Tag Archives: money

Why didn’t Paul take a salary at Corinth?

06 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by in 1 Corinthians, Elders, Ministry, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

One aspect of the ancient world that we need to keep in mind as we read these verses is the fact that it frequently operated on the basis of informal “patron-client” relationships. In such relationships, a “have” (patron) supported a “have-not” (client) materially. The have-not did not earn or merit such “grace.” The patron or “have” did it for other reasons, such as the prestige of being noble or various other favors a have-not might render. In return, the have-not, the “client,” returned whatever honor or service was appropriate.

In some parts of the Roman Empire, the newly rich would compete for status by accruing as many clients as they could.3 Such clients might be expected to come to the patron’s house once a day and do whatever menial tasks the patron required. In return they would get at least one meal that day along with the possibility of future help. The entanglements of patron-client relationships provide us with a good explanation for why Paul on principle did not receive material support from the churches where he was ministering. He would take support from churches elsewhere, such as the support he received from the Philippian church while he was at Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15–16). But he refused support from the cities where he currently served.

Kenneth Schenck, 1 & 2 Corinthians: A Commentary for Bible Students (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006), 136.  Commenting on 1 Corinthians 9

The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment, Study Guide.9

26 Tuesday Aug 2014

Posted by in 1 Timothy, Biblical Counseling, Contentment, Discipleship, James, Jeremiah Burroughs, Philippians, Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here

 The 

 

  1. Read Philippians 4:12: What are the categories of temptation which Paul lists?
  2. What temptation to discontentment does Burroughs list on page 103?
  3. Burroughs mentions two types of “trouble” on pages 103-4. What are they?
  4. Read 1 Timothy 6:10. What sort of trouble does money bring?
  5. What is the precise “root” – note the language used.
  6. Look to the second half of 6:10: how does Paul further define the effect of money; what does it produce in a human being?
  7. Contentment necessarily includes “having enough”. How then does money tempt one to be discontent? Is it possible to desire money and be content?
  8. Read the definition of contentment on page 40 of the book and compare that to what Jesus says in Matthew 6:24. How does money directly attack contentment?
  9. Stop and consider when or whether you have been tempted to discontentment desiring money? Has desire for money ever led you to sin? Have you been angry, covetous, envious, et cetera as a result of the desire for money?
  10. In addition to discontent caused by the desire for money, Burroughs mentions the discontentment caused by the possession of money. He uses the image of a town which deceives one upon entry. Read 1 Timothy 6:17-19. How does money which you have tempt you to discontentment?
  11. Read James 1:9-11: How does money possessed tempt one to sin?
  12. Read Matthew 6:19-21: How does money possessed tempt one to sin?
  13. Burroughs gives a picture of the effects of money possessed by discussing the behavior of insects around light or honey. He is explaining that money attracts temptations, like light or honey attract pests.
  14. Now, most of us do not consider ourselves rich –rich people always have more money than us. Yet, the average life of a human in the West is far beyond what most people in the history of the world could imagine for themselves – and far beyond what most people in the world currently experience. Moreover, even small amount of property is sufficient to encourage sin – when Jesus preached, he primarily spoke to poor people. How then have you found yourself tempted to sin by the possession of money? Consider the examples given in 1 Timothy, James & Matthew.
  15. On pages 105-6, Burroughs expands the weight of prosperity beyond just money. There is a prosperity of position which also brings along certain burdens. Look at the picture of Presidents on the day they were sworn into office and the day they retired. Consider persons who have positions that include a certain degree of respect or responsibility, what is the effect upon them? Or consider single people who think that if they had a spouse and children their life would be better – and then consider the difficulties which come with marriage & parenthood.
  16. On pages 106-7, Burroughs mentions the particular burdens which come with ministry. This was something Burroughs knew very well: When he was a poor and little known pastor and when he was a well-known pastor he experienced a great deal of trouble. In fact, he wrote The Rare Jewel when he was apparently prospering in ministry because he realized the difficulties and temptations.
  17. Consider all of the ways in which God has prospered you. Now, consider: What duties does your prosperity and position require of you?
  18. After you consider you duties, how do you think you will do when it comes time for you to give an account to God as to whether you have fulfilled your duties?
  19. On page 109, Burroughs states the “most dreadful evil”; what is it?
  20. How often have you been discontent because God has not given you what you most desire?
  21. Do you think that you are desiring the “most dreadful evil”?
  22. How is your heart’s desire the “most dreadful evil”?
  23. At the bottom of page 109, Burroughs lists the greatest sign of God’s wrath: What is it?
  24. Middle of page 110, how does God “convey the plague of his curse”?
  25. Do you believe Burroughs on this point? Are you tempted to think he got it wrong?
  26. On the bottom of page 110, Burroughs sets out worst sort of judgments. What is the worst form of judgment from God? Why do we tend to think that material prosperity is the greatest sort of good? Romans 1:21-25.
  27. What is the ninth and last lesson of contentment?
  28. Question 11 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (which would express Burroughs’ position) reads as follows: “Q. 11. What are God’s works of providence A. God’s works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.” In short, God is sovereign over everything that happens. You also must know that this does not mean that human beings have no ability to make decisions. We do exactly what we want to do, and it is always what God has determined. That is very confusing, but Burroughs who have believed both to be true.
  29. On the top of page 112, Burroughs explains the scope of providence. How does knowing the scope of providence affect contentment? If it helps, look back at the definition on page 40?
  30. If God is completely sovereign and you are discontent, then you must believe what about God?
  31. In the middle of page 112, Burroughs explains the foolishness of raging against providence: what does he say?
  32. Page 113, what don’t we understand about providence when we are angry at what God has done?
  33. An example of providence is included at the end.
  34. What is the foolishness of discontentment when viewed in light of God’s Providence?
  35. On page 114, Burroughs identifies a reason that Christians often have difficulty taking comfort in God’s providence: what is it?
  36. What is the usual way that God deals with His people in this world? Page 115.
  37. If God doesn’t deal with you in this way, what might it mean? Hebrews 12:8.
  38. To whom does God give His greatest mercies?
  39. What is the way of God working? Page 117.
  40. Take a matter in which you are discontent. Then quickly run over the nine lessons for contentment given by Burroughs. After you examine your discontentment in light of these lessons, explain why you are right in continuing to be discontent.

 

A recent example of providence:

Crisis of War Turned to Gospel Opportunity in Ukraine

 We pass along this recent experience of Dr. Bob Provost, President of SGA and TMS Board Member as told by Bruce Alvord (M.Div.’92, Th.M.’98):

“Traveling through Kiev, Dr. Robert Provost told us what he had seen in another city of Ukraine. There is a people group in Crimea called the Tartars, who are Russian-speaking Muslims and were persecuted by Stalin.  As a result of the recent Russian invasion of Crimea, some of these Tartars have fled north to other parts of Ukraine.  In the city that Dr. Provost was in, the director of a Baptist bible college asked the students if they would vacate their dorm rooms for the refugee families and sleep on mats on the classroom floors.  They did.

Sixty Muslim refugees came – twenty adults (including an Imam – a Muslim mosque leader) and forty children.  When the realized they were being taken for refuge to a Christian place, they were afraid. They feared there would be icons on the walls (which they would have to cover, believing them to be evil) and that they would have to hide their women from drunken, adulterous ‘priests.’ However, having no other option, they stayed. To their surprise, they found themselves and their children being treated kindly and sleeping in their hosts’ beds.  They were shocked. They told the students, ‘If our places were switched, we would never do this for you. Why are you helping us?!’ After hearing the explanation, the Imam became interested in reading the Bible, but only under two conditions: the Bible couldn’t have a cross on it, and it had to have study notes explaining the text! Dr. Provost said, “Well, we happen to have just such a Bible here.” The Russian translation of the MacArthur Study Bible had been completed and didn’t have a cross on the cover!”

 

 

 

 

Plutarch’s Marriage Advice, Section 24: Marriage Without Thought

27 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Greek, New Testament Background, Plutarch

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/plutarchs-marriage-advice-section-23-magic-charms/

On another occasion, Olympias spoke concerning a certain young man at court who had married a beautiful woman – with a bad reputation. “He has no sense at all. One ought not marry based on appearance, by what the eyes see or the fingers count – you know, the man who thinks  how much he’ll receive without thinking about how they’ll live together.

Greek Text:

πάλιν ἡ Ὀλυμπιάς, αὐλικοῦ τινος νεανίσκου γήμαντος εὐπρεπῆ γυναῖκα κακῶς ἀκούουσαν, ‘οὗτος’ εἶπεν ‘ οὐκ ἔχει λογισμόν· ουʼ γὰρ ἂν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἔγημε’ δεῖ δὲ μὴ τοῖς ὄμμασι γαμεῖν δὲ τοῖς δακτύλοις, ὥσπερ ἔνιοι ψηφίσαντες πόσα φέρουσαν λαμβάνουσιν, ουʼ κρίναντες πῶς συμβιωσομένην.

Translation Notes: 

πάλιν ἡ Ὀλυμπιάς

Again, Olympias

αὐλικοῦ τινος νεανίσκου

of the court a certain young man

aulikos means of the court, as in a courtier.

γήμαντος εὐπρεπῆ γυναῖκα

having married a beautiful woman

euprepes means of an attractive appearance, but it can also mean “fitting” or suited. In light of the comment concerning her wealth, the choice of this word may be a pun on her beauty being in her wealth.

κακῶς ἀκούουσαν

of an evil reputation

κακῶς: evilly

ἀκούουσαν: genitive participle: heard of

‘οὗτος’ εἶπεν

Thus, she

οὐκ ἔχει λογισμόν

he has no ability to reason/no thought

ουʼ γὰρ ἂν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἔγημε’

for then not by sight would have have married

δεῖ δὲ μὴ τοῖς ὄμμασι γαμεῖν

for not by the eyes ought one to marry

hommas is a poetic word for “eye”. The movement between ophthamos in the prior clause seems to indicate a movement from “by sight” to “eyes”.

δὲ τοῖς δακτύλοις

or by fingers

ὥσπερ ἔνιοι ψηφίσαντες πόσα φέρουσαν λαμβάνουσιν

as some number (count up) how much bringing (to the marriage) they would receive

ουʼ κρίναντες πῶς συμβιωσομένην

not judging how she would live (with him)

Discipleship Includes Work

21 Saturday Sep 2013

Posted by in Discipleship, G. Campbell Morgan, Worship

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

G. Campbell Morgan rightly noted that all human effort, common civil work is for the common good, the flourishing of humanity — and thus worthy of commendation. (https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/thank-god-for-the-garbage-man/) A great many Christians may be willing to admit that all proper human work is a good — and that no one task is “better” than another.

Yet when it comes to the matter of discipleship, we something think that discipleship extends only to “spiritual” events. Without godliness, holiness must be present and developed in every Christian, “Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). However, we somehow fail to realize that if all of our life is under the lordship of Christ and all work has value, then discipleship must encompass our normal work.

Thus, Morgan explains that a first step in discipleship must entail, What can I/should I do? Having undertaken an appropriate task (perhaps suggested by one who knows you well), the work was be learned and performed:

“The disciple of Jesus, recognizing his calling in life as of God, cannot possibly treat it carelessly or with any measure of indifference. Every power of the will must be brought to bear on the application of the mind to the mastery of the subject in hand. A Christian carpenter will master the use of every tool, and lay himself out to embody in his work the very spirit of the Christ. A Christian doctor will leave no department of the great science neglected, or will devote himself with perfect consecration to that department for which God has given him the gift of a specialist. The great advantage of discipleship is to be found in the fact that if I recognize my calling as a Divine one, then I am sure that he who bestowed the gift understands it, and all my personal application to its mastery will be in the spirit of dependent prayer. Christian mechanics, tradesmen, professional men, should be the finest in the world, and would be, if they lived in the power of their relationship to Christ.”

George Campbell Morgan. “Discipleship.” This is just as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:31, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

Work thus becomes a great good and a matter of great spiritual and eternal importance. All one’s life becomes deliberately subsumed under the rubric of worship:

“I do it, not as a means of livelihood first, but as part of God’s work, and so I become, down to the smallest detail of everyday life, “a worker together with Him.” Hold but that view of life’s work, and there can be no more “scamping” of work—no, not even to be in time for a prayer meeting.” This will then affect even how I understand my money.

“No disciple of Jesus can amass a fortune simply for the sake of possession. He may be prosperous in his undertakings, but his prosperity must ever mean increased opportunity for Divine service. No disciple can oppress the hireling in his wages. That wage should be, not merely the measure of keeping his servant’s body and soul together, it should include provision for the culture of all that his being demands. A “living wage ” in the common acceptation of that term, is not the measure for a Christian paymaster.”

In making these observations, Morgan rightly explains that discipleship must extend the conscious lordship of Jesus Christ over all one’s life. An all too common understanding of discipleship which extends only to “spiritual” matters fails to recognize the extent of worship, the lordship of Jesus Christ, the value of work and much if not most of the waking hours of a man or worman. Christ promised, in the Great Commission (which sets out the task of discipleship) to be with use always — even at work.

George Muller’s Salary

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Church History, George Muller, Ministry, Prayer, Quotations, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

…he took a position from which he never retreated, that he would thenceforth receive no fixed salary for any service rendered to God’s people. While calmly assigning scriptural grounds for such a position he, on the same grounds, urged voluntary offerings, whether of money or other means of support, as the proper acknowledgment of service rendered by God’s minister, and as a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. A little later, seeing that, when such voluntary gifts came direct from the givers personally, there was a danger that some might feel selfcomplacent over the largeness of the amount given by them, and others equally humbled by the smallness of their offerings, with consequent damage to both classes, of givers, he took a step further: he had a box put up in the chapel, over which was written, that whoever had a desire to do something for his support might put such an offering therein as ability and disposition might direct. His intention was, that thus the act might be wholly as in God’s sight, without the risk of a sinful pride or false humility.

He further felt that, to be entirely consistent, he should ask no help from man, even in bearing necessary costs of travel in the Lord’s service, nor even state his needs beforehand in such a way as indirectly to appeal for aid. All of these methods he conceived to be forms of trusting in an arm of flesh, going to man for help instead of going at once, always and only, to the Lord. And he adds: “To come to this conclusion before God required more grace than to give up my salary.”

Excerpt From: Arthur Tappan Pierson. “George Müller of Bristol.”

The Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.5

28 Saturday Jul 2012

Posted by in 1 Corinthians, A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The fifth and final reason is perhaps most important: Bruce writes:

This theory, then, is in the first place based on an erroneous assumption–viz., that abstinence from things lawful is intrinsically a higher sort of virtue than temperance in the use of them. This is not true. Abstinence is the virtue of the weak, temperance is the virtue of the strong. Abstinence is certainly the safer way for those who are prone to inordinate affection, but it purchases safety at the expense of moral culture; for it removes us from those temptations connected with family relationships and earthly possessions, through which character, while it may be imperilled, is at the same time developed and strengthened. Abstinence is also inferior to temperance in healthiness of tone. It tends inevitably to morbidity, distortion, exaggeration. The ascetic virtues were wont to be called by their admirers angelic. They are certainly angelic in the negative sense of being unnatural and inhuman. Ascetic abstinence is the ghost or disembodied spirit of morality, while temperance is its soul, embodied in a genuine human life transacted amid earthly relations, occupations, and enjoyments. Abstinence is even inferior to temperance in respect to what seems its strong point–self-sacrifice. There is something morally sublime, doubtless, in the spectacle of a man of wealth, birth, high office, and happy domestic condition, leaving rank, riches, office, wife, children, behind, and going away to the deserts of Sinai and Egypt to spend his days as a monk or anchoret.[16.12 The stern resolution, the absolute mastery of the will over the natural affections, exhibited in such conduct, is very imposing. Yet how poor, after all, is such a character compared with Abraham, the father of the faithful, and model of temperance and singleness of mind; who could use the world, of which he had a large portion, without abusing it; who kept his wealth and state, and yet never became their slave, and was ready at God’s command to part with his friends and his native land, and even with an only son! So to live, serving ourselves heir to all things, yet maintaining unimpaired our spiritual freedom; enjoying life, yet ready at the call of duty to sacrifice life’s dearest enjoyments: this is true Christian virtue, the higher Christian life for those who would be perfect. Let us have many Abrahams so living among our men of wealth, and there is no fear of the church going back to the Middle Ages. Only when the rich, as a class, are luxurious, vain, selfish, and proud, is there a danger of the tenet gaining credence among the serious, that there is no possibility of living a truly Christian life except by parting with property altogether.

Although not quoted by Bruce, this understanding is more consistent with the remainder of Scripture and in particular apostolic teaching. Paul will help us here. First Paul living in the state one was called:

17 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. 24 So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. 1 Corinthians 7:17–24 (ESV)

Paul then goes onto explain how one is to live in relationship to one’s life and possessions:

29 This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, 31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. 1 Corinthians 7:29–31 (ESV)

Calvin explains this passage:

As though they had none. All things that are connected with the enjoyment of the present life are sacred gifts of God, but we pollute them when we abuse them. If the reason is asked, we shall find it to be this, that we always dream of continuance in the world, for it is owing to this that those things which ought to be helps in passing through it become hindrances to hold us fast. Hence, it is not without good reason, that the Apostle, with the view of arousing us from this stupidity, calls us to consider the shortness of this life, and infers from this, that we ought to use all the things of this world, as if we did not use them. For the man who considers that he is a stranger in the world uses the things of this world as if they were another’s — that is, as things that are lent us for a single day. The sum is this, that the mind of a Christian ought not to be taken up with earthly things, or to repose in them; for we ought to live as if we were every moment about to depart from this life. By weeping and rejoicing, he means adversity and prosperity; for it is customary to denote causes by their effects. The Apostle, however, does not here command Christians to part with their possessions, but simply requires that their minds be not engrossed in their possessions.

John Calvin, 1 Corinthians, electronic ed., Calvin’s Commentaries (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), 1 Co 7:29. The fault lies not in the things but in our relationship to the things. This is, of course, a great element of the book of Ecclesiastes.

John Piper gives an interesting political application:

Christians should deal with the world. This world is here to be used. Dealt with. There is no avoiding it. Not to deal with it is to deal with it that way. Not to weed your garden is to cultivate a weedy garden. Not to wear a coat in Minnesota is to freeze—to deal with the cold that way. Not to stop when the light is red is to spend your money on fines or hospital bills and deal with the world that way. We must deal with the world.

But as we deal with it, we don’t give it our fullest attention. We don’t ascribe to the world the greatest status. There are unseen things that are vastly more precious than the world. We use the world without offering it our whole soul. We may work with all our might when dealing with the world, but the full passions of our heart will be attached to something higher—Godward purposes. We use the world, but not as an end in itself. It is a means. We deal with the world in order to make much of Christ.

So it is with voting. We deal with the system. We deal with the news. We deal with the candidates. We deal with the issues. But we deal with it all as if not dealing with it. It does not have our fullest attention. It is not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over his people with perfect supremacy no matter who is elected and no matter what government stands or falls. So we vote as though not voting.

By all means vote. But remember: “The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17).

Read the whole thing here, http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/let-christians-vote-as-though-they-were-not-voting

The Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.4

27 Friday Jul 2012

Posted by in A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There is a sense in which freedom from normal social concerns can ease one’s Christian ministry. Indeed, missionary activity to dangerous locations, such as a Muslim country, may be best (in some cases only) be undertaken by means of unmarried persons. And certainly, one does not enter the calling [as opposed to the work of wolves, who for some reason seem to soak up tremendous resources from the professing church which could have been distributed to the true work of the Gospel] of Christian ministry for greater material ease.

However, even though such may of occasion be a good means to a good end, we should not take Jesus as having commanded poverty. Bruce lays out five reasons for seeing Jesus’ observation as counsel to be applied where appropriate rather than a command to be obeyed.

First [I am re-ordering Bruce’s arguments], consider the structure of Jesus’ statements. In neither case did he command the disciples to engage in such behavior: He did not command divorce, celibacy (which obviously was beyond the already married disciples, such as Peter whose mother-in-law Jesus healed, Mark 1:30) or poverty:

On the assumption that abstinence is necessarily and intrinsically a higher virtue than temperance, it is illogical to speak of it as optional. In that case, our Lord should have given not counsels, but commands. For no man is at liberty to choose whether he shall be a good Christian or an indifferent one, or is excused from practicing certain virtues merely because they are difficult. It is absolutely incumbent on all to press on towards perfection; and if celibacy and poverty be necessary to perfection, then all who profess godliness should renounce wedlock and property. The church of Rome, consistently with her theory of morals, forbids her priests to marry. But why stop there? Surely what is good for priests is good for people as well.

Jesus did not voice a command, but gave counsel. To turn it into a command would require the end of humanity(this is a second reason: if this were a command given to all, humanity would necessarily die out for no one would conceive children or operate farms):

The reason why the prohibition is not carried further, is of course that the laws of nature and the requirements of society render it impracticable. And this brings us to the [] objection to the ascetic theory, viz. that, consistently carried out, it lands in absurdity, by involving the destruction of society and the human race. A theory which involves such consequences cannot be true. For the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of nature are not mutually destructive. One God is the sovereign of both; and all things belonging to the lower kingdom–every relation of life, every faculty, passion, and appetite of our nature, all material possessions–are capable of being made subservient to the interests of the higher kingdom, and of contributing to our growth in grace and holiness.

A third reason is experience:

The ascetic theory of Christian virtue, which so soon began to prevail in the church, has been fully tested by time, and proved to be a huge and mischievous mistake. The verdict of history is conclusive, and to return to an exploded error, as some seem disposed to do, is utter folly. At this time of day, the views of those who would find the beau-ideal of Christian life in a monk’s cell appear hardly worthy of serious refutation. It may, however, be useful briefly to indicate the leading errors of the monkish theory of morals; all the more that, in doing this, we shall at the same time be explaining the true meaning of our Lord’s words to His disciples.

The unfortunate evidence of the church is that life in a monastery did not produce holiness (even if holy men and women did live in monasteries). The comical drunken and debauched friar appears in more than one story as evidence to the original commonplace.

A fourth reason to not see Jesus as preaching utter material and social renunciation is the incident of the children which Matthew places between the discourse on marriage and then on wealth:

13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away. Matthew 19:13–15 (ESV)

Bruce comments:

One word may here aptly be said on the beautiful incident of the little children brought to Jesus to get His blessing. Who can believe that it was His intention to teach a monkish theory of morals after reading that story? How opportunely those mothers came to Him seeking a blessing for their little ones, just after He had uttered words which might be interpreted, and were actually interpreted in after ages, as a disparagement of family relations. Their visit gave Him an opportunity of entering His protest by anticipation against such a misconstruction of His teaching. And the officious interference of the twelve to keep away the mothers and their offspring from their Master’s person only made that protest all the more emphatic. The disciples seem to have taken from the words Jesus had just spoken concerning abstaining from marriage for the sake of the kingdom, the very impression out of which monasticism sprang. “What does He care,” thought they, “for you mothers and your children? His whole thoughts are of the kingdom of heaven, where they neither marry nor are given in marriage: go away, and don’t trouble Him at this time.” The Lord did not thank His disciples for thus guarding His person from intrusion like a band of over-zealous policemen. “He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

The Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.3

26 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by in A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This background brings us to the question posed by these two incidents:

It is an inquiry of vital moment what our Lord really meant to teach on the subjects of marriage and money. The question concerns not merely the life to come, but the whole character of our present life. For if man’s life on earth doth not consist wholly in possessions and family relations, these occupy a very prominent place therein. Family relations are essential to the existence of society, and without wealth there could be no civilization. Did Jesus, then, frown or look down on these things, as at least unfavorable to, if not incompatible with, the interests of the divine kingdom and the aspirations of its citizens?

Bruce then notes that within a couple of hundred years, the church began to develop the position that both renunciation of marriage and wealth prepared one for more exalted Christian service:

This question up till the time of the Reformation was for the most part answered by the visible church in the affirmative. From a very early period the idea began to be entertained that Jesus meant to teach the intrinsic superiority, in point of Christian virtue, of a life of celibacy and voluntary poverty, over that of a married man possessing property. Abstinence from marriage and renunciation of earthly possessions came, in consequence, to be regarded as essential requisites for high Christian attainments.

This led to a doctrine of average and perfect Christians. Bruce develops this point by quotations and summaries of the monastic movement. However, a noticeable exception to this trend can be seen in Clement of Alexandria’s Who is the Rich Man Who Shall be Saved, also known as The Rich Man’s Salvation. Without going the entire piece, suffice to say that Clement took a position much closer to Bruce (and to the Reformation tradition) than some other men would make in the future. Consider for example the following extract:

Riches, then, which benefit also our neighbours, are not to be thrown away. For they are possessions, inasmuch as they are possessed, and goods, inasmuch as they are useful and provided by God for the use of men; and they lie to our hand, and are put under our power, as material and instruments which are for good use to those who know the instrument. If you use it skilfully, it is skilful; if you are deficient in skill, it is affected by your want of skill, being itself destitute of blame. Such an instrument is wealth. Are you able to make a right use of it? It is subservient to righteousness. Does one make a wrong use of it? It is, on the other hand, a minister of wrong. For its nature is to be subservient, not to rule. That then which of itself has neither good nor evil, being blameless, ought not to be blamed; but that which has the power of using it well and ill, by reason of its possessing voluntary choice. And this is the mind and judgment of man, which has freedom in itself and self-determination in the treatment of what is assigned to it. So let no man destroy wealth, rather than the passions of the soul, which are incompatible with the better use of wealth. So that, becoming virtuous and good, he may be able to make a good use of these riches. The renunciation, then, and selling of all possessions, is to be understood as spoken of the passions of the soul.

Clement of Alexandria, “Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?”, trans. William Wilson In , in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 595.

The Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.2

25 Wednesday Jul 2012

Posted by in A.B. Bruce, Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Puritan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A second and similar incident of instruction came before the disciples: the rich young man. First the interaction with the young man:

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. Matthew 19:16–22 (ESV)

Now this event completely perplexed the disciples (as it had the young man). The disciples seemed to have been under the impression that to be rich meant to be favored by God:

And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! Mark 10:24 (ESV)

Interestingly, neither Matthew nor Luke record the amazement of the disciples. There are two obvious reasons for this: (1) Mark’s Gospel routinely records the amazement of people around Jesus (see, https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/amazement-in-mark/); (2) Mark often provides more intimate or vivid details of the events than the other Gospels.

James Brooks provides some background for their amazement:

The event became the occasion for a brief discourse. Jesus’ statement must be contrasted with the Jewish attitude toward riches. The dominant Jewish view was that riches were an indication of divine favor and a reward for piety (Job 1:10; 42:10; Ps 128:1–2; Isa 3:10).[1] Although provision was made for the protection and assistance of the poor (Deut 15:7–11; Prov 22:22–23), rarely was poverty associated with piety. The Psalms sometimes picture the poor as the righteous who rely on God for aid (Pss 37:14, 16; 69:32–33; 86:1–2). The Psalms frequently portray God as the special help of the poor. Especially during the Maccabean period (142–63 B.C.), the rich became associated with the priestly aristocracy ready to compromise with foreign oppressors; the poor, with those who remained faithful to God (cf. T. Jud. 25:4; Pss. Sol. 10:6). The Qumran community apparently used “the poor” as a self-designation (1 QM 11:9, 13; 13:14; 1QH 5:13–22, in which “the poor” parallels those eager for righteousness; 1QpHab 12:3, 6, 10; 4QpPs 2:9–10; 3:10).

The teaching of Jesus was nonetheless revolutionary in its time and remains scandalous even today. However, Jesus did not condemn riches as evil in themselves. They are a temptation, a hindrance, a diversion. They provide false security that makes radical trust in God difficult.

James A. Brooks, vol. 23, Mark, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 163-64. 

Jesus went onto explain:

23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first. Matthew 19:23–30 (ESV)

Bruce explains how this sounded to the disciples:

In the observations He made He did not expressly say that to part with property was necessary to salvation, but He did speak in a manner which seemed to the disciples almost to imply that. Looking round about, He remarked to them first, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” The disciples being astonished at this hard saying, He softened it somewhat by altering slightly the form of expression. “Children,” he said, “how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!” hinting that the thing to be renounced in order to salvation was not money, but the inordinate love of it. But then He added a third reflection, which, by its austerity, more than cancelled the mildness of the second. “It is easier,” He declared, “for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” That assertion, literally interpreted, amounts to a declaration that the salvation of a rich man is an impossibility, and seems to teach by plain implication, that the only way for a rich man to get into heaven is to cease to be rich, and become poor by a voluntary renunciation of property. Such seems to have been the impression made thereby on the minds of the disciples: for we read that they were astonished above measure, and said among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”

[1] It is a commonly reported “fact” that the Puritans held such a view. Here is a typical example I found on an educational website, “Since God was an all knowing and powerful force the puritans saw their wealth as a gift from God and a sign that they were correct.”   As is common with this oft repeated “fact”, no citation to original sourcse is provided. Moreover, despite having read widely throughout Puritan literature, I have not seen such a belief as common at all among the Puritans. In fact, while the Puritans did see money as among the material gifts which God may bestow upon someone, it was not at all a point of belief that money proved one was godly. Thomas Watson noted that persecution was the more common outcome for the godly (see his sermons on the Beatitudes). Samuel Willard wrote, “As riches are not evidence of God’s love ….” For an examination of the Puritans relationship to money, see Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints, chapter 4 “Money” – where Ryken quotes the source documents to prove his point.

How to Recognize the Blessing of God

28 Tuesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Acts, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

There are those who peddle Bible verses wrested from context and tormented until black is white. Such men and women teach that our trouble is that we cannot sufficiently indulge ourselves, that some personal material good is what I lack. That such a thing would sell so well in richest country in the history of the world merely proves how easily we are led astray.

God does not promise great material gain. Often the one with the greatest material store is the one most despised by God. –

Yet, God can and does provide material blessings. We are even taught to pray for our needs- then to be content with food and clothes:

6 Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment,
7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world.
8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.
9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

1 Tim. 6:6-10.

The point here is that money is not a sure sign of God’s love and may even be a curse. One’s relationship to money is the tell tale sign. The love of money is the problem. Those who sell the love of money are the danger.

Peter in Acts 3 gives a true sign of a real blessing from God:

God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

Verse 26.