are plenty of Justice-related reasons to live sustainably (ie, to live without destroying the earth - our home and God's creation).
Environmental degradation is, among other things, usually an assault on the poor - they tend to be disproportionately harmed by our toxic behaviors. Additionally, if we pollute the groundwater or air, for instance, we are stealing clean air and water from our neighbors (and ourselves, our children, etc).
I just can't think of any good reason why we wouldn't strive to live sustainably.
No, we definitely don't have the "right" to consume (destroy) the earth as we see fit. No more than we have the "right" to treat other people (also part of God's creation) as we see fit since they're all going to die anyway.
John is obviously writing about the spiritual destruction of the earth. Look at your entire verse and you will see how God rewards the spiritually faithful (saints, prophets) and inversely punishes those who spiritually destroyed the earth. Something that is far more dangerous than pollution.
Speaking of pollution, when can we (United States) declare victory? Technology today makes it possible to manufacture without polluting, and it gets better everyday. No one dumps raw material in the water anymore. Clean exhaust is mandated. How much is enough.
If you truly believed that the world and its poorer inhabitants are going to die because of some lesser developed nations and their factories then should force them to be like us? If only to save the world.
"This is why I'd love to hear more thoughts from you, E (and anyone else) on what makes for a just job."
I don't have that much criteria. I think as long as someone doesn't trespass against God's moral laws goes a long way. So don't be a drug dealer, prostitute, microsoft programmer (kidding of course).
I had a prof that took pride in the fact that he always got a paycheck from the state, never from the private sector. But what's wrong with the private sector? Let's say I work at Arby's (which I used to do). Every dollar that Arby's gets was paid voluntarily, therefore I have no problem getting a paycheck at Arby's.
The strict libertarian would say getting a job at a government institution would be immoral, as that money is coerced. But I say - everyone needs to make a living. If someone gets a job at the DMV, I'm not going to hold that against the person. There's a job opening, that's the best available at the time, so go for it.
Other jobs are morally gray. Some sales jobs lend themselves to be deceitful. Jobs like that, I can't really judge, I just know what I want to avoid.
Edwin, John may be "clearly" spiritualizing "destroying the earth" to you, but to me, it seems like he's saying "God will destroy those who destroy the earth." I see no spiritualizing there.
But then, that's my problem with many so-called inerrantists. They tend to spiritualize important truths and call "literal" less critical - or even wrong - teachings.
Chance, thanks for the thoughts. And I rather agree with the thought, "I think as long as someone doesn't trespass against God's moral laws goes a long way."
But I don't think everyone agrees on how best to interpret God's moral laws. Clearly, it is wrong to steal or kill. But is it stealing to work at an industry that has, as a result, the destruction of other people's air/water? Is it aiding and abetting killing to work for a company that supports a war like the one in Iraq?
I don't think "obviously" and "Revelation" belong in the same sentence.
I think the phrase "right to consume it as we see fit" is ... I don't know ... a terrible misunderstanding of "rights," although I suppose within the concept of "Christian liberty" it might fit. Might. But I really doubt it.
I think any faith tradition that separates out "Commandments" and "Great Commission" from how we are to live our lives as Christians is questionable.
Ok, one last comment and I will let it go. ER not all items in Revelations are symbolic. I don’t believe Dan’s verse is symbolic. By using grammar and sentence comprehension we can see with high certainty that God speaks first of the spiritually faithful then points to the inverse, logically the inverse of the spiritually faithful are the spiritually unfaithful. If destroying the earth meant polluters then the prophets and saints in Gods eyes are environmentalist. Any other way to look at it would just be bad grammar.
No doubt my understanding “rights” is different from yours, let me pose a question. Did God create the earth for us, or did he create us for the Earth? I believe the earth is ours given to us by God. Therefore, we do have the right to consume it as we see fit. Of course I am not advocating the destruction of earth as that would not be in the best interest of our survival.
I don’t know what a “faith tradition” is, since do I serve a living God who has never changed I guess the term fits. I am assuming you think the commandments and the great commission are too restrictive and do not fit into our society. I agree, but that does not change the fact that they are as true as any other part of the Bible. It is the law (commandments) that separates us from the world. I don’t say we are trapped by the law but instead freed by God from the fait of our existence.
Edwin said:
Did God create the earth for us, or did he create us for the Earth? I believe the earth is ours given to us by God. Therefore, we do have the right to consume it as we see fit.
Why did God create the Earth? For God's Self, according to the Bible.
"for the Lord hath made all things for himself,"
Prov. 16:4 KJV or
"The Lord has made everything for its own purpose."
Prov 16:4, NASB
So, according to that passage and depending upon the translation, God has created the earth for God's Self or perhaps God created things just so they could be - for their own purpose.
In either translation suggests nothing about "So that we can consume it."
Similarly, we have this passage:
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
Rev. 4:11
I think that's a fairly consistent theme. God created Earth and called it good, in and of itself and for God's own glory. God didn't say, "hmmm... what we really need to do now is to create something to consume the earth..."
Do you have any biblical reasons for thinking the earth is here for us to consume it? Yes, the Bible says that we may eat of the food of the earth, just as the flora and the fauna may eat of the food of the earth.
Genesis 1 has God telling Adam and Eve to "subdue" the earth and have dominion over it, but this is further clarified in Genesis 2, where humanity is told to TEND to the Garden and to KEEP it - with the Hebrew words for Tend meaning to "work or serve" and Keep meaning to "till or cultivate."
In none of that do I see a command to consume, which is defined as:
1. to destroy or expend by use; use up.
2. to eat or drink up; devour.
I see no biblical injunction - and certainly no logical reasoning to devour the earth. Do you, or did you mean something else by, "consume"?
Edwin said:
I don’t know what a “faith tradition” is, since do I serve a living God who has never changed I guess the term fits. I am assuming you think the commandments and the great commission are too restrictive and do not fit into our society.
A faith tradition is a belief system, if you honestly don't know what that means. A denomination or religion.
And I think I can safely say that you're assuming incorrectly. ER almost certainly has no problems with the commandments. And I'm fairly confident he has no problem at all with Matt 28:19-20 (sometimes called the Great Commission, although that is not part of the Bible, but rather a title assigned to it by evangelicals and others), as ER loves the teachings of Jesus.
He might (and I do) have some problems with the way that Matthew 28 has been interpreted sometimes, but no problems with the actual teaching,
Therefore, wherever you are going [or: as you are going along your daily life], make disciples of all nations, baptising and teaching them as well. teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.
What a beautiful promise for those who love the teachings of Jesus!
"God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I'll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age."
(The Message paraphrase)
Great stuff.
Have faith my friend, God is good and his promises are never broken
Genesis 8:22
"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."
(I know I said I would let it go, but this time I really mean it)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment