God bless us

[James Diggs]

Blessed are you who are rich, for you can give much without sacrificing much of your own comfort and are a witness of how God blesses the truly faithful.

Blessed are you who are satisfied, for you do not need to worry about going hungry and can focus on heavenly things.

Blessed are you who laugh, and do not get distracted from what is really important for eternity by the shortsighted weeping of those who futilely mourn because of, and for, a doomed world.

Blessed are you when everyone loves you, when they tell you how great you, and what a saint you are, because of your faithfulness to the Son of God. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how our fathers treated those whom they determined where truly faithful.

But, woe to you who are poor, for if you were willing to work rather than beg you would receive comfort to the degree of your effort. You need to fix your attitude and get right with God.

Woe to you who are hungry, for you focus so much on your stomach that it is difficult to seek after the spiritual bread of life so you can go to heaven when you die.

Woe to you who weep and act as a victim neglecting your own responsibility. You try to make others feel guilty because you have had no success, but you have reaped what you have sown.

Woe to you when people speak ill of you, for you are only as good as your reputation – honor is given to whom honor is due.


This is what Jesus says in Luke 6:20-26 right?

[Andy Mistak]

I almost wanted to click the laughing button, but recent conversations here and "in real life" have shown me that this is not as much of an exaggeration as I would hope.

[David Pettigrew]

We talk in America about class warfare, and how those in the bottom left-hand corner of society want to "punish" the rich through taxation, taking from them what is rightfully theirs and what they have worked so hard to earn.

Only in America would we view taking a portion of a billionaire's wealth so s/he gets to live in a decent country as "punishment". I believe the rest of the planet would gladly take that kind of punishment, instead of the kind they normally get handed (famine, war, disease, oppression.)

I wonder how long God will keep blessing those who live in ways the crowned heads of Europe could only have dreamed, and still complain of their punishment at the hands of those mean old lower classes - and pull every dirty trick in the book to hold on to as much of their money as possible.

I wonder how long God will keep blessing the church that either turns a blind eye, or vehemently defends their right to do so?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Could it be that the social and economic structures of the world so adopted and ingrained in the church that we defend them as biblical even though it means eisegesis, could this twisting of Jesus' words, actions, life, death and resurrection 180 degrees as to make the beatitudes into the opposite of what they actually say, could this be the Antichrist we have been warned of?

Thank you James for yet again speaking the truth into the situation. I know that this view is not popular and will not be accepted too well outside of NazNet. But the truth is never readily accepted. Thank you!

[Dale Cozby]

James may I quote you, you did write this right?

[James Diggs]

James may I quote you, you did write this right?

sure and yes

[Larry Parsons]

King David, who was a very wealthy man, who lived in a huge palace, yet he referred to himself as being poor and needy. “But I am poor and needy; yet the LORD thinks upon me” (Ps. 40:17). “Bow down Your ear, O LORD, hear me; for I am poor and needy” (Ps. 86:1). “Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. For I am poor and needy and my heart is wounded within me” (Ps. 109:21-22). Obviously “poor” in these passages is metaphorical and consistent with the poverty of spirit that we read in Matthew 5:3.
Where is the virtue in being poor economically? The unsaved poor are no closer to God than are the unsaved rich. There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty. If poverty guaranteed spirituality the poorest sections of cities and the large third world slums would be the safest places to live. But we know that not true!
Thanks
Larry P

[Jim Chabot]

King David, who was a very wealthy man, who lived in a huge palace, yet he referred to himself as being poor and needy. “But I am poor and needy; yet the LORD thinks upon me” (Ps. 40:17). “Bow down Your ear, O LORD, hear me; for I am poor and needy” (Ps. 86:1). “Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. For I am poor and needy and my heart is wounded within me” (Ps. 109:21-22). Obviously “poor” in these passages is metaphorical and consistent with the poverty of spirit that we read in Matthew 5:3.
Where is the virtue in being poor economically? The unsaved poor are no closer to God than are the unsaved rich. There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty. If poverty guaranteed spirituality the poorest sections of cities and the large third world slums would be the safest places to live. But we know that not true!
Thanks
Larry P

You would be correct Larry, in part. But I'm thinking that James intent here is nothing more than a flaming without the use of names. I'm a little disappointed.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

If poverty guaranteed spirituality the poorest sections of cities and the large third world slums would be the safest places to live. But we know that not true!

You mean safe like the cross?

I mean, for real, are you implying that when we're doing "right" "spiritually," then we're safe?

I don't see that in the example of Christ in the gospels, in the life of the early Church in Acts, or in the epistles of Paul, or in the Revelation of John. Nowhere does the New Testament imply this.

[Larry Parsons]

You mean safe like the cross?

I mean, for real, are you implying that when we're doing "right" "spiritually," then we're safe?

I don't see that in the example of Christ in the gospels, in the life of the early Church in Acts, or in the epistles of Paul, or in the Revelation of John. Nowhere does the New Testament imply this.

I don't think i said what you are applying. 1st I said There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty. 2nd thing I said:If being poor guaranteed spirituality then poorest sections of our cities would be the safest places to live. But we know that not true! I really don't see why you made such a statement that you did because it doesn't fit at all whatI was saying:
Thanks
Larry P

[Rich Schmidt]

You would be correct Larry, in part. But I'm thinking that James intent here is nothing more than a flaming without the use of names. I'm a little disappointed.

I think he's just pointing out that some Christians' perspectives on this issue appear to be the exact opposite of what Jesus himself said in Luke 6:


Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when men hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

23 "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
24 "But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

Matthew's version spiritualizes the poverty and hunger (poor in spirit, hunger and thirst for righteousness), but Luke's version is pretty straightforwardly about actual poverty, hunger, wealth, reputation, etc.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't think i said what you are applying. 1st I said There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty.

Perhaps not, but there is definitely a great spiritual disadvantage in being rich. I presume I don't have to quote the Scriptures that say this.

[Jim Chabot]

I think he's just pointing out that some Christians' perspectives on this issue appear to be the exact opposite of what Jesus himself said in Luke 6:


Could be? My thought is that so soon after venting on Linda, this appears to be in poor taste. Please forgive me if I appear uninterested in whatever point is illustrated. I should actually be saying this in the first person. James, I think that you know that I agree with you a lot in this area, but solidarity isn't a pick and choose kind of thing. It extends past the poor into a way of life, an unavoidable part of our being. That said, although your disagreement with Linda's theology is ok, you have failed to find solidarity in that you don't give her credit where it is due. Maybe you are correct, but in this context I for one don't think that it really matters.

[Larry Parsons]

Perhaps not, but there is definitely a great spiritual disadvantage in being rich. I presume I don't have to quote the Scriptures that say this.
Hans,If I thought of it. I should have written that there is no spiritual advantage of being poor or being rich. I believe it was Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said: Both the poor and the rich can have the dollar sign in front of their eyes.
Here a question did Jesus forget what Moses said in Deut, 15:4-5
There shall be no poor among you, since the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, if only you listen obediently to the voice of the LORD your God, to carefully observe all this commandment which I am commanding you today.
Thanks
Larry P

[James Diggs]

That said, although your disagreement with Linda's theology is ok, you have failed to find solidarity in that you don't give her credit where it is due. Maybe you are correct, but in this context I for one don't think that it really matters.

I was not in any way thinking of Linda when I wrote this. That's pretty presumptuous on your part. The blessings and woes I wrote here represent what many people who claim the Christian faith today actually say and think- I believe it represents these kind of views pretty fairly. In other words, I don't think there is anything that I wrote that those who believe along those lines would disagree with- other than the fact that it may be uncomfortable to see that it runs completely opposite of what Jesus said Luke 6.

It is a pretty common view that our riches are seen as a blessing from God, a reward for our faithfulness and hard work and a sign of God's approval. Poverty is seen as not being blessed by God, a sign that people are doing something wrong and need to get right.

Ironically these views are very similar to those about 2,000 years ago when Jesus preached a sermon on hill. Anthropologists call it an "honor/shame" culture- honor is truly given to whom it is due- but Jesus turned this all on it's head. Today we live in a slightly different culture, ours is more "achievement/guilt", but marginalization of the poor along with others happens just the same.

I believe what I wrote is provocative, but I think it works because it doesn't parody but rather simply says what many people are really saying in the same format of Luke 6:20-26 as a way to contrast them with what Jesus said there. So in the end what is really provocative are the words of Jesus, not mine.

[Jim Chabot]

I was not in any way thinking of Linda when I wrote this. That's pretty presumptuous on your part.

My apologies if that wasn't the case.

Maybe you should have been thinking of her and how this may appear? It appeared to be in poor taste to me.

[Benjamin Burch]

I was not in any way thinking of Linda when I wrote this. That's pretty presumptuous on your part. The blessings and woes I wrote here represent what many people who claim the Christian faith today actually say and think- I believe it represents these kind of views pretty fairly. In other words, I don't think there is anything that I wrote that those who believe along those lines would disagree with- other than the fact that it may be uncomfortable to see that it runs completely opposite of what Jesus said Luke 6.

It is a pretty common view that our riches are seen as a blessing from God, a reward for our faithfulness and hard work and a sign of God's approval. Poverty is seen as not being blessed by God, a sign that people are doing something wrong and need to get right.

Ironically these views are very similar to those about 2,000 years ago when Jesus preached a sermon on hill. Anthropologists call it an "honor/shame" culture- honor is truly given to whom it is due- but Jesus turned this all on it's head. Today we live in a slightly different culture, ours is more "achievement/guilt", but marginalization of the poor along with others happens just the same.

I believe what I wrote is provocative, but I think it works because it doesn't parody but rather simply says what many people are really saying in the same format of Luke 6:20-26 as a way to contrast them with what Jesus said there. So in the end what is really provocative are the words of Jesus, not mine.

Thanks, James.

This post brings me straight back to why I get so irritated with the "Coveting/Stealing" language. It's not accurage or fair.

That being said, I really do want to open up some room at the table to the hardcore free market capitalists. I disagree, but I'm totally okay with their opposition to the way economics are being done today. Not on the "coveting/stealing" line. That's just silly and wrong, and unfair. But I think that they can - based upon economic philosophy - argue that the Free Market is the best way to insure the most help for the most poor people and therefore, on those grounds, everything we're doing now is wrong. That's a fine and fair opinion.

The views expressed in this parody, teamed with "coveting/stealing" language isn't.

[James Diggs]

My apologies if that wasn't the case.
Maybe you should have been thinking of her and how this may appear? It appeared to be in poor taste to me.

IF? Let me make this clear- It is NOT the case. This was in no way a personal attack against anyone. If you want me to think of her now, or anyone for that matter to whom you think what I wrote may apply, and retract what I said as a way to suggest that what I wrote is offensive and in poor taste I completely disagree.

If anyone agrees with the sentiments reflected in my list of blessings and woes I think it is probably good for them to have to wrestle with the weight of how such sentiments contrast the teachings of Jesus.

Again, I don't think what I wrote is very offensive at all to those whom believe such things- but rather its the words of Jesus that are offensive as they contrast those beliefs. If you think those words are in poor taste you will have to take it up with him.

[Jim Chabot]

James, you are missing my point. No sense in pursuing this any further.

[James Diggs]

I really do want to open up some room at the table to the hardcore free market capitalists. I disagree, but I'm totally okay with their opposition to the way economics are being done today. Not on the "coveting/stealing" line. That's just silly and wrong, and unfair. But I think that they can - based upon economic philosophy - argue that the Free Market is the best way to insure the most help for the most poor people and therefore, on those grounds, everything we're doing now is wrong. That's a fine and fair opinion.

I agree completely. I think Jesus' words are very "political" in the sense that Jesus wants us to love our neighbors (including the least of these) AS ourselves as we engage in processes by which we as a community of people navigate collective decisions. With that said, there is plenty of room for discussions about what systems people think are best for engaging in this kind of community navigation and why (hopefully in another thread though). I personally am not an absolute ideologue for any particular system as I see strengths and weaknesses in all of them.

But my intention of starting this tread is not for us to get bogged down in political arguments over systems but rather to challenge the cultural assumptions and perceptions about who is "blessed" (honored) and who needs to be careful because the ground they stand on may not be as solid as they think. Again, the words of Jesus are provocative as he turns our assumptions and perceptions on its head.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It NEVER crossed my mind that James was attacking anyone with his post or this thread. To those who believe that James is picking on them I can think of two terms; "reaction formation" and conviction. If you found offense maybe you should. But I cannot believe that James intended to offend anyone or had anyone particular person in mind. I felt that he is stating a pervasive attitude that runs throughout American "Christianity" today, even if it is an unconscious attitude. I thank James for this because maybe some people will think, maybe some who have unconsciously held these beliefs will be convicted and change, maybe not. But as the song says, "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."

[David Pettigrew]

I hate how these conversations always become about the conversation itself, rather than the topic at hand.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,If I thought of it. I should have written that there is no spiritual advantage of being poor or being rich. I believe it was Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said: Both the poor and the rich can have the dollar sign in front of their eyes.
Here a question did Jesus forget what Moses said in Deut, 15:4-5

Jesus forgot nothing. In fact, He frequently said: "You have heard it said .......... But I tell you ............"

Too bad for Moses, but the Son is more than Moses.

Luke 6 - "24"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep."

[Hans Deventer]

I hate how these conversations always become about the conversation itself, rather than the topic at hand.

That's because we so thoroughly disagree politically, that we can't find each other theologically. So feelings get hurt (there is nothing so deep and personal as a political view) and hence we end up talking about the discussion rather than discussing the issue itself.

[Larry Parsons]

Jesus forgot nothing. In fact, He frequently said: "You have heard it said .......... But I tell you ............"

Too bad for Moses, but the Son is more than Moses.

Luke 6 - "24"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep."


Hans,

I don't believe Jesus forgot anything either, However it seem to me that Jesus was always condeeming the rich Jewish religion leader just as he did in Luke 16:19-31. I just can't see Jesus condeming the hard working man who family is living in a nice home, both him and his wife are driving a nice car and they even have little money put away for a rain day. This man and his family is very active in the Christian community. (They could be Nazarene) I just can't believe that Jesus is condeming people like that and to me those people are rich.
Thanks
Larry P

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

I don't believe Jesus forgot anything either, However it seem to me that Jesus was always condeeming the rich Jewish religion leader just as he did in Luke 16:19-31. I just can't see Jesus condeming the hard working man who family is living in a nice home, both him and his wife are driving a nice car and has little money put away for a rain day. This man and his family is very active in the Christian community. I just can't believe that Jesus was condeming people like that and to me those people are rich.
Thanks
Larry P

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.

[David Pettigrew]

That's because we so thoroughly disagree politically, that we can't find each other theologically. So feelings get hurt (there is nothing so deep and personal as a political view) and hence we end up talking about the discussion rather than discussing the issue itself.

One of the greatest men I ever had the privilege to pastor was also one of the most die-hard democrats I've ever known. I don't just mean ideologically, either. He gave them lots of money as well as serving on various committees. He happened to be very close friends with one of our (former) Nazarene college presidents, who was as partisan a republican as my friend was democrat. During election years, their two families would vacation together. They would watch both national party conventions on TV, each providing colorful commentary on the other fella's group.

I asked this man once how he could be such close friends with someone of such a differing political philosophy. His answer was simple: "Politics is not our uniting factor."

Both men are dead now. Pity.

[Hans Deventer]

I asked this man once how he could be such close friends with someone of such a differing political philosophy. His answer was simple: "Politics is not our uniting factor."

And they communicated in real life. I'm quite sure I could spend a great time with Judy taking pictures in on the West Coast. Might find many things to do with Jim Chabot visiting the East. But on NazNet, all we have is this forum. That narrows down greatly our communication.

[Larry Parsons]

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.

Hans,
The clothing of the rich man in verse 19 identifies him symbolically with with the Jewish leaders. They were called by God to be a witness or share the blessing that God gave to them to the nations that surrounding them. The beggar in verse 20 is a symbol of the Gentile nations ....
Thanks
Larry

[George Wallace]

James,
I guess I am a bit thick here. I am not tracking well with your "inversion" (?) of the Sermon on the Plain. Therefore I am a bit lost. Can you provide a brief explanation of what you think this Sermon (Plain or applicable portions of the Sermon on the Mount) is about and who is being addressed?

There must be some something I am missing in order to understand your post.

Blessings
George

[Rich Schmidt]

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.


Hans,
The clothing of the rich man in verse 19 identifies him symbolically with with the Jewish leaders. They were called by God to be a witness or share the blessing that God gave to them to the nations that surrounding them. The beggar in verse 20 is a symbol of the Gentile nations ....
Thanks
Larry

We've been down this road before on another thread. Larry, I don't see how "dressed in purple and fine linen" translates to the clothing of a religious leader. Nor do I see how you conclude that Lazarus represents the Gentile nations. Perhaps you could point us toward a source for how you arrived at these conclusions?

Edited to add: There are multiple references in Scripture to being dressed in purple or wearing fine linen. The wife of noble character in Prov. 31; Mordecai in Esther 8; the merchants from Aram who traded with Tyre, mentioned in Ezekiel 27; etc. These fabrics are always used as expressions of wealth, and none of them seem to be linked to religious leaders.

[Larry Parsons]

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.
Who was the rich that Jesus was refering to if was not the Jewish religion leader of his day?
Larry

[Jim Chabot]

And they communicated in real life. I'm quite sure I could spend a great time with Judy taking pictures in on the West Coast. Might find many things to do with Jim Chabot visiting the East. But on NazNet, all we have is this forum. That narrows down greatly our communication.

Yes and that is why it is so important to find something good, something agreeable in each others views. I disagree with many here, but I have found that if I look, there is most always something where we can find a bit of commonality. After all it must be there, the spirit does bear witness to itself, does it not?

And I can tell you as a conservative living in Massachusetts, one must have some liberal friends, or one would have few friends.

[Rich Schmidt]

Who was the rich that Jesus was refering to if was not the Jewish religion leader of his day?
Larry

So you're basing it all on the assumption that the only "rich" people in the world of Jesus' hearers were Jewish religious leaders? So every mention of those who are rich is a reference to them? I think that's a pretty weak assumption. (To take the next step in that parable to assume that the poor man must then represent Gentiles is an even weaker assumption built on top of it. In my opinion, of course.)

[Larry Parsons]

So you're basing it all on the assumption that the only "rich" people in the world of Jesus' hearers were Jewish religious leaders? So every mention of those who are rich is a reference to them? I think that's a pretty weak assumption. (To take the next step in that parable to assume that the poor man must then represent Gentiles is an even weaker assumption built on top of it. In my opinion, of course.)
Rich,
The question that I ask was not about assuming anything. I was asking straight forward question, who were the rich during when Jesus spoke to his disciples? I will get back with you later about rich man and Lazarus right now I'm wore out
Thanks
Larry

[James Diggs]

James,
I guess I am a bit thick here. I am not tracking well with your "inversion" (?) of the Sermon on the Plain. Therefore I am a bit lost. Can you provide a brief explanation of what you think this Sermon (Plain or applicable portions of the Sermon on the Mount) is about and who is being addressed?

There must be some something I am missing in order to understand your post.

Blessings
George

George, I am not sure what it is you don't get. Here is a quote of mine from an earlier response that I think very briefly summarizes some cultural background.


It is a pretty common view that our riches are seen as a blessing from God, a reward for our faithfulness and hard work and a sign of God's approval. Poverty is seen as not being blessed by God, a sign that people are doing something wrong and need to get right.

Ironically these views are very similar to those about 2,000 years ago when Jesus preached a sermon on hill. Anthropologists call it an "honor/shame" culture- honor is given to whom they believe it is due- but Jesus turned this all on it's head. Today we live in a slightly different culture, ours is more "achievement/guilt", but marginalization of the poor along with others happens just the same.

I believe what I wrote is provocative, but I think it works because it doesn't parody but rather simply says what many people are really saying in the same format of Luke 6:20-26 as a way to contrast them with what Jesus said there. So in the end what is really provocative are the words of Jesus, not mine.

There is of course a lot more that could be elaborated on concerning this honor/shame culture and its many ramifications that Jesus confronts. Ultimately though it is about what such cultural assumptions contribute to the marginalization of their neighbors so that they do not see them nor love them AS themselves.

It is also about how God starts the redemption of the world by first identifying with those who have been marginalized at the bottom; and he calls all of us to meet him there in order to enter into solidarity with all of humanity just as he himself entered into it. What Jesus asks of us is hardest for those who already consider themselves blessed and honored despite not be reconciled to those beneath them because they are unable to identify with them.

I hope this helps. I also am going to try to answer a very good question Larry asks. Perhaps that will help as well. Otherwise I guess those who have the ears to hear let them hear.

[James Diggs]

There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty


Perhaps not, but there is definitely a great spiritual disadvantage in being rich. I presume I don't have to quote the Scriptures that say this.


Hans,If I thought of it. I should have written that there is no spiritual advantage of being poor or being rich. I believe it was Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said: Both the poor and the rich can have the dollar sign in front of their eyes.

Maybe we do need to quote the verse, or maybe even do in experiment of trying to take a camel through a seemingly impossible small space.


Matthew 19:24
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Larry you assume that the reason it is difficult for the rich to enter into the Kingdom of heaven is just the love of money, and indeed this is likely part of the problem. But as you point out, you don’t have to have money to love money and put it above God and other people. Unfortunately, we (who are largely rich by global standards) have reduced the disadvantage of being rich to just this (which we can easily intellectually overcome) to domesticate and take the sting out of what Jesus said.

We like to think, ‘oh yea sure it can be hard for rich people if they are selfish- but if they are generous it is really no harder than anyone else.’ By this we totally take the edge off the very specific woe to the rich Jesus taught and water it down and make it easier for us.



But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.

Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

Before we get to these “woes”, let’s get the idea out of our head right now that when Jesus says it is difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of heaven that he is primarily talking about who goes to heaven when they die. No, when Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of heaven he is speaking about entering into the Way of the Kingdom now (of course there are ramifications for eternity but it’s not the primary point).

I believe Jesus was teaching that there actually is a distinct disadvantage of being rich. To say that he wasn’t is to deny what the scripture says. The question is what is it?

Looking at these “woes” may give us some insight. One the biggest things that stands out is that the rich simply can not relate to the life of the poor. They are comforted, well fed, happy people, with plenty of other people around like them to speak well of them. The problem with being rich is that it creates an insular world around us and distorts our view of the world and our poorer neighbors to the point that we can not identify with them.

A famous example of this was the statement by a French princess long ago upon learning that the peasants had no bread responded by saying, “Let them eat cake”. She clearly had no idea about the realities the poor faced. Of course this is an extreme example, yet our wealth creates all kinds of barriers for us to connect to our neighbors by making it difficult for us to comprehend what life is like for those who are poor.

Largely the poor and the real circumstances of their lives become virtually invisible to us even if they camp right outside our gates and we pass them by as we come and go. We may see them but not SEE them because of our assumptions about them based on our context which is insulated from the realities of theirs.

Plain and simple our wealth can keep us from the people God loves; even if we are generous with our money our wealth can keep us positionally removed from the life of the least of these among us.

I probably use this word too much, but it really is about solidarity; and the rich have a distinct disadvantage in being able to find it with the least of these because we are largely comfortable, full, happy, and have good reputation among ourselves in regard to our success.

Not understanding and finding solidarity with the poor means we often don’t understand how the choices we make uphill effect those down hill from us. The view is so completely different that we just often just don’t understand what the problems are. Because of this we compound the sins of our separation and participate in systems which only make it worse for the poor.

Being rich makes it difficult to enter into the life of the Kingdom and participate with the reconciling work of Christ not only to God- but also to our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus said these two commandments are like each other- how much are they alike? As much as we love and do (or do not do) to the least of these we have loved and done (or not done) unto God.

Our salvation isn't just some spiritual gnostic thing, it is the reconciliation of human souls holistically- the redemption of our very humanity. How God changes us to better love God and our neighbors (especially the "least of these" whom have been marginalized) is what it means to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus starts the reconciliation of the world with the “least of these”; he found solidarity with them by leaving the highest place there is positionally, emptying himself, and becoming one of the least of these. The nature of the Kingdom of God is the first becoming last and the last becoming first. Jesus calls us to enter into this Way today for this is the Way of the Kingdom of God.

But woe to us who are rich because we have little idea how upside down our world is and the price those beneath us pay for a pretty (yet distorted) view of the world which insulates us from those living on the underside of our success on the right and our ivory towers on the left.

But here is the good news for even the rich



Matthew 19:25-26

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[James Diggs]

opps- delete this

[George Wallace]

There is of course a lot more that could be elaborated on concerning this honor/shame culture and its many ramifications that Jesus confronts. Ultimately though it is about what such cultural assumptions contribute to the marginalization of their neighbors so that they do not see them nor love them AS themselves.

James,
Thank you. I may be “getting it” or maybe not we’ll see. I definitely see and understand your references to "honor/shame" culture "achievement/guilt" culture. We see this behavior in Job as his friends try and convince him of his sin. We see it in the Disciples when they ask who sinned the man or his father.

I also see much truth in your “inversion” of the Sermon on the Plain. Certainly we all stand indicted of such behavior especially in the affluent West. So I don’t think (?) I have any real issue (beyond a lack of understanding ;)) with your statements, certainly folks act just as you’ve said and we should take a hard look at ourselves and how we live out our Faith. I think that is at least a snippet of what you were going for. Yes?

I guess my question is really more about what you understand the Sermon on the Plain/Mount to be. I think your answers to these questions may provide me some clarity.

1. Did you use the Sermon on the Plain primarily as a literary or poetic vehicle to make you valid points?

OR

2. Do you believe the Sermon on the Plain is primarily prescriptive, that is, do you see this sermon’s intent along the ‘social justice’ (for lack of a better term)?

3. I guess in plain English; What do you believe the Sermon on the Plain/Mount is about?

Last night I had trouble sleeping so I Surfed the net. I looked back on this thread and made a three column table. Column 1 was a verse by verse copy of your inversion of Luke 6:20-26, next to that I place the actual Scriptures for comparison. In the third column I placed John Gill’s Commentary Notes (His was the first solid commentary I found electronically that was also done in a verse by verse format.) I also placed Wesley’s Notes above this. I also reread both the Concise and Full Matthew Henry Commentaries of Luke 6:20...

It was the wee hours And I couldn’t sleep so I guess only a seminarian would do such a thing to “relax” any way I found it interesting, yet unless you only used the Sermon on the Plain as a literary device for making your point then I thing we have a fundamental difference of interpretation of what it actually means.

That’s why I asked the questions.

Thanks again
Blessings
George

[Paul DeBaufer]

We like to think, ‘oh yea sure it can be hard for rich people if they are selfish- but if they are generous it is really no harder than anyone else.’ By this we totally take the edge off the very specific woe to the rich Jesus taught and water it down and make it easier for us.

We like to think that being wealthy is okay IF we are charitable. But as someone recently said there is a huge difference betwixt compassion and charity. With compassion I think there must be some empathy, while charity is what we do to ease our consciences. I have oft heard it said that it is not being rich that matters but what we do with our money. Well...I firmly believe that HOW we get wealthy matters. Are we living off the sweat of others whom we are not treating correctly. Do we oppress our workers? Are they all earning a living wage? How about the workers fo our suppliers? Etc. We need to have compassion, empathy for all the people along the line not just shop for the country where it is okay to exploit the workers and enable their oppression. If our wealth is built upon the oppression of the workers we are not acting in love, and no matter how we spend it we are guilty.


I believe Jesus was teaching that there actually is a distinct disadvantage of being rich.


Looking at these “woes” may give us some insight. One the biggest things that stands out is that the rich simply can not relate to the life of the poor. They are comforted, well fed, happy people, with plenty of other people around like them to speak well of them. The problem with being rich is that it creates an insular world around us and distorts our view of the world and our poorer neighbors to the point that we can not identify with them.



Largely the poor and the real circumstances of their lives become virtually invisible to us even if they camp right outside our gates and we pass them by as we come and go. We may see them but not SEE them because of our assumptions about them based on our context which is insulated from the realities of theirs.

Plain and simple our wealth can keep us from the people God loves; even if we are generous with our money our wealth can keep us positionally removed from the life of the least of these among us.

I probably use this word too much, but it really is about solidarity; and the rich have a distinct disadvantage in being able to find it with the least of these because we are largely comfortable, full, happy, and have good reputation among ourselves in regard to our success.

Not understanding and finding solidarity with the poor means we often don’t understand how the choices we make uphill effect those down hill from us. The view is so completely different that we just often just don’t understand what the problems are. Because of this we compound the sins of our separation and participate in systems which only make it worse for the poor.

Being rich makes it difficult to enter into the life of the Kingdom and participate with the reconciling work of Christ not only to God- but also to our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus said these two commandments are like each other- how much are they alike? As much as we love and do (or do not do) to the least of these we have loved and done (or not done) unto God.


Thank you so much for this. Jesus came to reconcile the world with God and each other. How can we be reconciled when we can't identify with or even see our fellow humans? When I look past another and cannot connect or in some way identify with her I rob her of her humanity. When I pass a homeless person and hardly see him or blame him for his circumstances without knowing his story I rob him of his humanity, his image of God.


Our salvation isn't just some spiritual gnostic thing, it is the reconciliation of human souls holistically- the redemption of our very humanity. How God changes us to better love God and our neighbors (especially the "least of these" whom have been marginalized) is what it means to enter into the Kingdom of God.


Thank you so much for this especially the emphesized portion. All too often we give a head nod to Christ and belief thinking that that is all that is necessary for salvation. But as James tells us this cognitive assent is hollow/dead unless it is internalized and we live it.


Blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus starts the reconciliation of the world with the “least of these”; he found solidarity with them by leaving the highest place there is positionally, emptying himself, and becoming one of the least of these. The nature of the Kingdom of God is the first becoming last and the last becoming first. Jesus calls us to enter into this Way today for this is the Way of the Kingdom of God.

But woe to us who are rich because we have little idea how upside down our world is and the price those beneath us pay for a pretty (yet distorted) view of the world which insulates us from those living on the underside of our success on the right and our ivory towers on the left.

But here is the good news for even the rich

I can't help but think of Matthew 25 and the connection of doing for the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the outcast as doing FOR and TO God.

Again James, Thank you for articulating so eloquently what I have been feeling.

[George Wallace]

James et al,
Here is a link to a Sermon Preached by a friend of mine. He is a recent MDiv Grad and is interning at our Church. It was the first of a 5 part series on the Sermon on the Mount. He spends much time in Matthew 7 but he also uses Matt. 5:1-13 so I think there is significant overlap here with the Sermon on the Plain from Luke. I found it quite moving.

I would enjoy others thoughts on this and how it relates to James original post. If any are willing and have the time. Maybe your comments will help me understand Jame's post better. I realize this Sermon is a bit long but I think most will like it.

Here is the link. (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7510630290)

(** There is one brief description of the Atonement late in the sermon that may cause some to bristle, but hey by the time you get there you are already invested!)

Thanks
George

[Larry Parsons]

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.
Hans,
I think when Jesus said there was certain rich man who was dressed in purple and fined lined. In Exodus 28: color of the high priest clothes was gold,blue,scarlet and purple.Jesus didn't list all of the color in his parable which he didn;t need to. The religion leader who Jesus was speaking to knew he was talking about them. In his parable Jesus was letting the religion leaders of his day they were practicing poor stewardship by not sharing God's blessing with the Gentiles.
Thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Hans,
I think when Jesus said there was certain rich man who was dressed in purple and fined lined. In Exodus 28: color of the high priest clothes was gold,blue,scarlet and purple.Jesus didn't list all of the color in his parable which he didn;t need to. The religion leader who Jesus was speaking to knew he was talking about them. In his parable Jesus was letting the religion leaders of his day they were practicing poor stewardship by not sharing God's blessing with the Gentiles.
Thanks
Larry

But in the culture of that day, purple fabric was a status symbol among the wealthy, not exclusive to the high priest. The High Priest was not a wealthy man, in fact special provisions were made for the priestly class in the law because they had no inheritance of their own. In the context of the encounter, it is far, far more likely that Jesus was using purple as an identification of how rich the person was, not making some vague reference to the priestly class by way of a single garment (which was not even primarily purple).

[Larry Parsons]

We've been down this road before on another thread. Larry, I don't see how "dressed in purple and fine linen" translates to the clothing of a religious leader. Nor do I see how you conclude that Lazarus represents the Gentile nations. Perhaps you could point us toward a source for how you arrived at these conclusions?

Edited to add: There are multiple references in Scripture to being dressed in purple or wearing fine linen. The wife of noble character in Prov. 31; Mordecai in Esther 8; the merchants from Aram who traded with Tyre, mentioned in Ezekiel 27; etc. These fabrics are always used as expressions of wealth, and none of them seem to be linked to religious leaders.
Just because Jesus left out three of the color of high priest wore roble and only used purple doesn't he was not refering to religion leaders of his. I think we need to keep in mind that both parable in 16 chapter of luke is dealing with stewardship. The Jews failed to share with the Gentiles wht God has given to them and in God sight that was poor stewardship.
Thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Just because Jesus left out three of the color of high priest wore roble and only used purple doesn't he was not refering to religion leaders of his.
No, but it does make it highly unlikely, especially when there are other explanations much more readily available which don't require several layers of baseless assumptions.

I think we need to keep in mind that both parable in 16 chapter of luke is dealing with stewardship.
But they're not. The first (the parable of the shrewd Manager) is, but in between it and the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, there is a decent amount of other stuff, and by no means should we assume that just because they're in the same "chapter" that they are directly related. Those chapter numbers were added years later and many of the divisions are poorly drawn. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a condemnation of those who uphold the letter of the law but do not have compassion. There is nothing in either parable to suggest that gentiles are even being considered.


The Jews failed to share with the Gentiles wht God has given to them and in God sight that was poor stewardship.

the Rich Jews failed to share with the Poor Jews who were in need, despite commands otherwise. There's nothing about Gentiles here, anywhere.

[Larry Parsons]

But in the culture of that day, purple fabric was a status symbol among the wealthy, not exclusive to the high priest. The High Priest was not a wealthy man, in fact special provisions were made for the priestly class in the law because they had no inheritance of their own. In the context of the encounter, it is far, far more likely that Jesus was using purple as an identification of how rich the person was, not making some vague reference to the priestly class by way of a single garment (which was not even primarily purple).
Shea are you still up I just look at the clock. Ha If I understand right during the time O.T. everything was given to the high priest so in one since he living hih on the on the hog.If the parable was not refering to the religion leader (which I beleive it does)of his day. Why couldn't the rich man be an allegory of the Jewish nation (who was lend by the religion leaders) who were rich in God's blessing and who refused to share with the Gentiles which sound like poor stewardship.
Thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea are you still up I just look at the clock. Ha If I understand right during the time O.T. everything was given to the high priest so in one since he living hih on the on the hog.If the parable was not refering to the religion leader (which I beleive it does)of his day. Why couldn't the rich man be an allegory of the Jewish nation (who was lend by the religion leaders) who were rich in God's blessing and who refused to share with the Gentiles which sound like poor stewardship.
Thanks
Larry

For starters, because the name "Lazarus" is a Hebrew one. Why would Jesus use a Jewish name to refer to the Gentiles? there are plenty of instances where Jesus told parables without ever using a single name, and yet in this one instance he explicitly used a name, and it was a distinctly Jewish name- one which non-Jews almost certainly would not have used.
Jesus was a pretty smart guy- the smartest, really- and he knew how people thought. There is just about 0% chance that anyone hearing this parable at that time would have thought that Jesus was referring to a Gentile in any way whatsoever. We have no definite context for this story, but it is most likely being told while Jesus was at the Pharisee's house- Pharisees were not all levites, and we have no indication that this specific one was. He tells multiple parables in this scene- one about not taking places of honor for yourselves, two about celebrating the return of lost things (the Gentiles would not have been thought of as "lost" at the time), and the two previously mentioned. There is one other parable, about a wedding banquet, that could conceivably be connected to the Gentiles, but taken all together, these parables speak about those who are in places of power and privilege extending their hands to those who are not, and there could be no more straightforward example of this than the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,
I think when Jesus said there was certain rich man who was dressed in purple and fined lined. In Exodus 28: color of the high priest clothes was gold,blue,scarlet and purple.Jesus didn't list all of the color in his parable which he didn;t need to. The religion leader who Jesus was speaking to knew he was talking about them. In his parable Jesus was letting the religion leaders of his day they were practicing poor stewardship by not sharing God's blessing with the Gentiles.
Thanks
Larry

May I respectfully yet utterly disagree? I think your interpretation is in fact dangerous for missing the core of Jesus' message here. By spiritualizing it, you have effectively disarmed it.

[Larry Parsons]

May I respectfully yet utterly disagree? I think your interpretation is in fact dangerous for missing the core of Jesus' manessage here. By spiritualizing it, you have effectively disarmed it.
Hans, Can you give me your interpretation of it.
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, Can you give me your interpretation of it.
Thanks
Larry

Sure! As I read it, a rich man is exactly that, "a rich man". For God, he doesn't even have a name, contrary to the beggar at his door. He stands for the quintessential rich person who isn't even necessarily evil or anything, may actually have worked hard to achieve his wealth, like the rich fool in Luke 12. He enjoys life but doesn't care for others who are lesser off. And that's where Jesus pronounces judgement.

Larry, there are definitely also parables and stories about the religious elite and Jesus is quite outspoken about them. But don't limit all He has to say on richness to these. A lack of compassion isn't a privilege of religious people.

[Randy Wise]

This is what Jesus says in Luke 6:20-26 right?

Thoughts:

I helped a women in a wheel chair the other day in Sams Club get a shelf item. She was missing limbs and I though afterwards that is someone who really needed help, which gave me more meaning to help that God desires.


I also read about Jesus teaching to be faithful with "little things- mammon" and those that are faithful could also be faithful with true riches. Likewise those that aren't faithful with "mammon" won't be faithful with true riches and we can't serve two masters. That gives context to character (my take) not income.

R.

[Mark Metcalfe]

1. Marie Antointette was purported to say "Let them eat cake" but it was more likely that the pro-revolutionary historians distorted (or just made up) what she said to advance their cause to show that the aristocracy was out of touch and didn't care. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake) (you can look up other sources, too)

2. I think Paul D. is accurate to say that it isn't whether you are rich, but how you became rich.

3. I think the focus of the Rich man and Lazarus story is not that the man was rich, but that the man of means did nothing to help Lazarus, a man of no means. It is not a story about one man's wealth but it is story about how two people related (or rather did not) to one another; it is about responsibility and not about the amount. This story has to be reconciled with the wealth of Job, David, Solomon, Abraham, Moses, and Lydia, among others.

The principle is found here in Matthew 7: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Because the rich man showed no compassion or charity, he would receive none.

Let's not forget that Abraham (a very very rich man) is in the Luke 16 story, so how can the story mean that rich=bad? Rather pray that as the Lord entrusts us with talents, that we might put them to good use and have a return, because the person that does not invest the talent will have it taken away - even if it is the least of the talents.

Mark

Edited to add: perhaps the story in Luke 16 should be seen for its TWO rich people: one in paradise and one in torment, and how each person got to where he did.

[Larry Parsons]

Sure! As I read it, a rich man is exactly that, "a rich man". For God, he doesn't even have a name, contrary to the beggar at his door. He stands for the quintessential rich person who isn't even necessarily evil or anything, may actually have worked hard to achieve his wealth, like the rich fool in Luke 12. He enjoys life but doesn't care for others who are lesser off. And that's where Jesus pronounces judgement.

Larry, there are definitely also parables and stories about the religious elite and Jesus is quite outspoken about them. But don't limit all He has to say on richness to these. A lack of compassion isn't a privilege of religious people.
Hans,
This parable tell us that the rich man had "five brothers." See (Lk. 16:27-28). He mentions the fact that his brethren were five in number. Since this is parable then it is naturally for us to ask who are these five brethren. Remember the rich man is a son of ABRAHAM, through Isaac and Jacob, and you have only to read through the lists of the offspring of Abraham to find out who it was that had five brethren. See (Gen,35:22-26") The passage you just read plainly reveals that JUDAH had five brethren. Jacob's first wife was Leah, and of Leah were born Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. These were all full-blood brothers. Judah was one of Leah's six sons. He had five brethren! So when this rich man says, "I've got five brethren," it identifies who he is! This idea may not have any meaning to the modern day evangelists who preach from this parable, but let me assure you that it had a great deal of meaning to those to who Jesus was speaking, because they knew their history, they held great pride in their ancestry, they knew who their brethren were, they knew exactly who He was talking about! To them the identity of the rich man was Judah, the southern kingdom of the Jews!
Thanks
Larry P

[Hans Deventer]

Let's not forget that Abraham (a very very rich man) is in the Luke 16 story, so how can the story mean that rich=bad?

WHo said so? The discussion was, is there a spiritual disadvantage to being rich? The answer is yes. It need not lead to sin, but it can easily do so.

Thankfully, all of us who are rich are of course so wise as not to fall into that trap.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,
This parable tell us that the rich man had "five brothers." See (Lk. 16:27-28). He mentions the fact that his brethren were five in number. Since this is parable then it is naturally for us to ask who are these five brethren. Remember the rich man is a son of ABRAHAM, through Isaac and Jacob, and you have only to read through the lists of the offspring of Abraham to find out who it was that had five brethren. See (Gen,35:22-26") The passage you just read plainly reveals that JUDAH had five brethren. Jacob's first wife was Leah, and of Leah were born Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. These were all full-blood brothers. Judah was one of Leah's six sons. He had five brethren! So when this rich man says, "I've got five brethren," it identifies who he is! This idea may not have any meaning to the modern day evangelists who preach from this parable, but let me assure you that it had a great deal of meaning to those to who Jesus was speaking, because they knew their history, they held great pride in their ancestry, they knew who their brethren were, they knew exactly who He was talking about! To them the identity of the rich man was Judah, the southern kingdom of the Jews!
Thanks
Larry P

Larry, I am astonished to say the least. I cannot believe I am having this discussion! This is so far fetched I can't even believe my own eyes reading this! I sure hope you'll never have to talk yourself out of the obvious meaning of this parable by these cunningly devised diversions in front of our Lord.

I hope you are honest but to me you sound like one who is trying every trick in the book in order not to have to understand what the Lord is saying here. That sounds like a very dangerous activity to me.

The brothers are there to emphasize that the current revelation of God in the Torah is already enough for anyone who WANTS to honestly read the Scriptures to know what to do, and that no special revelation whatsoever will make them change their mind.

Sadly enough, it also illustrates how the rich man, even in torment, only cares about his family (likely rich too), and not about the suffering ones in that live at his door. It is a very grim picture that Jesus is painting here.

Parables generally have an obvious meaning. The more one delves into details, the more one distorts that meaning. That's a sound rule of hermeneutics.

[Marsha Lynn]

One of the greatest men I ever had the privilege to pastor was also one of the most die-hard democrats I've ever known. I don't just mean ideologically, either. He gave them lots of money as well as serving on various committees. He happened to be very close friends with one of our (former) Nazarene college presidents, who was as partisan a republican as my friend was democrat. During election years, their two families would vacation together. They would watch both national party conventions on TV, each providing colorful commentary on the other fella's group.

I asked this man once how he could be such close friends with someone of such a differing political philosophy. His answer was simple: "Politics is not our uniting factor."

Both men are dead now. Pity.

Well, now, see? That's what happens when you go down this road!





(Sorry, James, to add to the distraction from your thoughtful and useful post. I suspect this will cost me in the confessional this week but at least I'm subscribed to the thread now. ;) )

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Someone sent me this illustration two days ago. As with every analogy, it falls short in many regards, but it's main premise is helpful. (Note, for this thread, the amount of money in each person's pocket is irrelevant.):


A Holy man was having a conversation with the Lord one day and said, 'Lord, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like.' The Lord led the holy man to two doors.

He opened one of the doors and the holy man looked in. In the middle of the room was a large round table and in the middle of the table was a large pot of stew which smelled delicious and made the holy man's mouth water. The people sitting around the table were thin and sickly. They appeared to be famished. They were holding spoons with very long handles that were strapped to their arms and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful. But because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths.

The holy man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering.

The Lord said, "You have seen Hell."

They went to the next room and opened the door. It was exactly the same as the first one. There was the large round table with the large pot of stew which made the holy man's mouth water. The people were equipped with the same long-handled spoons, but here the people were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.

The holy man said, "I don't understand."

"It is simple," said the Lord. "It requires but one thing. You see, they have learned to feed each other. The greedy think only of themselves."

[Larry Parsons]

For starters, because the name "Lazarus" is a Hebrew one. Why would Jesus use a Jewish name to refer to the Gentiles? there are plenty of instances where Jesus told parables without ever using a single name, and yet in this one instance he explicitly used a name, and it was a distinctly Jewish name- one which non-Jews almost certainly would not have used.
Jesus was a pretty smart guy- the smartest, really- and he knew how people thought. There is just about 0% chance that anyone hearing this parable at that time would have thought that Jesus was referring to a Gentile in any way whatsoever. We have no definite context for this story, but it is most likely being told while Jesus was at the Pharisee's house- Pharisees were not all levites, and we have no indication that this specific one was. He tells multiple parables in this scene- one about not taking places of honor for yourselves, two about celebrating the return of lost things (the Gentiles would not have been thought of as "lost" at the time), and the two previously mentioned. There is one other parable, about a wedding banquet, that could conceivably be connected to the Gentiles, but taken all together, these parables speak about those who are in places of power and privilege extending their hands to those who are not, and there could be no more straightforward example of this than the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Shea, We could still say that This parable of the rich man and Lazarus is dealing with stewardship because it is directed toward the Jewish leader (Pharisees) who love money who didn't want to share any of it. see Lk:16;14A If Lazarus was a Jew like you say He repersented all the poor Jews of Israel that was being held in contempt by the rich man (the religion leaders)remember To the Pharisees, poverty was a punishment for being sinful. Who knows this parable maybe another way for Jesus to say to the religion leader "Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots will enter the kingdom of God before you." Of course there maybe more than one interpretation of this parable. So like I mention This parable of rich man and Lazarus is about stewrdship and no matter how you look at it.
Thanks
Larry P.

[James Diggs]

I definitely see and understand your references to "honor/shame" culture "achievement/guilt" culture. We see this behavior in Job as his friends try and convince him of his sin. We see it in the Disciples when they ask who sinned the man or his father.

Yea, those are good examples.


I also see much truth in your “inversion” of the Sermon on the Plain. Certainly we all stand indicted of such behavior especially in the affluent West. So I don’t think (?) I have any real issue (beyond a lack of understanding ;)) with your statements, certainly folks act just as you’ve said and we should take a hard look at ourselves and how we live out our Faith. I think that is at least a snippet of what you were going for. Yes?

Yes my purpose was to take a hard look at ourselves and a lot of our assumptions in contrast to what Jesus said on the Sermon of the Plain (I suppose a distinction could be made from the Sermon of the Mount, certainly I think there is some literary distinction- but otherwise I have a bad habit of just calling them both the Sermon on the Mount because that’s the term most people are familiar with.)


I guess my question is really more about what you understand the Sermon on the Plain/Mount to be. I think your answers to these questions may provide me some clarity.

1. Did you use the Sermon on the Plain primarily as a literary or poetic vehicle to make your valid points?

I think I used my inversion of the text as a contemporary literary vehicle in our “achievement/guilt” culture as way that draws parallels to a the similar context of the ancient “honor/shame” culture Jesus originally confronted. I did this in order to attempt to restore the provocative nature of Jesus’ words in the way they were likely heard in his time.


OR

2. Do you believe the Sermon on the Plain is primarily prescriptive, that is, do you see this sermon’s intent along the ‘social justice’ (for lack of a better term)?

I think the text is primarily descriptive, much like parables. The Kingdom of God is not like a kingdom where the rich are honored and blessed at the expense of the poor. In fact it is the exact opposite, the Kingdom of God brings honor to those who are shamed. The Kingdom of heaven is for the reconciliation of humanity to one another- as unto God.

I do think the intent of Jesus’ sermon does go along with much of the same intent many of those are wrestling with in the area of social justice (in the purest sense of the phrase). I make the distinction in parenthesis because I think it would be too easy to reduce this teaching of Jesus down to a prescription in a way some people look at social justice as nothing more than a particular political formula to apply as if the answers are only found in the right systems.

Instead, I think the questions of social justice and the hard wrestling that goes along with seeking it, are more valuable than "the answers". Not that our questions should not drive us to find and apply solutions for the benefit of our neighbor, but unless we wrestle with the foundational questions we will not be able to adapt our “solutions” within our ever changing reality.

Our systems can NEVER be the final answer to anything but rather we must ALWAYS examine and look to continually adapt our systems according to the principle of truly trying to love our neighbors as ourselves. SEEING and LOVING our neighbor is the foundation- this can (and should) motivate us to change our systems and/or navigate them differently when we see people exploited; but I don't believe there is any such thing as arriving at some final set system that can love our neighbors for us.

In fact from a political standpoint this is why I am resistant to those who argue for strict and pure political ideologies as if they are somehow unchanging truths. The moment we stop negotiating with our neighbors in favor of just working a system is the moment we put those systems above our neighbors. So, I don't want to get off track by arguing for particular political ideologies.


3. I guess in plain English; What do you believe the Sermon on the Plain/Mount is about?

I believe the foundational point of the message is that those who have wealth have difficulty identifying with those who do not- this distorts their view of humanity as they have trouble seeing themselves in the other. What is at risk by missing this is their own humanity as they live in a place far removed from the other. Being wealthy means you can live far removed from your neighbor regardless of whether they live across the globe or right outside your gate.

The Kingdom of heaven is NOT like this- God himself emptied himself and removed barriers that kept him from the least of these. Humanity found redemption through God made flesh; identifying with the least of these and loving them AS himself. God did not live far removed from us as some distant judge but enters into humanity itself and identifies with it in order to redeem it.

Jesus identifies with us even to the point of identifying with the least of these among us; even to the point that he suffers with and for us for the injustice we do to one another (and because we are made in God’s image he suffers for the injustice we do to God). This suffering because of his identification with humanity is the Way of the cross and it is a Way Jesus calls us to follow. The path though leads down before it can go up. The path leads to a way where we are also reconciled with our neighbors by the first becoming last thus making the last first; for such is the Kingdom of God.

So then, blessed are the last- those who are poor, hungry, weeping, hated, excluded, insulted, and rejected- because this is God’s starting point for the redemption of humanity we find in the Way of the cross Jesus entered into.

We talk about how God comes to save us from our sins but rarely ever want to deal with what it means to be reconciled and saved from them in our life time. We would prefer to just believe a more Gnostic gospel which encourages us that faith in the right knowledge will save us later in some spiritual sense. But Jesus came to save our souls; our very humanity.

Unless we learn to see Christ in our neighbor’s eyes, those who are the least among us- WE WILL MISS IT. Jesus identified with the last so that we also would have to identify with the last in order to identify with HIM. This turns everything upside down (last shall be first) and not only reconciles us to God but in a very REAL way reconciles us to one another.

So then- lets not neuter what Jesus says and try to make it less harsh. Let’s not domesticate his message his message or rationalize it away. But let us deal with the hard reality that Jesus himself came to overcome and look to Jesus for how we can overcome our “woes” through him and his victory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.- George, I listen to that message of yours and I'll try to make time to comment later.

[Dwayne Petry]

Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when men hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.



Matthew's version spiritualizes the poverty and hunger (poor in spirit, hunger and thirst for righteousness), but Luke's version is pretty straightforwardly about actual poverty, hunger, wealth, reputation, etc.[/QUOTE]


Help me here.

I am just an average layman without the theological training many of you have, but when I read "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of GOD", that sounds spiritual to me. "Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man", that also sounds spiritual.

Thanks
Didn't get the quote thing right, I was trying to quote Rich in post #11

[Rich Schmidt]

Help me here.

I am just an average layman without the theological training many of you have, but when I read "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of GOD", that sounds spiritual to me. "Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man", that also sounds spiritual.

Thanks
Didn't get the quote thing right, I was trying to quote Rich in post #11

Yes, of course it's a "spiritual" conversation. But it's not talking about "spiritual" poverty. It's talking about plain old "regular" poverty, as in lack of money/resources/etc. The hunger is regular old hunger, as in lack of adequate food.

[Dwayne Petry]

Thanks Rich!

Is this an account of the same event by Matthew and Luke?

Thanks

[James Diggs]

Is this an account of the same event by Matthew and Luke?

Could be, though one is called a sermon on a hill and the other a plain. It seems likely to me that both are a compilation of things Jesus taught on various occasions with a small amount of editorializing by Matthew and Luke as they wrote from different perspectives and different audiences.

[Rich Schmidt]

Is this an account of the same event by Matthew and Luke?

Like James said, it could be. But I don't think that question is relevant to the conversation started in this thread.

[Larry Parsons]

Larry, I am astonished to say the least. I cannot believe I am having this discussion! This is so far fetched I can't even believe my own eyes reading this! I sure hope you'll never have to talk yourself out of the obvious meaning of this parable by these cunningly devised diversions in front of our Lord.

I hope you are honest but to me you sound like one who is trying every trick in the book in order not to have to understand what the Lord is saying here. That sounds like a very dangerous activity to me.

The brothers are there to emphasize that the current revelation of God in the Torah is already enough for anyone who WANTS to honestly read the Scriptures to know what to do, and that no special revelation whatsoever will make them change their mind.

Sadly enough, it also illustrates how the rich man, even in torment, only cares about his family (likely rich too), and not about the suffering ones in that live at his door. It is a very grim picture that Jesus is painting here.

Parables generally have an obvious meaning. The more one delves into details, the more one distorts that meaning. That's a sound rule of hermeneutics.
Hans, If the rich man was a real person in torment, don't you think God would be unjust to be tormenting him without him knowing why?And If the rich man knew why he was being tormented.Then he must have known that Lazarus couldn't bring any water to him.
If abraham bosom is used symbolic and not his literal bosom, then the rest of the parable must also be symbolic. You know this is the only parable in which some people try to make an allegory literal.Of course they don't want the whole story to be literal if they did, they would be teaching thing they don't believe.
Thanks
Larry P

[Shea Zellweger]

Hans, If the rich man was a real person in torment, don't you think God would be unjust to be tormenting him without him knowing why?And If the rich man knew why he was being tormented.Then he known that Lazarus couldn't bring any water to him.
If abraham bosom is used symbolic and not his literal bosom, then the rest of the parable must also be symbolic. You know this only parable in which some people try to make an allegory literal.Of course they don't want the whole story to be literal if they did they would be teaching thing they don't believe.
Thanks
Larry P

There is a difference between reading something "literally" and reading it for its clear meaning. "Abraham's bosom" would have been a common way of saying "heaven." "dressed in purple and fine linen" was a way of saying "he was rich." The lesson at the end is basically that we should not only be hearers of the word, but doers also. What Hans appears to be saying is that you are trying to ascribe a different meaning to the parable that is not there, but is rather a stringing together of different other Scriptures in an attempt to make it say what the reader wants it to say. Parables have plain meanings, and are intended as simple teaching devices. Yes, it's true that people had trouble understanding some of Jesus' parables, but he explained them to the disciples, and never with explanations so esoteric and covert as you have suggested for this particular parable.

[Larry Parsons]

There is a difference between reading something "literally" and reading it for its clear meaning. "Abraham's bosom" would have been a common way of saying "heaven." "dressed in purple and fine linen" was a way of saying "he was rich." The lesson at the end is basically that we should not only be hearers of the word, but doers also. What Hans appears to be saying is that you are trying to ascribe a different meaning to the parable that is not there, but is rather a stringing together of different other Scriptures in an attempt to make it say what the reader wants it to say. Parables have plain meanings, and are intended as simple teaching devices. Yes, it's true that people had trouble understanding some of Jesus' parables, but he explained them to the disciples, and never with explanations so esoteric and covert as you have suggested for this particular parable.

First, Jesus tells us that this man is clothed in purple and fine linen. I agree with you " dressed in purple and fine lined was to ay was rich" However, this type of clothing also has symbolic meaning. Bible Dictionary will tell you that "The wearing of purple was associated particularly with royalty and Bible Dictionary will also tell you that "The use of linen in OT times was prescribed for priests see(Ex. 28:39). The coat, turban and girdle must be of fine linen."
So you can see that the garments worn by this rich man were symbolic of royalty and the priesthood. Now with that in mind, look what God told Moses just before He gave the Law on Mount Sinai.
EXODUS 19:6 And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel.
I don't see why the clothing of the rich man couldn't be symbolical with the people of Israel, who God chose to be a special people. They were called to be a witness to the nations surrounding them, confirming the blessings available to those who would obey God and keep His laws. Unfortunately, they just didn't live up to their high calling
Thanks
Larry P
P.S.
"Abraham's bosom" would have been a common way of saying "heaven." It was another was of Kingdom. turn to Matthew 8:11 it is here Jesus is speaking of the Kingdom when he mention Abraham, but the sons or the children of the kingdom (who the rich man repersent) shall be cast out into outer darkness. This another way of saying that Jews would no longer be God a covennt people. See what Jesus the religion leader in matt,21:43 The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is showing the end of the Jewish nation as God chosen people. Just because i have different take on this parable doesn't mean I'm against helping those who are need.
LP

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, If the rich man was a real person in torment, don't you think God would be unjust to be tormenting him without him knowing why?And If the rich man knew why he was being tormented.Then he must have known that Lazarus couldn't bring any water to him.
If abraham bosom is used symbolic and not his literal bosom, then the rest of the parable must also be symbolic. You know this is the only parable in which some people try to make an allegory literal.Of course they don't want the whole story to be literal if they did, they would be teaching thing they don't believe.
Thanks
Larry P

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Would it be ok with you if I leave this conversation?

[Larry Parsons]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Would it be ok with you if I leave this conversation?
Hans,It ok, but what I was trying to do show you that Lk.16:19-31 should only be viewed as a parable, and here another example why this story can't be literally. If this story is true OK, then we have a bible example of someone praying to a man (Saint) as if he were God. Something that we used to our Catholic friend that shouldn't be doing. Believe it or not this parable is saying the very samething as the wicked vinegrowers parable. Both parable is showing the end of the Jewish nation as God's chosen people. See Matt,21:43-45 ;24:2 and Lk,13:28
Thanks
Larry P

[James Diggs]

Both parable is showing the end of the Jewish nation as God's chosen people.

This comes out in almost every thread you participate in as your primary lens and focus; despite the fact that no one has in any way affirmed your interpretation you find ways to push this regardless to what the thread is actually about.

[Larry Parsons]

This comes out in almost every thread you participate in as your primary lens and focus; despite the fact that no one has in any way affirmed your interpretation you find ways to push this regardless to what the thread is actually about.
James, Just because no one has affirmed my interpretation that doesn't mean that I'm wrong it just mean that people may not being agree wih me.ha It seem to me we have lot people that believe that it is un-christian to believe that God would take vengance upon the Jews that murder his Son. And the only reason got on the subject this time I was trying defend my interpreatation of Luke,16:19-31
Thanks
Larry P.

[James Diggs]

It seem to me we have lot people that believe that it is un-christian to believe that God would take vengance upon the Jews that murder his Son.

Yea, I would be one of those that believe such an idea is "un-Christian". The whole idea really undermines the redemptive purpose of the cross. If you disagree and want to talk about it more I suggest you start a thread on the topic rather than continue with such an idea here.


And the only reason got on the subject this time I was trying defend my interpreatation of Luke,16:19-31.

What you're "defending" is your own eisegesis of the text where you put on a lens that sees that sort of thing everywhere you can squeeze it in.

I would really like to get back to Luke 6 and deal with the weight of it for us all rather than get side tracked by trying to make all this about God somehow getting vengeance on the Jews.