Andrew said:
Works for me and many others.
Sounds like pragmatism, Andrew.
So i guess we can't use testimonies. Boils down to the Word again. Boils down to your 'right' interpretaion vs my 'right' interpretation doesnt it.
Yes, interpretation is the key to a lot of these problems. But even if we can't get at the right interpretation all the time, we can at least debunk a good many wrong ones. The traditional WoF interpretation of the hundredfold passages is, in my opinion, very obviously wrong.
Take a look at the passage, then read its context.
29 Jesus said, Most assuredly I tell you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for my sake, and for the gospels sake, 30 but he will receive one hundred times more now in this time, houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and land, with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life.
(1).To begin with,
Jesus assures us that no one will fail to appropriate this blessing. No mention is made of having to know about, believe or claim this promise that I can see. Jesus guarantee is stated quite simply:
No one who has done all this will fail to receive all these things in this present age. But has
everybody who has left these things for Christs sake received a hundred of each again? There is certainly no record of the apostles acquiring such riches - far from it! (1Cor. 4:9-13) - and such an extraordinary blessing could hardly be hushed up. It is difficult enough citing examples of
anybody who has received such a remarkable increase, let alone asserting that
everybody who follows the formula will be rewarded with a hundred times more.
(2).
Nobody can literally receive a hundred fathers or mothers. It is, of course, quite impossible that any man should be blessed with an additional set of biological parents to replace the parents he may have left behind, let alone a hundred more. But this interpretation has committed itself to a literal and privatised reading of Christs promise. If Jesus
literally promised to give (up to?) a hundred houses into the personal possession of anyone who has given up his home for the gospels sake, then he also
literally promised to give (up to?) a hundred mothers to anyone who, for Christs sake, has been obliged to leave his mother behind. But this is clearly impossible.
(3).
The rich young ruler did not become His disciple. If Jesus was offering to supply numerous homes, vast quantities of real estate and a 100 to 1 return on financial investments into His ministry, it is very strange that, in the light of such a lucrative deal, the rich young ruler went away sad, because he had great wealth (22). And if he was unaware of this promise, why did Jesus leave him in his ignorance, allowing him to walk away under the false impression that He was being called to sacrifice, let go of His selfish autonomy, follow Christ alone and trust God instead for the things he would need along the way? Perhaps this is the worst oversight.
Apart from these major obstacles to this (materialistic) reading of the passage, I think there are further objections that must be raised against the way it is commonly used to bolster a prosperity gospel:
(1).
Jesus does not teach His disciples to give up everything in order to obtain greater material possessions. Rather, these disciples have been obliged to let go of all of these things, both
for my sake (Jn, 6:68) and
for the sake of the gospel (Mk. 10:29). Jesus is not extending this assurance as a means to get rich, but reiterating the biblical promise that God will never leave them nor forsake them, no matter what they may be called to give up.
(2).
If Jesus was promising a one hundredfold return on our money, then one Christian who invested ten pounds several times over would soon be in possession of all the worlds wealth! The assertion that this one hundredfold return is available to claim for our investments into the gospel is mathematically absurd: Ten pounds at a one hundred fold return would make one thousand, one thousand reinvested would make one hundred thousand
and after only six successful reinvestments of his money, the fortunate Christian who had learned to work this profitable system would be in possession of more wealth than is actually available on this planet! Another hopeless contradiction.
(3).
The promise that our giving will receive a hundredfold ultimately fails the reality test. Whilst it is, no doubt, possible that God might enrich someone with a hundred times more than they presently possess, have given, or have been obliged to sacrifice, there are few (if any) who can truly testify that this has happened to them. The persistent failure of this formula alone makes this interpretation of the passage extremely suspect. Its potentially damaging impact on a young converts faith (and spirituality) makes it pastorally harmful.
(4).
The Bible clearly warns us against greed and accumulating a large number of possessions (Ps. 119:36; Pro. 1:19; 23:4; Is. 5:8; 56:11; Mat. 6:19; Luk. 12:15,34; Php. 3:19; 1Tim. 6:5; Jam. 4:2-3 etc.). Where teachers misuse this scripture (and indeed, other scriptures) to promise or to justify luxurious living and the mass accumulation of material possessions, they do the body of Christ a dreadful disservice and compromise its prophetic voice.
Whilst Christians can be assured of Gods provision and God does make some people rich (but see 1Tim. 6:17), Yahweh would be a feeble God if He permitted His people to play Him like a rigged jackpot machine. I believe that there does exist a godly and more moderate dynamic of giving and receiving in the scriptures (and on a much firmer basis of Old and New Testament texts). But I think we would do well to remember the advice of J. Ellul who warns us against making Gods kingdom an object of shrewd calculation, for God does not like schemers, and he never gives them what they have banked on.
More than 100-fold return!
)
