How do we approach Jesus when it seems his statements are either confusing or difficult to follow, or both? I think this passage fits both categories.
Here is the passage: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life."
I have 2 important questions: 1. What does it mean to leave houses, brothers, sisters etc.? 2. How is the promise of blessing a hundredfold to be understood?
Is Jesus serious about leaving everything behind, especially those things which we hold so dear to not only just happiness but mere survival? Are all Christians to be homeless wanderers without any ties to any personal relationships? Well my quick answer to all of these questions is yes.
The story that precedes this verse is the ever popular story of the rich young ruler. This is the story of the man who is seeking eternal life and wants to know what he must do to have it. Jesus seeing the flaw already in the question itself decides to play along with this man. Jesus tells him that he must follow the law and he will have eternal life. Well...which laws? The man asks. Then Jesus lists commandments #5-9 (conspicuously leaving out the last one: covet). The man answers that he has done all this; which at this point Jesus must have had a chuckle to himself, because its simply was not true! See sermon on the mount ch. 5-7! Seeing the folly in the man's religious system of doing and gaining righteousness; Jesus drives the man's system to its logical conclusion: Sell everything. If you are following the law you won't have any problems with that. Then the man walked away sad.
Later Jesus uses this incident to make a powerful statement about riches and the kingdom of God. Jesus does NOT say that its HARD for a rich man to enter heaven; He said its IMPOSSIBLE! A rich man CAN NOT enter heaven.
Why? How could this be? Surely it's hyperbole right? It's just an isolated incident with this one man it doesn't apply to everyone, right? No, not right. Riches, as Jesus tries to show us here, are a cancer. It's a disease that penetrates our hearts and will kill us. Theoretically of course its possible to be rich and enter heaven, but with Man it's impossible.
Riches are very powerful and the more possessions one has the more these possessions possess that person. This is really the heart of the issue. Riches and possessions are not evil in and of themselves, but rather it's how the human heart treats the riches. It quite simple, and Jesus warns again and again that the more possessions you have the more you will be possessed by them. The more possessions you acquire the more things there are in heart fighting for it's affection. God alone deserves these affections and we just can't handle it as humans being so rich.
Man will always hold his riches in his heart; but with God all things are possible. Only by replacing the affections of our hearts with all sufficiency of God will we again be the possessors of our possessions, and then we can come to a place where we can easily cast them off.
So what about this thing with family relationships? How does that exactly work and how is it possible that we will have a hundred mothers brothers etc. if we leave the ones we have? Also, why would Jesus promise us a hundred homes if, in fact, its dangerous to own one?
Some would try to spiritualize this to say its part of some promise in heaven, but I would argue that it sounds way too Mormon for that. Also in the Mark passage the statement "in this life" clearly shows that this promise is for now and is probably quite literal.
Jesus had a strange view of family relationships, and I can't blame him. His family thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21)! Jesus, in front of a large group of people denied his family, and yes even the blessed virgin Mary! (see Matt. 12:46-50) Jesus here redefines family relationships: Those who do the will of the Father are his brothers and mothers.
For those of you not coming from a Christian home perhaps you could confirm this that the deepest relationships you have are not those who are related to you but those who are seeking after the Father.
So then the promise of hundreds of mothers, brothers, sisters etc becomes literally true! When one does the will of God one enters into a huge family!
So how does the houses and land fit in?Nobody in the first century had hundreds of houses or land, right? Look at the beginning of Acts when this first time family, who doesn't allow possessions to possess them, come together. All the houses and all the land is shared. One literally has hundreds of houses and hundreds of fields. If your house was lost because of persecution, fire or something else you had a family who would take care of you, a house to sleep in and a field to work in.
This shows that leaving everything behind is not really a sacrifice at all. In fact we are trading away a deadly disease for more blessing than we could possibly ever imagine.
2 comments:
Well, I see you posted this over fine months ago and this is the first chance I've had to reply. I think this passage that talks about leaving everything behind has more significance since we are writing these correspondences from thousands of miles away. Not that you have necessarily 'left everything behind,' but I think it does raise an issue of what kind of 'family ties' we have in the kingdom of God. I cannot help but wonder if (as I've heard it said) that this whole passage cuts to the core of the kind of biological ties that tended to cut deep within first century Judaism. I don't say this merely to do some sort of intense exegetical work merely for the sake of doing it, but that in understanding this context it may in fact become much richer to us now. With hints of certain strands of Judaism at the time having alienated non-Jews from inclusion into the people of God, it stands as a direct challenge to those notions when Jesus himself seems to disregard his own family ties, and encourages his followers to, in some ways, separate themselves from their kin as well. Although, I don't imagine that this meant that Peter divorced himself from his wife. At the same time, I imagine it was quite literal: if the followers of Jesus were to spread the gospel (especially post-Pentecost) then it only makes sense that they would have to 'leave everything behind' to do so! If their families weren't traveling with them (which I imagine that they weren't), then they likely went extended periods of time (perhaps even years) without seeing their family! So, to some extent it seems like 21st century missionary activity presents a more likely parallel to Jesus' words than many other situations. And if you are right (which I think you are), that these passages shouldn't be 'spiritualized' to simply say--well then, we should all 'leave everything' spiritually to follow Jesus, then we may have troubles finding a complete parallel in all of our lives in the 21st century. Although, I don't completely think that you are far off in pointing out the reality that possessions can possess us, and that it is a matter of the heart. Although, when we read in Acts that Christians were selling all they had, it wasn't merely for the sake of selling it all because they have issues with becoming possessed by their possessions (which very few of them likely had anything of the sort of possessions that many have in the 21st century), but it was for the sake of providing for members of their community. So, if we are really going to take Jesus' words seriously, maybe we shouldn't merely detach ourselves from our possessions by selling them all so we have a 'clean heart' but in selling our possessions, or giving up 'everything' maybe we should do so to help provide for the needs of brothers and sisters in Christ? This cuts again at the core of Jesus' words about leaving family--what really matters isn't biology but adoption in Christ. Our 'family' is no longer merely those who have the same genetic pool as us, but they are all those 'in Christ.' Theologically this is important, and I get a sense that this is always easier said than done. I'll admit, I had an inkling a few months ago to tell my guitar to help out someone I know. I wrestled with it on several levels, the least of which (in all truth) was an attachment to my guitar. I go months without playing it, so while theoretically I would have missed it a bit, I could have gotten along fine without it. The difficulty for me came more with finding a way to sell it, going through the troubles of perhaps having to ship it somewhere, and trying to get value for it. Excuses? Yes, I think so! Honest reasons why we don't often take the next step to put into practice Jesus' words? Absolutely. Did I make the right decision? I'm not so sure! So ultimately I can attest to the fact that sometimes it's 'easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.'
Good thoughts, and thanks for stopping by!
I get your point about the fact that I may have gone over board depicted the possesions as some sort of cancer eating away at us. If we are to get rid of them then, and if they truly are a cancer we shouldn't give our stuff even to the poor. It should all be burned. No, possessions are not evil but too often we can't handle the possesions in a proper way.
The selling and giving of posessions is a very difficult thing to practice even when single. But even more complicated when one becomes married and has a family.For the husband, who traditionally provides for the family, is put in a peculiar place to judge what the family needs and when someone else's needs should be fulfilled. But i would guess that most families in the middle class already have too much and should be considered rich.
The community in Acts too often seems like an out of reach idea. The systemic ways our lives are constructed almost make this impossible. The suburbs, the consumerism and the individualism all make it difficult to live out the words of Jesus here. However, it is these exact systems that Jesus often speaks against.
Its true that Jesus was speaking against the Jewish systemic thinking of family heritage, but he was also speaking against socio-economic systems too.
The difference today is that most of the hearers of Jesus words that day did not fall under the category of "rich." Today, most peole who are reading those words in English probably are.
But to really grasp what Jesus is saying here, and to put it into practice, must be done within the family. It cannot be done alone. The church needs to change, but what does this community look like in 2010?
Post a Comment