Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.
Today, I thought I'd begin with the Psalms. This is a little tricky because I believe that much of the prayers for God's help found within the Psalms imply - some more than others - that the oppression they are feeling is due to economic injustice. Psalms like Psalm 17...
My ravenous enemies press upon me; they close their hearts, they fill their mouths with proud roaring.
Their steps even now encircle me; they watch closely, keeping low to the ground,
Like lions eager for prey, like young lions lurking in ambush.
Rise, O LORD, confront and cast them down; rescue me so from the wicked.
Slay them with your sword; with your hand, LORD, slay them; snatch them from the world in their prime. Their bellies are being filled with your friends; their children are satisfied too, for they share what is left with their young.
I am just--let me see your face; when I awake, let me be filled with your presence.
~Psalm 17:10-15
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the whole "bellies are being filled..." sort of language seems to echo other passages that talk about the wealthy unjustly filling their bellies while the poor starve (see Ezekiel 7 and Ezekiel 16, for instance).
That being said, I'll stick primarily with passages that are overtly about poverty or wealth, rather than those which might imply it. From the first ten chapters of Psalms, we find these...
Many say, "May we see better times! LORD, show us the light of your face!" Selah
But you have given my heart more joy than they have when grain and wine abound.
In peace I shall both lie down and sleep, for you alone, LORD, make me secure.
~Psalm 4:7-9
=====
It is God who governs the world with justice, who judges the peoples with fairness. The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, stronghold in times of trouble.
~Psalm 9:8-9
=====
Why, LORD, do you stand at a distance and pay no heed to these troubled times?
Arrogant scoundrels pursue the poor; they trap them by their cunning schemes.
The wicked even boast of their greed; these robbers curse and scorn the LORD.
In their insolence the wicked boast: "God doesn't care, doesn't even exist."
Yet their affairs always succeed; they ignore your judgment on high; they sneer at all who oppose them.
They say in their hearts, "We will never fall; never will we see misfortune."
Their mouths are full of oaths, violence, and lies; discord and evil are under their tongues.
They wait in ambush near towns; their eyes watch for the helpless. to murder the innocent in secret.
They lurk in ambush like lions in a thicket, hide there to trap the poor, snare them and close the net.
The helpless are crushed, laid low; they fall into the power of the wicked,
Who say in their hearts, "God pays no attention, shows no concern, never bothers to look."
Rise up, LORD God! Raise your arm! Do not forget the poor!
Why should the wicked scorn God, say in their hearts, "God doesn't care"?
But you do see; you do observe this misery and sorrow; you take the matter in hand. To you the helpless can entrust their cause; you are the defender of orphans.
Break the arms of the wicked and depraved; make them account for their crimes; let none of them survive.
The LORD is king forever; the nations have vanished from God's land.
You listen, LORD, to the needs of the poor; you encourage them and hear their prayers.
You win justice for the orphaned and oppressed; no one on earth will cause terror again.
~Psalm 10
36 comments:
Rise, O LORD, confront and cast them down; rescue me so from the wicked.
I love the God of Ass Kicking. Not God as Cosmic Teddy Bear, but God as a sword of justice.
"Slay them with your sword; with your hand, LORD, slay them; snatch them from the world in their prime."
I'm quite sure that you will dismiss this somehow as a parable or some such, but it's an interesting choice. It would appear that this is another instance where you would seem to be ok with God administering capitol punishment.
To be fair you addressed this, but it seems a huge stretch to see Psalm 17 as anything but a plea for rescue from enemy attack.
"Rise up, LORD God! Raise your arm!"
"Break the arms of the wicked and depraved; make them account for their crimes; let none of them survive."
"The LORD is king forever; the nations have vanished from God's land."
It would seem as though you don't have a problem with God kicking a little butt, or even throwing down some genocide ("The LORD is king forever; the nations have vanished from God's land.") as long as it is in defense of the poor.
You have as interesting conundrum here (as I have pointed out in some of your other arguments as well).
You seem to be prepared to take these passages in a very literal sense. Yet, if you do you either have to take the entire passage in the same literal sense, or apply some sort or arbitrary process in order to dismiss what is obviously a call for God to intervene.
I'm pretty sure how you will respond, but will await your Logic and Reason.
It would appear that this is another instance where you would seem to be ok with God administering capitol punishment.
God does not need my approval to do anything. It's the advantage of being God. Now whether or not that passage reflects a literally accurate way of how God goes about business may be a legitimate question to ask.
I'm not of the opinion that God goes around literally kicking ass (well, literally, slaughtering people, I guess) in this world. You may disagree with you wish.
But on the topic of God, the Bible, wealth and poverty, do you have any thoughts?
Yes, I think this passage DOES indicate that God takes our treatment of the poor and oppressed very seriously.
Hmm... Perhaps it's a difference in interpretive traditions, but I've always been of the opinion (and this is common in Reformed Calvinist circles) that we shouldn't spend a lot of time looking for deep theological meaning in the Psalms because of their poetic nature.
God is not, for example, a big chicken who shelters us under his wings. ;)
Not that we're to discount them, they are scripture after all. But remembering that they're songs, not epistles or gospels suggest a wholly different attitude toward them. Remembering that renders "Slay them with your sword; with your hand, LORD, slay them; snatch them from the world in their prime." a request, a demand, but not necessarily on the level of doctrine.
As always, interpret scripture with scripture. But if you find something in the Psalms that is not born out elsewhere, I usually think that's an indication you may have just made it up, which is easy to do with poetry.
Of course, good point, Alan. Each of these passages that I've cited are in the voice of the psalmist, not necessarily saying Yea or Nay as to whether or not God endorses the psalmist's words.
So, on topic, the mere fact that the psalmist is decrying a lack of justice for the poor and calling upon God's concern for the poor does not in itself says God is watching out for the least of these. But the idea is certainly endorsed elsewhere consistently throughout the Bible.
Dan,
Your overly literal reading of my comment is quite amusing. If avoiding my point. The psalmist obviously expects God to take some action to alleviate his/Israels predicament. He also obviously expects it to be something that would involve some sort of actual punishment. That seems fairly obvious.
Now, to answer the question that I didn't ask, one could cross reference with other books of the OT to find out how God responded to the plea of the psalmist(or if he did at all).
The problem with all of this is it is simply a diversion from my point. Your post seems to indicate that we should take the psalmist plight literally (with no real evidence why we should do so), yet to be consistent with your worldview as expressed elsewhere we would have to take the parts about calling down Gods "wrath" on the oppressors as figurative. Where this seems to be problematic is the method you use to determine this.
So if it's not too much to ask, could you please illuminate your process in determining this?
Please note, I am not offering any interpretation here at all, and would appreciate it if you would not assume that I am doing do. I am pointing out what appears to be a conflict between different parts of your worldview. Which raises the question, what would you consider to be an appropriate response on God's part to the psalmist's plea?
Finally, as to the Bible wealth and poverty, yes I do have a few thoughts. I'll try to briefly (and non exhaustively)sum them up.
God created us in his image, and despite our rebellion He wants the best for us. Prior to the fall man was in a situation where he had all of his needs met, that would seem to be what God wants for us. It seems to me that is worked out in two ways. Temporal- Because of the fall, inequity was introduced into the world. God's response to this through Israel and the Church is that the physical needs on earth should be met through God's people. You will note, that during Christ's earthly ministry we do not ever see him meeting the economic needs of those around Him. We don't see the Church engage in this until Acts.
Non Temporal-In God's economy there is no need, we were created to live in harmony with God and to have our needs met. God, through Israel and Jesus has established the means whereby we can be reconciled to God and his purpose for us. Jesus says in John that He came so we might have life and have it more abundantly. I see no reason why the abundance referenced specifically excludes material things. Obviously, it goes way beyond material things, but it doesn't seem to exclude them either.
I would also point out (so you don't assume I mean something else), that it is quite obvious that God frowns on those who exploit others or otherwise oppress them for personal gain. It doesn't necessarily follow that wealth is objectively bad.
Your post seems to indicate that we should take the psalmist plight literally (with no real evidence why we should do so), yet to be consistent with your worldview as expressed elsewhere we would have to take the parts about calling down Gods "wrath" on the oppressors as figurative. Where this seems to be problematic is the method you use to determine this.
So if it's not too much to ask, could you please illuminate your process in determining this?
Fairly tradition and reasonable biblical exegesis.
1. Read individual passages in light of the teachings of the whole Bible;
2. Read all passages in light of Jesus' specific teachings;
3. Try to understand the language and context as much as possible;
4. Look for the Big Truths that are being taught;
5. Read problematic passages (obscure, hard to understand, contrary to basic human reasoning) in light of the more clear passages (that is, if a passage seems to teach fairly clearly that someone was to kill children - contrary to basic human morality - we have other passages that would make it abundantly clear that this is not a universal teaching);
For instance.
So, when the psalmist is praying about the plight of the poor, we have abundant passages throughout the whole of the Bible and specifically in Jesus' teachings, as well as our own God-given reasoning that all validate this as a universal moral truth.
When we read about slaughtering enemies, we have, on the other hand, Jesus specific teachings to love our enemy, to overcome evil with good, etc.
Seems reasonable to me.
Craig said...
God's response to this through Israel and the Church is that the physical needs on earth should be met through God's people.
God's response certainly includes this notion. I don't believe that it is limited to it. That is, God does not tell us the one and only "proper" way of dealing with the poor and marginalized is for the church to do that work.
I think the Bible is clear that if a people (individually or as a group such as a town or nation) want to assist the poor, this would be a good and blessed thing - regardless of whether they were God followers.
Craig said...
You will note, that during Christ's earthly ministry we do not ever see him meeting the economic needs of those around Him. We don't see the Church engage in this until Acts.
Jesus came feeding the poor, healing the sick, giving to the needy, helping the least of these and/or proclaiming these actions as good and right - ie, he did, indeed, meet the economic needs of the folk around him.
So, I'd disagree that would be a fair estimate of Jesus' work - to say that he didn't do this - although you make a good point that it is more obviously a part of the work of the church later on.
I will assume that Craig's too busy to respond, but I'm sure he'd back off his original statement that Jesus did not go about meeting economic needs, since clearly he did.
Hopefully, he'd agree also that while meeting needs through the people of God is a given, in the Bible, it's not a given that the one and only way to meet needs is through the people of God, biblically-speaking.
Re: your isegesis, I'm not going to go there. I just don't have the desire. Sorry
Dan,
Yes, I've been slammed but allow me to clarify.
While Jesus did meet the earthly needs of some people who he encountered, he did not meet anywhere near all of the needs of all he met.
So, while he fed the 5000, he only fed them once. He did not establish a feeding program for them. Not only that, but there is no evidence that the 5000 were fed as an economic statement. Or that their need extended beyond the immediate. If you have some specific instance where Jesus specifically fed some one specifically because they were poor, that's great, but when he fed people it seems more related to their immediate need not their situation.
I'll assume that we can agree that healing the sick is not an economic statement as much as a statement of mercy.
Although I don't recall a specific instance of Jesus "giving to the needy", I'm not going to say he didn't. However, my earlier point stands. He might have given (I assume that you are assuming financially) to "the needy", but he never established any sort of ongoing system of "welfare or charity". Beyond, exhorting believers/The Church to fill this role in his name.
Ultimately what Jesus gave to the people he encountered was a gift beyond temporal worth. The woman at the well wanted H2O, Jesus gave her "living water". Jesus said "I have come that you might have life, and have it abundantly." Even if you look at the instances where Jesus provided something (food, wine, healing etc.) to people it was almost always in the context of pointing to Him as the ultimate fulfillment of that particular need.
There is also a significant school of thought that holds that many of Jesus references to the poor, are referring to the "spiritually" poor, not necessarily the physically poor.
So, I'll back off to the point of saying that while Jesus did meet peoples earthly needs it was most often in the context of meeting their spiritual needs. "Which is easier to say, your sins are forgiven or rise and walk". He obviously met the physical need, but it was also obviously secondary.
Finally it seems germane to note if our faith is simply meeting the physical needs of others we've failed in the great(er) commission. For was does it profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul. So while meeting needs outside of the scope of our faith, certainly helps those whose needs have been met (temporarily at least). It certainly doesn't address the larger spiritual need (go...make disciples of all people). I'm personally not sure that Jesus would make a distinction between physical and spiritual the same way you seem to.
I'll assume that we can agree that healing the sick is not an economic statement as much as a statement of mercy.
To be sick in Jesus' day was to be poor as a rule. The woman with an issue of blood, the Bible tells us, had spent all her money trying to get well, for instance.
If you were a leper or crippled or blind, you could not generally hold a job, so you became a beggar (I'm pretty sure there's at least one exception - a leper with some resources - but the rule is pretty solid, I believe), so to heal the sick would have been meeting economic needs as well as be a statement of mercy. I think that's a fair statement.
With the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000 (it appears to be two different instances, although I think scholars disagree and we can't really know for sure) were both done because the people were there to see Jesus and didn't have food.
You are correct that, as far as we can see, it was not a feeding program that had an ongoing basis.
We have to keep in mind that Jesus had no resources other than what people had given him. He was a homeless, itinerant preacher, with no money to pay taxes even (although the disciples did have enough money that they had a "treasurer" in Judas, but it does not appear to have been much beyond enough to live on).
So, no, he did not give money to the poor. He didn't have any to speak of.
Clearly though, giving to and siding with the least of these was a huge theme of the gospel in Jesus' teachings.
I'd hope we could agree on that.
I'll back off to the point of saying that while Jesus did meet peoples earthly needs it was most often in the context of meeting their spiritual needs. "Which is easier to say, your sins are forgiven or rise and walk". He obviously met the physical need, but it was also obviously secondary.
Yep. I'm down with that. I'll go a bit further, though, and say they are one in the same, from a practical sense. James tells us if you merely say, God bless you, be at peace, keep warm and fed, then we've done nothing of significance.
You can't really do much of one without the other, seems to me to be the consistent message of the bible.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
Craig said...
I'm personally not sure that Jesus would make a distinction between physical and spiritual the same way you seem to.
Actually, that IS my point. There is no distinction (not much, anyway). You can't effectively do one without the other.
So, I'm not sure what you mean by this, since I don't effectively see a distinction - what distinction do you think I'm talking about?
Dan,
A couple of responses.
Re: your 6:47 post.
I'm not sure that you can support your blanket statement that too be sick in that time period was to automatically be poor. It obviously happened, but I'm not sure it was that black and white. If nothing else you had a much different system of both family and community that handled things differently than we would now.
You cite the woman who was bleeding as one who had spent a great deal of money on doctors, yet ignore the fact that the context of the episode is Jesus on his way to heal the daughter of a "ruler". It seems as safe assumption that the ruler had means. In many cases (4 guys on the roof for one) there is just no indication of the status of the individual. Again, I just don't see enough evidence to make the blanket statement you made.
Regarding the big feedings, you correctly surmise that Jesus fed them because they had not brought food with them. That is not the same as saying they had no food. To make this anymore than a one time event (which, it could be argued was more about overcoming the doubt of his disciples than meeting the temporary need for food), seems to be reading too much into the text that is not there.
You also need to keep in mind that Jesus was possessed of infinite resources. Ultimately Satan was correct when he tempted Jesus. Jesus did,in fact, have the power to turn stones to bread. He had the power to turn 5 loaves and 2 fish into dinner for 5000 with leftovers. When Mary mentioned the lack of wine, Jesus didn't peel off a $50 and send the servants to the liqueur store, he turned water into wine. Any limits on Jesus in terms of resources were self imposed, not related to the generosity of his followers. The fact remains that he was the second person of the trinity and possessed all the resources that come from that.
Yes it is clear that Jesus showed concern for the poor. It is also clear that he did not meet all of the needs that were present during his ministry. It is fairly clear that Jesus taught that the Church was the primary means for caring for folks. He also acknowledged that many would not be cared for (while implying that care for the poor could wait until after his ascension). So while we agree on much, we do not agree on everything.
Re: your 9:53
I would agree with you to a degree, in that peoples spiritual and physical needs are related. However, I'm not sure I would go as far as you seem to. The problem is that much of the "social gospel" is meeting people physical needs without addressing the spiritual component.
A great example of this is where you say,
"I think the Bible is clear that if a people (individually or as a group such as a town or nation) want to assist the poor, this would be a good and blessed thing - regardless of whether they were God followers."
or
"it's not a given that the one and only way to meet needs is through the people of God, biblically-speaking."
It seems that it would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from these statements is that those who meet physical needs outside of the people of God are doing Gods work. (I agree with this in a limited sense.) However, how do you reconcile your later statement.
"and say they (physical and spiritual needs) are one in the same, from a practical sense"
If we are to take these at face value you seem to be saying that anyone who feeds the poor (despite their actual motivation) is doing the work of God, and that therefore they must also address the spiritual needs of the people (as you have said they are one and the same). Are you realty saying that when an atheist or muslin, or Buddhist or whatever feeds a hungry person they are doing it in the name of Jesus? If that is the case, then according to your formulation it seems as though they would be responsible for sharing the gospel of Jesus with them as well.
This becomes a further problem when you suggest that government has a role to play in this. (again, not saying that govt. has absolutely no role) How can you support a secular government meeting the spiritual needs(remember, "they are one in the same", of the hungry (or whatever.
Again, I agree, in Jesus message the physical and spiritual are inextricably linked. It seems that once you move the meeting of those needs beyond the hands and feet of Jesus you invite problems in fulfilling Jesus mission.
I am unaware of any instance where Jesus commended the care of the needy to anyone but the Church. So, while as a practical matter, there are others meeting those needs. They are not doing so for the same reasons. That is where I see a divide in your position, when you "outsource" the work of Jesus to those who don't follow Jesus.
To clarify, I am not saying that people of other faiths (or no faith) have no place meeting needs. I am however saying that they do so with different motivations and a different end result in mind.
I hope that you would agree that ,despite your lack of love for corporations, a corporation who partners with a christian organization to build a house for those (Muslims, in this case) in need is doing a good work. I do not think you would say they are doing it to advance the cause of Christ. Again, the good work is the same, the motivation is not.
Craig said...
I'm not sure that you can support your blanket statement that too be sick in that time period was to automatically be poor.
Note that I didn't say "automatically poor," rather, I said, "To be sick in Jesus' day was to be poor as a rule."
That is, in a society where most folk were of moderate to poor means and in which there were few safety nets beyond one's moderate-to-poor family, if one got sick, one tended to lose one's livelihood and, with little other resources, they became poor.
What jobs were there at the time for the leper? For the lame? For the blind? For the deaf?
Could someone tend sheep or farm very well if they were thus disabled?
I'm relatively sure I have read more learned people describing illness in those times, but don't see any good source to send you to on the webs, so I'll just leave it to your reasoning: Don't you think it is safe to assume that in such a world/society as existed in biblical times, that serious illness often equated with poverty?
Yes it is clear that Jesus showed concern for the poor.
We agree.
It is also clear that he did not meet all of the needs that were present during his ministry.
We agree.
It is fairly clear that Jesus taught that the Church was the primary means for caring for folks.
? Says who? You can't support this statement biblically. What we CAN agree on is that Jesus repeatedly taught the church that it is a primary role of the church to be about tending to the poor.
But no, the bible does not make the claim that the primary means for caring for the poor is the church.
Short of any source to back up that claim, I'll assume we can agree on that.
He also acknowledged that many would not be cared for (while implying that care for the poor could wait until after his ascension).
I don't believe we agree on this and I don't believe that you can support this biblically. Yes, Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you," but that is not an implication that the care for the poor could wait until after Jesus' ascension.
He made that comment in the context of the disciples getting all snippy about how the woman had poured expensive perfume on Jesus' feet. He was defending her actions, not giving the disciples an out for not being concerned for the poor.
If we are to take these at face value you seem to be saying that anyone who feeds the poor (despite their actual motivation) is doing the work of God
I gather this based on Jesus' own words: Whenever you do for the least of these children, you have done it unto me. Yes, I think that anyone who does the work of God (including caring for the poor) IS doing the work of God, even if they don't think of it that way.
Consider the story of the two brothers, one who told his father he'd do what he was asked and the other who said he WOULDN'T do as his father asked. And yet, it was the one who said he wouldn't do the task who actually did the task.
Jesus told this story to the religious pharisees who were questioning Jesus' authority and he concluded by saying, "I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you."
That is, those who don't appear to be followers of God at all, in the normal sense, are getting into heaven because they have demonstrated that they are, in fact, followers of God, because they have done the work of God.
How can you support a secular government meeting the spiritual needs(remember, "they are one in the same", of the hungry (or whatever.)
I don't support the gov't doing religious-y stuff in the sense that I believe you are talking about it. But, if the gov't, or a heathen or a pagan or a Muslim or even a Southern Baptist televangelist gives a cup of cold water to the thirsty, he/she does the work of God. Feeding the poor has both a physical and spiritual component, it seems to me.
One need not say, "I do this in the name of Jesus so that you might know the love of God," while giving food to a hungry person for them to know that, in some sense.
Seems to me.
Dan,
It's been a while and unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to deal with everything you've raised, but I'll take a shot.
RE: your 5:37 I'm only disagreeing with the blanket aspects of your statement. I think you minimize the family structure that existed at that time. When you have a large extended family it is much more reasonable to assume that there is room to accommodate those in the family in need. Again, I simply think you are invoking a rule when there is really no evidence for it.
RE: your 5:45. Since there is no instance of either Jesus or the early Church leaders ever appealing to any entity other than the Church to care for the poor, it seems reasonable to conclude that that is the intention. Here we must differentiate between the pre-Christ theocracy where God ruled Israel more directly and put in place laws which governed treatment of the poor, and the age of the Church. Since you have not provided a source for your contention, I see no reason to do likewise. I have yet to see Jesus ever suggesting that the primary vehicle for caring for the poor was outside the church. Feel free to provide a source that demonstrates otherwise.
The "poor will be with you always" is (in addition to whatever else it may be) a simple statement of fact. It is not an excuse not to try, it is just acknowledging the reality that short of Gods kingdom there will be poor, or sick or whatever.
Back.
RE: your 5:53. First, let me apologize for not being as precise as I thought I was. When I used the term "work of God" I was not merely referring to things that Jesus said to do. Obviously, anyone can feed the hungry. I (and I thought my subsequent comments made this clear) was referring to the concept of doing the "work of God" in order to advance the Kingdom of God. If one was to suggest that a Buddhist was advancing the cause of Christ by feeding the hungry, everyone involved would reject this. The Buddhist most of all. What you appear to be advocating is simply a system of works righteousness where what you do is determinative. Since this is completely at odds with your repeated assertions elsewhere that faith is what saves, I am struggling with what you are trying to say.
Yes Jesus did make the tax collectors and prostitutes comment. But the only way you can make it support your point is to omit the second half of the verse. "For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."
Nowhere did Jesus say that their works were getting them in to the Kingdom of Heaven. What got them in was repentance, and then following the way of righteousness.
Again, not sure where you get the idea that the tax collectors etc. got in by simply doing random good works outside the context of repentance and righteousness.
RE: your 5:56 It may seem that way to you, but since you quite clearly equate the physical and spiritual needs being met "they are one in the same", you are in essence saying that when the govt or other non Christians meet physical needs they also meet spiritual needs in the name of Christ. It seems that you may need to separate physical and spiritual to be a little more consistent.
You are correct that one need not say that formulation. However, if an atheist feeds a hungry person it seems reasonable to assume that neither person in the transaction has advancing the Kingdom of God or following Jesus in mind. Again, it seems as though you are advocating some sort of universalist works based salvation which is at odds with your previous suggestion that faith is the basis of salvation. Sorry if I am misunderstanding, but it's just not very clear.
To clarify my side or things.
God/Jesus direct us (the Church) to care for those in need.
Others can perform the same acts, but those acts are not do not provide salvation, nor do they advance the Kingdom of God.
This doesn't mean they shouldn't do them, just that they are not following the directions of Jesus.
Hope this clarifies.
Craig said...
Others can perform the same acts, but those acts are not do not provide salvation, nor do they advance the Kingdom of God.
How would you defend that statement? On what basis do you think the atheist's feeding the poor does not advance the kingdom of God?
I have similar questions for this statement...
If one was to suggest that a Buddhist was advancing the cause of Christ by feeding the hungry, everyone involved would reject this. The Buddhist most of all.
Do you know any Buddhists? Do you have any reason why you think they would say they are advancing the cause of Christ by feeding the poor? I don't see why a Buddhist feeding the poor would not advance the "cause" of Jesus.
"I have come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly."
"I have come to preach good news to the poor, freedom to the captive, healing for the sick..."
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
God will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"
~Jesus
Dan,
I've explained this at least twice. If you choose not to read my comments that's fine. I have no desire to explain myself a third time.
If you want to take the Matthew 25 as saying that everyone who does a god deed gets into heaven great. But you've got a tough job harmonizing that interpretation with the rest of scripture, for that matter with the rest of Matt 25.
So, if you can live with your contradictions, why should I not be able to.
Dan,
It seems as though you are saying that atheist Bob can go through his life actively trying to avoid Jesus. But because he fed a hungry person he's going to end up in front of God who is going to say welcome to heaven Bob. Is this really where you are going? Please clarify.
As you know, I believe we are saved by grace, not by good works. But I also acknowledge...
1. That the Bible tells us we may be surprised by who "gets in" and who doesn't. Many of the most religious don't seem to know Jesus and many who don't seem especially religious demonstrate by their behavior that they know Jesus quite well.
2. That Jesus and the Bible tells us we will recognize those who have been saved by grace by their deeds. Jesus' sheep/goats story in Matt 25, for instance. Or Jesus' proclamation: "This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
Or James acknowledgment that TRUE religion is to take care of the widows and the orphans.
In short, I acknowledge that the Bible repeatedly points to such behavior (feeding the poor, visiting the sick, etc) as signs of those who have received God's grace.
And, as I have already pointed out, Jesus' parable of the two brothers recognizes the fact that not all who SAY they are followers of God are, and not all who say they are NOT followers of God, aren't. By their actions, we will know they have been saved by grace, this is a consistent theme found in the Bible.
Yes?
Craig said...
I've explained this at least twice. If you choose not to read my comments that's fine.
I'm not sure what you've explained twice.
What I have asked you that I have NOT seen explained is...
Where you said:
It is fairly clear that Jesus taught that the Church was the primary means for caring for folks.
I asked:
? Says who? You can't support this statement biblically. What we CAN agree on is that Jesus repeatedly taught the church that it is a primary role of the church to be about tending to the poor.
And where you said:
If one was to suggest that a Buddhist was advancing the cause of Christ by feeding the hungry, everyone involved would reject this. The Buddhist most of all.
I asked:
Do you know any Buddhists? Do you have any reason why you think they would say they are advancing the cause of Christ by feeding the poor? I don't see why a Buddhist feeding the poor would not advance the "cause" of Jesus.
I haven't seen an answer to these questions. I apologize if they were in your answers and I'm just not seeing them, but, well, I'm just not seeing any answers to those questions.
Once more with feeling.
Since (as we agree) Jesus did teach that "Jesus repeatedly taught the church that it is a primary role of the church to be about tending to the poor.", and since Jesus did not teach that (for example) the government (we're talking new covenant not old here)has a responsibility. Then, in the absence of any teaching that puts the responsibility on others, we're left with the Church.
Yes, I know Buddhists. Most Buddhists are trying to advance the cause of Buddhism not Christ. Why would they intentionally advance the cause of Christ? This is a silly question. Which I addressed earlier. If you would especially pay attention to my post of 11:07 you will find some further information as well as the beginning of numerous questions for you to answer now that I have answered yours.
Since (as we agree) Jesus did teach that "Jesus repeatedly taught the church that it is a primary role of the church to be about tending to the poor.", and since Jesus did not teach that (for example) the government (we're talking new covenant not old here)has a responsibility. Then, in the absence of any teaching that puts the responsibility on others, we're left with the Church.
Poor exegesis, seems to me - an argument from silence with not much to back it up but your hunch.
By this reasoning, since the Bible shows God's people (Israel) as the ones who should kill disrespectful children and "men who lay with men," and the Bible no where assigns capital punishment for these actions to the state, then the church should be the ones stoning to death disrespectful children and pagan worshipers when men lay with men.
I would disagree and point out once again that you can't back that up biblically at all. All you can do is say, "Well, the Bible doesn't SAY the gov't shouldn't do this, and we KNOW the church SHOULD be doing it, so I'm guessing that is the "primary" way - not because the Bible says so, but because it doesn't offer any other ideas..."
And, of course, you're mistaken there, too. Since a gov't (Israel) was expected to set up regulations to care for the poor in the OT.
Anyway, we could go around and around on that point. How about we just agree that the Bible does not say that the church is the "primary way" of tending to the needs of the poor, but this is your opinion, for what it's worth?
Why would they (Buddhists) intentionally advance the cause of Christ?
Ummm, because they respect Christ's teachings and therefore, they would gladly promote his teachings, at least some of them?
The Jesus who said, "I have come that you may have life, and that more abundantly," "I have come to preach good news to the poor, healing for the sick, liberty for the captive," "Turn the other cheek," "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," "blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are you who are poor, blessed are you who hunger...,"
I don't know (and you have not shown any evidence) that Buddhists would or would not gladly advance such teachings of Jesus, but I expect that many if not most, would.
But my question was, "Do you have any reason [and by this, I was looking for evidence, some support for the statement other than your opinion] why you think they would say they are advancing the cause of Christ by feeding the poor?"
You had said, "If one was to suggest that a Buddhist was advancing the cause of Christ by feeding the hungry, everyone involved would reject this. The Buddhist most of all." I was just wondering if you had any hard evidence for that, or if it was just a hunch (sorry if I wasn't clear).
I guess that's a, No?
Craig said...
If you would especially pay attention to my post of 11:07 you will find some further information as well as the beginning of numerous questions for you to answer now that I have answered yours.
I've gone back and looked and looked and don't see ANY (much less, "numerous") questions that you have asked that have not been answered. In fact, the only place after the 11:07 comment that you ask a question (at least with a question mark) is this...
But because he fed a hungry person he's going to end up in front of God who is going to say welcome to heaven Bob. Is this really where you are going? Please clarify.
And right after that post, I clarified what I meant. I'm sorry if I'm missing it, but what "numerous questions" are you speaking of?
The only other question I can find that you may not think has been answered (although I did answer it, just not directly) is this:
Are you realty saying that when an atheist or muslin, or Buddhist or whatever feeds a hungry person they are doing it in the name of Jesus?
So, to directly answer THAT question...
When someone feeds the poor, tends to the needy, they are doing God's work. I believe that is what I have said. They are doing "what the father asked," to make an analogy to Jesus' parable, even if they have told "the father" that they wouldn't.
I don't believe I have said that they are doing it in Jesus' name and I don't think I would say that. However, Jesus pointed out that those who did to the "least of these" did it to Him, and I think that applies here - the Buddhist or atheist who does unto the least of these is doing unto Jesus. Even if they are not doing it in Jesus' name.
In one of the Narnia books, CS Lewis tells the story of a false god worshiper who was faithful to the false god "Tash," or "Tashlan" as he was later called. After the guard's "death" (sort of), Aslan and the guard have this conversation (after the tash-worshiping guard recognizes the glory of Aslan)...
Then I fell at his feet and though, surely this is the hour of death, for the lion (who is worhty of all honor) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the lion and die than to be kind of the world and live and not to have seen him.
But the Glorious One bent down and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, "Son, thou are welcome."
But I said, "Alas, Lord I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash." He answered, "Child, all the service thou has done to Tash, I account as service done to me."
Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, "Lord is it ture, as the Ape said, the thous and Tash are one?"
The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, "It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services that thous hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.
Therefore if any man do a cruelty in my name, than though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed accepted. Dost Thou understand child?" I said, "Lord Thous knowest how much I understand."
But I also said (for the truth constrained me), "Yes I have been seeking Tash all my days."
"Beloved" said the Glorous One, "unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly, for all find what they truly seek."
What do you think Lewis is saying here? Is he echoing Jesus' story of the two brothers? Is he echoing Jesus claim that those who aren't against him are for him?
Dan,
It's concerning enough that you are basing your theology on this matter on one parable. So for confirmation you turn to allegory, by Lewis. Why not look to Lewis's theology for your answers, instead of allegory. It really seems as though you are reaching.
I'll try this one more time.
Anyone can perform actions that coincide with God/Jesus's commands.
Performing these actions may/does, in some small way, advance the ideals of God's Kingdom.
These actions do not, however, actually advance God's kingdom since God's kingdom is more than a social program.
I hope this is clear.
"Poor exegesis, seems to me - an argument from silence with not much to back it up but your hunch." Sorry, this is exactly your argument for "gay marriage". Either its a valid argument or not, your call. It can't be both. Not only that, but, since you cannot point to an instance where that Bible teaches that the secular (not theocracy) government has responsibility for charity, your point works against you as much as it "works for you".
Or we could agree that the Bible does not (outside of the theocratic period) assign charity to the government. You might have noticed that I specifically noted the difference in how things worked during the period of the theocracy rather than now. So why would you suggest that I have said the exact opposite. In fact I have never said anything remotely like what you claim I said ("By this reasoning, since the Bible shows God's people (Israel) as the ones who should kill disrespectful children and "men who lay with men," and the Bible no where assigns capital punishment for these actions to the state, then the church should be the ones stoning to death disrespectful children and pagan worshipers when men lay with men."). Why would you print something that is untrue, will you do the right thing here? Please, it is so much more productive when you actually respond to what I have said, not what you think I said.
So because some Buddhists might agree with some of Christs teachings this means nothing. This in no way could be taken to mean that they would want to expand the Kingdom of God that Christ preaches.
Now, can I please get some answers.
1. Are you actually saying that people end up in heaven accidentally?
2. If Bob the atheist accidentally ends up in heaven, is he really in heaven?
3. Since you have not provided a source for your contention, I see no reason to do likewise. I have yet to see Jesus ever suggesting that the primary vehicle for caring for the poor was outside the church. Feel free to provide a source that demonstrates otherwise.
I apologize, but I have neither the time or desire to get involved in a discussion about your interpretation of Matt 25. Suffice it to say that I have spend a considerable amount of time studying this passage, including multiple commentaries, and I (as well as the authors I read) don't see any support for your interpretation. It seems clear that earlier in this thread you were saying that actions got people into the Kingdom of God. You have clarified sort of, although you really haven't demonstrated how a Buddhist or atheist would actually get into the kingdom, or why they would want to.
The biggest reason I don't want to go further is I'm not sure I want to deal with the parsing of all three of the parables (again if you look at the context you really can't separate them). I'm afraid that it will simply degenerate into you picking and choosing what parts you agree with. Sorry, I just don't have the time, although it would probably be good for me to revisit this. Maybe later.
I've no time right now. Suffice to say that, as I have repeatedly stated as my view, we are saved by Grace. We who are saved by grace demonstrate that by our lives, walking in Jesus' steps.
If Bob gets to heaven, it is because he is saved by God's grace. I think the Bible is pretty clear that some people find themselves surprised to be in heaven and some are surprised to find they are not there (at least in Jesus' story of the sheep and the goats and other of Jesus' teachings).
If Jesus thinks some people will be surprised to learn of their final resting spot, I don't fault Lewis for thinking the same thing and I tend to think it is entirely possible, too.
I trust Jesus a lot, that way.
and I (as well as the authors I read) don't see any support for your interpretation. It seems clear that earlier in this thread you were saying that actions got people into the Kingdom of God. You have clarified sort of, although you really haven't demonstrated how a Buddhist or atheist would actually get into the kingdom, or why they would want to.
My interpretation? I don't know what my interpretation is, other than taking Jesus' fairly straightforwardly here to presume that some people are surprised to find out which side of the Lord they are on. Do you not think that is one point of Jesus' story here?
Just because I point to the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit and the evidence of a life walked in Jesus' steps and the evidence of doing for the least of these as evidence that one is, indeed, walking in the steps of Jesus does not mean at all that I believe in salvation by works. Just that the Bible is pretty clear that we will be known by our love, that we will be known by our lives poured out with and for the least of these, that we will be known by the fruit of the Spirit.
Those who tend to have such solid evidence have a good bit of support that they have received God's grace, at least a bit, in their lives.
Am I saying that everyone who does a kind deed is saved? No. I'm not really saying anything other than pointing to the Bible and saying I believe in grace and mystery.
I have yet to see Jesus ever suggesting that the primary vehicle for caring for the poor was outside the church.
Read my words. I have not said that the primary vehicle for caring for the poor was outside the church. All I correctly stated was that the opposite contention is not any more true. The Bible does not claim that the primary vehicle for caring for the poor is the church.
You see, the difference is that I'm not claiming there IS an authoritatively "primary" source for caring for the poor. It's all good and Godly. Because I respect and love the Bible, I'm not willing to make that kind of claim when the Bible does not make that kind of claim.
out of time...
Post a Comment