Here are some of my thoughts on the usage of the word, gospel in the Bible. I am no theologian and didn't look into what more learned folk had to say about this, these are just my thoughts, for what they're worth.
1. While the word, gospel, means merely "good news" in the regular sense of the phrase, biblical authors seem to be using the word to mean some specific set of teachings/beliefs beyond just the regular sense. As if they appropriated the regular word as a shortcut term to mean something beyond just the regular sense. Again, that's just how it sounds to me.
For instance, when Mark begins his book, he says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Mark 1:1)
Or:
"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it." (Mark 8:35)
Or:
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it." (Luke 16:16)
It feels like, to me, that they're using the word gospel to mean something specific, instead of generically, good news about God, or God's Kingdom. Like in that last verse, as if BEFORE John, the body of teaching known as "the Law and the Prophets" were taught and AFTER John, the body of teaching known as "the gospel" was taught.
Perhaps someone more informed knows more about this contextually, I'm just offering up how it sounds to me.
2. The word, gospel is, in my estimation, tied fairly closely to Jubilee teachings and to matters of wealth and poverty in the four books of the Gospels.
In the just-quoted Luke 16 passage, the term comes up as Jesus is juxtapositioning the way of the Pharisees (who were "lovers of money") to the "gospel of the kingdom of God" (and, as an aside, what is Jesus indicating when he said, "and everyone is forcing his way into it..."?)
In Luke 4, where Jesus quotes the book of Isaiah and so announces the beginning of His ministry, Jesus says, "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD."
In so doing, it seems to me that Jesus is saying that his ministry (and the teaching of the good news of the kingdom of God) is very much tied to preaching the gospel specifically to the poor and otherwise marginalized. Now, I'm not saying that I think that means that Jesus doesn't care about the rich, I'm just saying that this is how that verse (and others like it) come across. To me, anyway.
By my estimation, of the 17 times the word comes up in the four Gospels, 9/17 of the time, it is used fairly explicitly in connection with the poor, sick and marginalized. An additional four times (or 13/17), there is a monetary subtext in the passages surrounding the use of the word. Then, in four instances (4/17), there appears to be no direct connection to wealth and poverty.
Another example, even before Jesus we see that John the Baptist is preaching "the gospel" (in Luke 3) and tying it specifically to economic conditions. When the people are asking John of what they should repent and how they should change, John tells them (quite gruffly) if a person has two tunics, he should share one of them with those in need. "and he/she who has food should do likewise." Tax collectors and soldiers should not over-collect and the soldiers should be content with their wages.
This passage concludes, "So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people." which suggests to me, "SO, with many other similar exhortations, John preached the good news..." The gospel, for John the Baptist, seems quite connected to economic practices, with economic justice and living simply.
Indeed, when John (in prison) sends some followers to check out Jesus, Jesus tells them to tell John, "Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM."
3. In Luke 9, we see Jesus sending the twelve apostles out to preach the good news and proclaim the kingdom of God. That phrase seems to be used interchangeably. In verse 2, Jesus sends them out to "proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing." In verse 6, it is said that they began "preaching the gospel and healing everywhere."
It seems to me that the word, gospel, as used in the four Gospels is very associated with proclaiming the Kingdom of God, which IS good news for the poor and for the ill and marginalized. So, it seems to me, the question is, WHAT is the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Heaven so often referenced in connection with the gospel?
So, perhaps Eric is on to something inasmuch as it might be important for us to discern what exactly is meant when the terms "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of Heaven" are being used.
4. The word, gospel, as used in the rest of the NT, has a different flavor to it - less attached to issues of poverty and marginalization than in the Gospels. Because this post is already long, I'll consider that further on another day. But if anyone has thoughts as to why this is, I'll be glad to hear them.
And, of course, I'm glad to hear further thoughts on any of my opinions on the gospel as found in the Gospels.
34 comments:
Personally, I think it's tendentious to argue that Luke 3:18's reference to the gospel is about the ethical commands in 3:10-14, rather than John's proclamation about the person of Jesus Christ, found in 3:15-17.
Are those verses missing in your Bible, Dan?
Paul defined the Gospel, Dan, in Romans 1:16, as "the power of God for..." what? So-called social justice? Income redistribution? The revolution of the proletariat?
No: it is "the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
Salvation, Dan.
SALVATION IS THE GOOD NEWS.
While you're very apparently concerned with evangelists who are so focused on saving sinners that they fail to mention our duty to care for the poor, you're not all that worried about the reverse, those who are concerned about the poor's material needs but never get around to mentioning our need for God's forgiveness of our sins.
Truly good news isn't what we are obligated to do in obedience to God or out of concern for others: because we are sinners, we cannot possibly meet those obligations.
Instead, the good news of Christ is what God has already done through Him, that our sins are forgiven, that we are justified and declared righteous, that we are given the immeasurable gift of eternal life, and that we are given God's own Spirit to dwell within us.
You miss this so thoroughly that I sometimes truly wonder whether you grasp what is so good about the good news of Christianity. It would be terrible if you didn't, but it wouldn't be half so infuriating if, in missing the mark, you didn't further try to distort and pervert the Gospel by twisting it to support your political agenda.
Bubba, thank you for commenting in the vicinity of the topic. I ask you now the further decency to make your commentary on the topic without the attacks on people's character.
I don't personally give a rip that you attack me, but it's not very Christ-like way to conduct a look at God's Word. Is it not enough for you to disagree with me? Must you continue on with "Are those verses missing in your Bible?"
Again, it's not that I'm bothered by your ridiculous attacks personally, but rather, I think it reflects poorly on the Church as a whole that we can't discuss a topic like the Gospel without attacks coming up.
Especially when I have hardly made any commentary at this point, mostly what I've done is offered what the Bible says and asked for your opinions.
It seems the proper response would then be, "Well, Dan, my opinion about those verses is that I think it's tendentious to argue that Luke 3:18's reference to the gospel is about the ethical commands in 3:10-14, rather than John's proclamation about the person of Jesus Christ, found in 3:15-17."
That would suffice.
As to Luke 3, yes, I see those verses and my opinion is that verse 18 is prefaced by all that had preceded it. Verses 10-17. I see no reason to assume that Luke was just intending to include 15-17 in with John's presentation of the Gospel.
Bubba said:
SALVATION IS THE GOOD NEWS.
Okay. I have not said anything to contradict that. I'm fine with that idea. No need to suggest that I am suggesting otherwise.
I believe that salvation is indeed the good news. God is offering us salvation from our sin. Salvation from our greed. Salvation from systems of oppression. Good news for the poor, for the ill, for the imprisoned.
What I'm asking here is (ONE of the things I'm asking here is): Why the emphasis on Jesus' part of tying salvation with poverty and oppression?
I am well aware of what Paul says in Romans. But right now, I am looking at Jesus' words in the Gospels. Do you have any thoughts on why the constant connection of "good news" with the poor?
Ought we write this off as merely meaning "poor in spirit" - having nothing to do with poverty? Were the disciples merely healing people's spiritual illnesses? When the Gospel-writer noted that the Pharisees were "lovers of money," did he mean "spiritual money"? Was he using a metaphor? OR, did he mean quite literally that the Pharisees were, indeed, "lovers of money"?
Bubba wrote:
You miss this so thoroughly that I sometimes truly wonder whether you grasp what is so good about the good news of Christianity. It would be terrible if you didn't, but it wouldn't be half so infuriating if, in missing the mark, you didn't further try to distort and pervert the Gospel by twisting it to support your political agenda.
Bubba, if I knew how to delete PART of your comment, I would have deleted this. It is off topic and one of those attack commentaries that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and, quite frankly, shows your ignorance and the bile in your soul.
I have pointed out frequently that I was raised a conservative young fella. I am where I am today for EXACTLY the opposite reason that you are suggesting. I believed more conservatively (having been raised thusly) and only moved to my current positions (and thereby abandoning some of my political agendas) by prayerfully studying God's Word.
You are mistaken. Actually, you WERE mistaken the first few times you cast this aspersion. Now that you have been corrected, you are lying. You have been informed as to the truth and have chosen to spread lies regardless.
Shame on you. Enough. Your rantings are tasteless and wrong and a distraction from the Gospel which we are trying to talk about here.
I wish I had time to jump into this right now, but I have a lot of other things that need to take precedence, namely, the J.O.B.
I do have some answers for you. I'll keep a watch and see where this goes until such a time as I HAVE time to respond.
I will say this: John the Baptist's entire purpose was to prepare the way for Jesus. His "Gospel," his "Good News" was that Messiah was coming.
I've pointed this out before, but Christ's heralds highlighted Christ's unique role as a Savior, not an ethics teacher, political philosopher, or even a law-giver.
"She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." - the angel to Joseph, Mt 1:21
"Do not be afraid; for see —- I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord." - the angel to the Shepherds, Lk 2:10-11
(Note the "good news." It's the birth of the Savior.)
And how did John the Baptist announce the Messiah, in Jn 1:29?
"Here is the Lamb of God who teaches how to live simply"?
Not at all.
"Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
Bubba had added more commentary here that was off topic. The entire comment was not on the topic of my post but rather his suppositions about what I believe. Since it was wholly unrelated to the topic at hand, I have deleted it. He is more than welcome to comment about the topic at hand.
His second commentary remains, as it is basically on topic.
The gist of his off topic comment was that he does not believe me.
"That actually is the case: I honestly believe you're being dishonest."
Bubba, I do believe that you don't believe me. But that is not the topic at hand. Feel free to continue to comment on topic.
Eric, I don't fully disagree with you, but I don't know that the text would support your position that the one and only reason that John the Baptist came (his "entire purpose") was to announce Jesus' coming.
Luke 3 itself tells us that:
And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins
So, at least ONE reason that John came was to preach a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin - and to tell people to live simply, to share what they had. I don't think John was wrong in so doing. I think that was part of his role, according to the Bible.
He also announced the coming of Jesus:
"MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT."
And:
"One is coming who is mightier than I... He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."
And perhaps even preach a little universalism (if we were to take these passages literally):
"AND ALL FLESH WILL SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD."
Was proclaiming Jesus John's MAIN purpose? Well, I reckon you'd have to ask God that. I rather agree with whoever it was who said, "Humanity's chief end is to glorify God..."
Now, certainly his precursor role is what John is chiefly known for. Beyond that, I would defer to God, as I don't know anyone's "entire purpose" beyond glorifying God.
"...at least ONE reason that John came was to preach a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin"
I don't believe you can make a separate distinction between this and his role as "forerunner". They are both part and parcel with his ordained role... ordained of God.
Yes he preached a baptism of repentance, but it was in preparation for the Lamb of God who was yet to be revealed. His statement, which you quoted, "make ready the road..." is exactly what he was doing with the baptisms... getting people, the roads to their hearts, ready for the son of God, whose baptism would be with fire rather than the mere water of John's baptism.
John preached "a" gospel, but it was the "good news" that Messiah was coming.
Jesus preached two gospels; first, the gospel of the Kingdom of God which, had he been accepted by the religious leaders of the day, would have ushered in the tribulation according to Daniel's prophecy, followed by a one-thousand years of peace.
Second...
Later. Out of time. Time to get ready for the news.
I don't believe that I agree. Jesus preached one Gospel: One story of reconciliation with God and living within God's Way that IS good news to the poor, to the ill, to the imprisoned. That IS the joy of living in the Day of God's good favor.
There certainly are many facets to Jesus' gospel, but I don't think I'd say he preached two gospels.
Bubba, you may write me at my email address if you wish to make off-topic attack commentary. As long as you continue to only make off-topic comments, though, I shall delete them.
I encourage you to make all the comments you'd like on the topic at hand. I appreciate your opinion, even when I disagree with it. But let's not bore folk with off topic commentary about the disdain you apparently hold for me. It's been noted.
This general topic has been discussed here repeatedly and I always find it odd. To me the question seems like a false dichotomy. Why is it not possible that the Good News is both, the message of salvation AND the ethical commands. Why is it not possible that preaching:
"Good News to the poor, release to the captives and the receiving of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Jubilee"
is not both a spiritual metaphor as well as a statement about the physical physical world? Other than the Greek dualism that unfortunately creeps into many Christian's thinking, is there another reason to believe Jesus was completely unconcerned about those who were economically poor, not just those who were spiritually poor? I've never seen any evidence to support such a notion.
Clearly both Dan and other's contributions here show that this "both/and" can be supported Biblically, however there is very little evidence in the Bible that specifically says, "It must mean this, and never means that."
Perhaps there's a nuance in this discussion I'm missing that makes these arguments actually important? Or is the argument important only to have an argument? I mean, I've seen this discussion here at least a million times, so clearly someone thinks it is important, and yet I can't understand why, nor why the false dichotomy being debated isn't obvious.
Bubba asked:
Is there any passage anywhere in the Bible that teaches that Jesus will save us "from systems of oppression" in this world? So far as I know, there isn't, nor is there a passage that implies it.
Systems of oppression include SINful acts. We are saved from our SINS. I believe, at least in that sense, you must surely agree with me that we are saved from our SINful acts of systemic oppression.
I don't think there's anything to disagree with in that comment. But you are free to tell me if you DON'T think sinful oppressive systems are included in those sins for which we can be forgiven and redeemed. I think you agree.
Bubba said:
Jesus warned us that we would be persecuted and hated for our devotion to Him and the Gospel, He promised that we would always have the poor in this world, and He promised that there would always be wars and rumors of wars until His triumphant return.
? I agree. So? There WILL continue to be persecution. There WILL continue to be poverty. There WILL continue to be oppression and wars. There WILL continue to be adultery. There WILL continue to be thievery.
None of that is in God's will. It is the sort of behavior/actions from which we ARE BEING redeemed. Both NOW and FOREVERMORE. It is a process. Because we will continue to have adultery, does that mean we should embrace it or recognize it as one of those harmful actions from which we are being redeemed?
I don't think there is any disagreement here, Bubba, but you are free to correct me if I'm mistaken about your opinion.
Bubba said:
But the Bible promises no such immediate salvation from such temporal problems. The Bible doesn't justify the Social Gospel, nor does it condone utopian attempts to immanentize the eschaton.
? I have not said anywhere that I think we are promised immediate delivery from sins. We ARE promised immediate salvation from sins, though and we ARE called to begin living a Kingdom of God sort of life now.
Do you disagree? I don't think so, but you are free to correct me if you DO think we are not saved from our sins NOW and are not to begin living for the Kingdom of God NOW.
Bubba said:
The details are different: they believed that the Messiah would personally lead an army to liberate Israel from Roman rule, and you apparently believe that, by following political extrapolations from His ethical teachings, we can liberate ourselves from systems of oppression and establish so-called social justice. But the gist is the same: both were/are trying to understand the Messiah politically.
I am striving to live the Christian life, following Jesus' teaching by God's Grace in the here and now. Are you suggesting something different?
It seems you're seeking to find or create strife where none exists, but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't see that we disagree on any of your on-topic points. Except, inasmuch as you guess wrongly about my motives.
Alan said:
Clearly both Dan and other's contributions here show that this "both/and" can be supported Biblically, however there is very little evidence in the Bible that specifically says, "It must mean this, and never means that."
Yeah, I believe that you and I agree, too, Alan. Both/And.
What's interesting is the suspicion that seems to follow with the Both/And approach. You'd think that generally agreeing with folk would be enough.
"Why is it not possible that the Good News is both, the message of salvation AND the ethical commands."
Ethical commands cannot save a man's soul. The Good News is that their sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ. That's not to say the ethical commands have no value... I would never say that. All I AM saying is that without salvation, ethical commands are all but worthless-- that's what the Pharisees had; ethical commands without salvation... White-washed sepulchers filled with dead men's bones.
I know how comments made by me and others can be construed to be critical, but I assure you that my intent here with this thought and any that follow is and will be snark-free.
'Twas taken completely snarkless. Thanks, Eric.
I don't know that Alan or I are disagreeing with you in this regard. We ARE saved by God's grace. We are saved to follow in Jesus' steps. It is in God's grace and in following in Jesus' steps that we have our salvation.
Which is not to say that we are saved by works, but rather, that a "salvation" that has no works is, as James notes, not worth nothing much.
Have we made Jesus Lord of our lives if we have not embraced his teachings? Or worse, if we actively reject his teachings?!
I'm relatively sure that you agree.
Both/And.
"We are saved to follow in Jesus' steps. It is in God's grace and in following in Jesus' steps that we have our salvation."
Yes. And No.
We ARE saved to follow in Jesus' steps. I can't fault that statement. But our salvation is NOT had in following His steps, by His grace or otherwise. We have our salvation through the shed blood of Christ... "it is in God's grace and in following in Jesus' steps that we mature and reflect the grace given us to a lost and dying generation. We are saved to bear light, but we don't bear light to be saved.
That being said, the "saved" soul that doesn't bear light must question the efficacy of his "salvation"... there is such a thing as false conversion.
So, any thoughts on why the Gospel writers so closely tie the gospel with the poor and otherwise marginalized?
"any thoughts on why the Gospel writers so closely tie the gospel with the poor and otherwise marginalized?"
Some clarification please:
1) What exactly do you mean by "Gospel"?
--a)is it what Christ does for us? Or...
--b)is it a system we must follow?
2) What specifically makes you believe the "Gospel" is closely tied with "the poor and otherwise marginalized"? Because...
--a)if the Gospel is what Christ does for us, why would the Gospel be directed primarily at the poor and marginalized, if God is not willing that any perish? And...
--b)if the Gospel is a system we must follow, why would it be directly primarily at the poor and marginalized?
When I refer to the "Gospel writers," I am referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
When I asked about why these writers used the term, "gospel," in a majority of cases in close connection with the poor and marginalized, as we saw in the passages reviewed.
WHY, in other words, did Jesus say specifically, "Tell John that the Good News has been preached to the poor"?
Why did Jesus say "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR..."? Why specifically to the poor?
Why in Luke 16 does Jesus juxtapose his gospel with the teachings of the pharisees, who were lovers of money?
And then to follow that up with the story of Poor Lazarus and the rich man (in which Lazarus goes to heaven but the rich man - who is reminded by God, "during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony...") goes to "Hades" where he is in torment?
I'm pointing out that in the four Gospels, there is an association of the gospel with poverty or the marginalized more often than not. I'm asking, why is that?
(And for the record, I'm not looking for a "right answer" and will yell, "GOTCHA!" if you get it wrong. I don't know the answer, since the Bible doesn't say. I'm just asking for opinions.)
I agree that God favors the poor, only becuse the poor are not distracted by the things the world entices up with. That being said, indifferent to ones social class or lack there of.
In the rich man and poor Lazarus the rich man was sent to hell for not believing in the scriptures, his riches had nothing to do with it except maybe distracting from the lord.
Slave or king, rich or poor we are all judged under New Testament Law. To think otherwise would lead up to believe that just by virtue of being poor one will get into heaven. We know that is not true.
To say the Gospel is some kind of earthly deliverance from being poor lacks Biblical evidence. Jesus never gave advise on how to get equal rights, economic equality or more opportunity. These ideas are the invention of "social preachers" not the Lord
" Also, Isaiah 61:1 does not say "poor," it says "meek." "
And please understand that I argue from the King James. I'm quite sure some versions DO translate "meek" as "poor"
"I'm pointing out that in the four Gospels, there is an association of the gospel with poverty or the marginalized more often than not. "
Clearly. And there is no greater evidence of this association than the fact that Jesus himself came not as a rich man nor a king, but as the son of a carpenter (actually lower social status than a carpenter, the more accurate translation is "maker of wood products.") His first Apostles were fishermen and Paul was a tent-maker. (We're also reminded in Acts that the first church cared for the poor so that there were "no needy people among them.")
And Acts 6 reminds us of the tradition that is still carried on in the Presbyterian church of having teaching elders who proclaim the Word as well as ruling elders that serve at the tables of the poor.
It isn't the case that God loves the poor more than the rich. As my Pastor likes to say, God loves us all equally, but He roots for the underdog.
Thanks for the thoughts, all. I like that last line, Alan.
Thanks for the load of thoughts, Eric, I'm still sort of wading through it all. One initial thought:
I find it interesting that when I read these gospel-instances, By my estimation, of the 17 times the word comes up in the four Gospels, 9/17 of the time, it is used fairly explicitly in connection with the poor, sick and marginalized. An additional four times (or 13/17), there is a monetary subtext in the passages surrounding the use of the word.
Conversely, Eric, when you read those same passages, you say:
Fourteen out of seventeen mentions of the word "gospel" are not at all closely connected to the poor and otherwise marginalized.
We find almost the opposite number of references to the poor. You only think there are three (3/17) instances of references to the poor
while I find 13/17!
I reckon that's partially because I included not just instances where the word, "poor" is used next to the word, "gospel," but instances of Jesus healing the sick (who I believe often in those days WERE poor, having no great ability to earn a living) and other instances, such as Mark 10:28, where the disciples are talking about leaving all to follow Jesus, implying a simple "poor" lifestyle, and like in Luke 16, where the greater subtext of the passage is talking about wealth and poverty issues.
I don't know that we disagree much, Eric, but I'm still digesting what you've written.
I will note a thanks for including the rest of the Isaiah passage, which in my estimation would have been implicit in what Jesus was saying, at least to the saducees and pharisees who knew the Torah. I think I would disagree with your suggestion:
Also, it's at least as important that Jesus quoted this particular passage, as it is where He chose to stop... what He chose NOT to read. And what was it He said immediately afterward? "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." What is not fulfilled is what follows...
I think ALL of that is what is fulfilled this day. The Kingdom of God is HERE, NOW, AMONG YOU, Thy Kingdom come ON EARTH... I think is a very explicit part of the good news that Jesus proclaimed.
More later...
In so doing, it seems to me that Jesus is saying that his ministry (and the teaching of the good news of the kingdom of God) is very much tied to preaching the gospel specifically to the poor and otherwise marginalized.
Amen!
Now Bubba comments about the importance of direct, message-oriented evangelism. What I like to call "propositional evangelism". In seminary, I've developed a healthy cynicism toward such practices, as was prudently taught by my professors. But last Spring, one professor pointed out something important: at least the people handing out tracts on street corners are doing something, whereas many/most of us do little to communicate the gospel, either by our words and our actions. He said something like "Until the local church steps up and takes Christian witness seriously, it has no business criticizing tract distributors."
But I guess that I am getting off-topic from the actual post. Yes, the Gospel is good news to the marginalized of this world; that salvation is more than just a promise of a next life, but a life of freedom, justice, and love now. And the Church has an obligation to act accordingly.
Please join me in extending best wishes to the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, today, on the occasion of his 47th birthday.
Thank you.
--EHR
Yo, H! Happy B, yo!
I already have my Obamas Tree decorated.
Now, you're just being silly...
Dang! Just lost a response.
Briefly, I was responding to your assertion, Eric, about the ill and poverty. I suggested in the cases that a person is identified as having wealth, they were not poor. Otherwise, given that there were no welfare systems, no medicaid, limited opportunities for widows, women in general, those with issues of blood or for lepers or paralytics, that it is reasonable to assume they were poor.
My guess seems more reasonable than a guess to presume that they were not poor. How do you think a paralytic was going to produce income? A leper?
My understanding is that such people mainly had the option of begging alms, as we see sometimes mentioned in these stories.
My opinion, for what it's worth.
Eric said:
God's prophetic plan in this is not to wait for us to build a utopia so he can establish His kingdom. His kingdom is not something we build.
As I have clearly stated, I don't think we will have a political human-created perfect utopia in our world anytime soon.
Having said that, we ARE to begin work by God's grace on God's kingdom. We ARE to begin living the kingdom life here and now.
We are to be peacemakers. We are to side with and tend to the least of these. We are to care for the widows and the orphans. We are to turn the other cheek. We are to not worry about accumulating stuff, but live simply and in solidarity with the poor. We are to display (ie, act out, here and now) love for the family of God, for the marginalized, for the poor, for the ill, for the foreigner, for the hated enemy.
Here, now.
These are all direct NT teachings. I am relatively sure you believe them. God's kingdom may not be something we perfectly build ourselves, like a physical kingdom, but it IS something we are to be working on in the here and now. We are God's hands on Earth.
I'm pretty sure you believe all of this, so I'm not sure what problem you have with the notion of living a Kingdom lifestyle in the here and now.
One doesn't have to speculate, The Biblical evidence for your assertions about the sick also being poor are right there in black and white, Dan. Lepers, for example, were unclean. How, in a Jewish world, were they to make money, given that anyone who came in contact with them would also be ceremonially unclean? Same is true for any number of other conditions that have been mentioned here. It's all right there in the OT.
(BTW, one of the prime causes of financial ruin today is medical expenses ... I guess things haven't changed that much, unfortunately.)
Post a Comment