The rest of the story

Has this ever happened to you... You're reading your Bible and come across a familiar passage.  You are subconsciously nodding along, recognizing the truths you are reading.  And then, POW!  Where did that verse come from?  God lays a new truth on you that has been there all along, you just missed it until now.

I had that experience this weekend.

I came across this familiar passage in Luke:

Luke 12:22-31 (ESV)
²² And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. ²³ For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. ²⁴ Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! ²⁵ And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? ²⁶ If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? ²⁷ Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. ²⁸ But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! ²⁹ And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. ³⁰ For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. ³¹ Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.

This is a great passage about stress and worry.  God is sovereign.  He will meet all of your needs.  Seek His Kingdom and everything else will be taken care of.

I've heard many lessons and sermons on this passage and I was nodding along as I read.

Then, I had to read the rest of the story...

Luke 12:32-34 (ESV)
³² "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. ³³ Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. ³⁴ For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Can you see the verse that struck me between the eyes?  Verse 32 is comforting.  Verse 34 is a truth that is often preached and well known.  Who's going to argue with that?

However, what is up with verse 33?  Sure, I know that Jesus challenged the rich young ruler to sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor.  That's because He was dealing with that rich guy's heart.  But who is Jesus talking to here?

I am more than happy to claim the "don't worry, be happy" message here, but can Jesus really be talking to me about selling my possessions and giving to the needy?  He must mean I need to be prepared to do that if "called." 

Right?

Or does He mean what He says?

Red Letter Theology

2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

I was reading some blog comments the other day about Christianity and homosexuality. One of the comments in support of accepting the homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable Christian lifestyle was that Jesus never condemned homosexual behavior in the Gospels. The point being made was that since Jesus was silent on the issue, this overrides whatever may have been stated in the Old Testament or in Paul's Epistles.

I've seen this logic used more than once and it's been gnawing at me for the last couple of weeks. I think what bothers me so much about this errant view of the Bible is that I've used this logic myself in the past to justify my own sins. It's a favorite practice of Christians to lean on the parts of the Bible that agree with our views on life but not on the parts of the Bible that disagree with our own bias.

My point here is not to argue the homosexual issue (I've raised that issue in a couple of other posts and comments if your interested - God Loves Gays, Seinfeld, Comment). I'm not saying that there cannot be strong arguments on both sides of a particular interpretation of scripture. My point here, is that you should not use Jesus' silence on an issue in the Gospels to override other biblical principles and truths.

There are probably many positions on the scope of the authority of scripture. For my case against what I am calling "red letter theology" I'll just assume a couple of broad views. One view is that all scripture is the infallible, inerrant word of God. An opposing view would be that the Bible was written by men, highly spiritual men, but men that had a personal and cultural bias included in what they wrote. Therefore, the Bible is not without its faults and is not infallible and inerrant.

If you hold to the first view, then you cannot put more weight on the Gospels and less on the rest of the Bible. It is all God inspired and it is all God's words, whether written in red or black ink. There is a NewTestament  covenant that has replaced the Mosaic law. However, we know this because the Bible declares this. Not because there are issues in the Old Testament not addressed in the New Testament.

If Moses said it, God said it. If Paul said it, God said it. If you don't believe this then you have to admit that you do not hold to the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible.

The other broad view is that Bible is holy but not infallible and inerrant. However, even with this view, putting more weight on the Gospels than on other parts of the Bible is not logically sound. The Gospels were not written by Jesus. They were written by men that could have just as much personal and cultural bias in their accounts of what Jesus said as Paul has in his letters.

If you disagree with how a principle discussed in the Bible should be applied in our culture today, then do your homework and pray. God did not intend for His truth to be hidden from those that seek it. However, don't take the lazy way out by declaring everything is good that wasn't explicitly called out as evil by Jesus in the Gospels.

Let's not forget, Jesus made a point about speaking against man-made pharisaic interpretations of the Old Testament. If silence is to be given more weight to a particular view, then the case should be made that silence means agreement, not opposition.

Did God Really Say That?

Genesis 3:1 (ESV)
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

The question you might hear today is, "Did Jesus really say if you are not a Christian you are going to hell?"

John 14:6 (ESV)
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Notice the similarities. In Genesis 3:1 the devil misquotes God and asks if God really said that. Eve falls for the trap.

New Age thinking wants us to believe that God's kingdom is open to all who seek it, regardless of the path they choose. So the misquoted question asks if Jesus really said you needed to be a Christian to have eternal life rather than is Jesus the only way.

This is a subtle twist to God's word that opens you up for a greater lie that you may want to believe. Eve wanted to believe that she really could eat the fruit because it looked good.

"Christian" is a label and often misused. However, Jesus is not vague when he says He is the only way that we can be saved, regardless of what we really want to believe.

God gave us a mind and wants us to ponder and meditate on his word. However, don't add vagueness where there is clarity.

Before questioning God's word on a passage that is clear on the surface, ask yourself, "Why am I questioning this?" Is it because if it is true, you can't have or do what you want to do?