In my mind, it is not the love of "money" but rather the love of "self" that is the root of all evil. To say that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil would place a spiritual value on money. There are a lot of people in this world who do not have a love for money. A monk living in a monastery may not be interested in making a single dime, but does that make him any better than most people?
It's true that things like fancy cars, cell phones, and nice clothing lure our attention, but finding fault in those things would be a foolish thing. Rather than blaming those things and trying to get rid of them, we should try get rid of our corrupted hearts first. In the process of doing so, God may convict us to give away our wealth. Or maybe He'll take it away to protect our hearts. In fact, we hear many testimonies that tell of how a loss of physical wealth has resulted in a gain in spiritual blessings. There is no doubt that God works in this way. But we need to be careful not to measure a man's faith in relation to his physical wealth.
Removing materialistic things from our lives might help us control our worldly desires, but it will not solve the problem. A poor man with no possessions could idolize money just as much as a rich man. Then again, how do you define "rich" and "poor"? Is there a particular group of people who fall under the category of being "rich"? Millionaires? Billionaires? People who make at least $XX,XXX a year? Does that mean the rest of us can rest assured and breathe a sigh of relief knowing that we have a better chance of entering the kingdom of heaven? Does that mean it is any easier for people in poverty to enter the kingdom of heaven? Maybe as much as a rabbit can go through the eye of a needle instead of a camel! None of us can do it on our own.
The Rich Young Man illustration is for "the poor" as well -- for me! We tend to forget the spirit of his teaching when he tells us to give away our "wealth". Maybe my personal "wealth" right now lies in achieving excellence, or receiving recognition; things that are not really associated with money. Money, in and of itself, has no power. It is our deceptive hearts that make us believe that it does.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Rich Young Man
True or False: The rich young man -- when Jesus asked him to give away all his money, that was a test. If the rich young man had agreed to give away that money, Jesus would've actually been like, "no, I just wanted to see where your heart is. Keep the money, now follow me." --HS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything finds true meaning in light of its context, especially when it comes to understanding a portion of the Word -- the "ultimate context". So, I will start out by examining the True or False question in relation to the illustration of Matthew 19.
From the beginning (v. 16), the rich young man keeps asking Jesus questions about how he can obtain eternal life, but constantly fails to see what Jesus tries to get across to him. His questions only reveal his wrong understanding of essential truths, and sadly, he never gets it in the story, that eternal life comes from the one speaking to him. Thus, it would be an unfitting and awkward ending to have him suddenly lay down all of his possessions for the poor when Jesus asks for it (unless God does something miraculous in his heart at that moment). In other words, it would stir up confusion among people had the rich man willingly given up his money, because that would conflict with the facts remaining in the text.
Actually, the only way the plot twist could work would be if the young man had given away his money in a mud of unbelief and confusion. Then, maybe it would have been Jesus who walked away! But either way, the young man's act would've meant nothing to Jesus. It would've only underlined the same point: the rich man failed to see his need for Jesus; he just didn't get it. Jesus' main interest was not in taking away the man's money, but in showing the man the idol he had made of it.
Therefore, the True or False question considered in the original context is false in every way. In fact, Jesus asking him to give away all his money seems to be a final wakeup warning, rather than a test. Jesus knew where his heart belonged.
Having said that, I think it would be interesting to assume a slightly different context for the story in order to take the discussion a bit further. Let's say this rich young man understood Jesus' teaching. He was blessed with prosperity, but understood that all of it belonged to God and that He gives and takes away. Perhaps a man like Job.
So, let's say, when Jesus asked him to give away all of his possessions, he suffered for a minute longing to know why, but trusting in His goodness and perfect will, gave away all that he had wholeheartedly, with thanksgiving and praise. With this kind of man, would Jesus give him his money back? I would say, sure, if He wills. Didn't God spare Isaac's life after asking Abraham to sacrifice him? But I realize that it is dangerous to say so, because the decision is totally up to God. If a man gives up his money knowing that he would get it back, God would know. But for a man who trusts in the Lord, it wouldn't matter what God decided to do with the money, because his heart would be satisfied in Him alone.
So, is it really possible for a man to accumulate wealth and love the Lord with all his heart, mind, and soul at the same time? Honestly, I cannot answer "yes" or "no" to that question. All I am capable of knowing is that prosperity is incredibly dangerous, but not sinful. As Jesus said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (v. 26).
To end this post, I will quote the words of Jill Carattini, writer/editor of A Slice of Infinity at RZIM.
"The virtue extolled by Christ to "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" is one we have come to think of in negative terms. It is far more costly in our minds for the millionaire to give up his millions than the child to give up his dollar because a million is far more "costly" than a dollar. But here, we are considering the sacrifice strictly in sacrificial terms; the virtue of generosity is seen not as virtue in the true sense of the word, but as sacrifice, self-denial, or "giving up" something good and desirable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything finds true meaning in light of its context, especially when it comes to understanding a portion of the Word -- the "ultimate context". So, I will start out by examining the True or False question in relation to the illustration of Matthew 19.
From the beginning (v. 16), the rich young man keeps asking Jesus questions about how he can obtain eternal life, but constantly fails to see what Jesus tries to get across to him. His questions only reveal his wrong understanding of essential truths, and sadly, he never gets it in the story, that eternal life comes from the one speaking to him. Thus, it would be an unfitting and awkward ending to have him suddenly lay down all of his possessions for the poor when Jesus asks for it (unless God does something miraculous in his heart at that moment). In other words, it would stir up confusion among people had the rich man willingly given up his money, because that would conflict with the facts remaining in the text.
Actually, the only way the plot twist could work would be if the young man had given away his money in a mud of unbelief and confusion. Then, maybe it would have been Jesus who walked away! But either way, the young man's act would've meant nothing to Jesus. It would've only underlined the same point: the rich man failed to see his need for Jesus; he just didn't get it. Jesus' main interest was not in taking away the man's money, but in showing the man the idol he had made of it.
Therefore, the True or False question considered in the original context is false in every way. In fact, Jesus asking him to give away all his money seems to be a final wakeup warning, rather than a test. Jesus knew where his heart belonged.
Having said that, I think it would be interesting to assume a slightly different context for the story in order to take the discussion a bit further. Let's say this rich young man understood Jesus' teaching. He was blessed with prosperity, but understood that all of it belonged to God and that He gives and takes away. Perhaps a man like Job.
So, let's say, when Jesus asked him to give away all of his possessions, he suffered for a minute longing to know why, but trusting in His goodness and perfect will, gave away all that he had wholeheartedly, with thanksgiving and praise. With this kind of man, would Jesus give him his money back? I would say, sure, if He wills. Didn't God spare Isaac's life after asking Abraham to sacrifice him? But I realize that it is dangerous to say so, because the decision is totally up to God. If a man gives up his money knowing that he would get it back, God would know. But for a man who trusts in the Lord, it wouldn't matter what God decided to do with the money, because his heart would be satisfied in Him alone.
So, is it really possible for a man to accumulate wealth and love the Lord with all his heart, mind, and soul at the same time? Honestly, I cannot answer "yes" or "no" to that question. All I am capable of knowing is that prosperity is incredibly dangerous, but not sinful. As Jesus said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (v. 26).
To end this post, I will quote the words of Jill Carattini, writer/editor of A Slice of Infinity at RZIM.
"The virtue extolled by Christ to "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" is one we have come to think of in negative terms. It is far more costly in our minds for the millionaire to give up his millions than the child to give up his dollar because a million is far more "costly" than a dollar. But here, we are considering the sacrifice strictly in sacrificial terms; the virtue of generosity is seen not as virtue in the true sense of the word, but as sacrifice, self-denial, or "giving up" something good and desirable."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)