All praise to the grumpy God!

[Luke1433]

Hi Bocannes. I'm very sorry. I totally mis-read this line: "My churches have never treated me or anyone else differently for what they give." I read it in the context of my later question about whether or not Jesus said to give our money to our pastors, and so when I read you saying "my churches" I pictured you as a pastor referring to the churches as your churches, and I assumed that you were saying something about the people and how they treated you as a pastor. Please forgive me for that fairly stupid mistake.

Similarly, what you have quoted of my original question could be taken (on its own) to argue that I was asking about HOW people should give, rather than what they should give. However, on that one, I would like to bring in the context. We were talking about tithing (i.e. giving one-tenth of our money to the church) as opposed to giving just whatever we felt led to give. I was searching for how much Jesus expected his followers to give... and later, I asked to whom he told them to give it.

Here is the context of the question that I directed to you: "Jesus was aware of what the Old Testament taught about tithing. But he never told his disciples to tithe. Nor did he tell them to just give whatever they felt "led" to give. Do you know what he told his disciples to do...?"


But then, you already knew that, didn't you, since I reiterated it in my previous post, when I said: "I wanted to know if Jesus told his disciples to give 10%, or whether maybe he used some other description for how much he wanted them to give. I also asked TO WHOM did he tell them to give their wealth?"

Would it be fair to say that you have NOT answered those two questions? Is there any particular reason why you have not?

 

[candle glow]

In regard to tithing, it has been my experience, as a Christian since 1972, to witness a dramatic change in attitude and attention toward me by pastors of any particular fellowship once I begin to give.

I don't think it's totally black or what. My opinion of a person who is willing to give would be different from someone else who is UNwilling to give.

However, different people have different things to share. We can give material resources (like money or the things money can buy) be we can also offer our time (in the form of skills/services).

The real questions are, what we should be giving, whom we should be giving it too, and how much of it we should be giving.

Jesus' answers to these questions are fairly standard across the board, and yet he also said that his words are spirit. I believe the spirit is able to look at each individual and make judgments based on their personal situations.

But, what I've also experienced is that people generally tend to view themselves as the exception based on "God knows my heart" type reasoning.

 

[Luke1433]

"I wanted to know if Jesus told his disciples to give 10%, or whether maybe he used some other description for how much he wanted them to give. I also asked TO WHOM did he tell them to give their wealth?"

Just thought I would ask it again. I think we all know the answer, but some people do not want to acknowledge it.

 

[bocannes]

Luke1433
No harm done. It's not a stupid mistake. I just wanted to point out that none of the believers I have community with have shown such a side. And that kind of topic (unrelated to Jesus's teaching) is what I wanted to avoid.

If I haven't answered, it's because you have a specific answer you want to hear. I think you should just say it, which is why I asked you - because I want to know what you think. I gave you the answer I had but this answer you want is something you said you've never heard preached. So why not answer my question? I believe I answered more than just "how".

From what I recall, He said to use it to help the poor and needy (the "whom"). However, I don't believe you will find any instance of Jesus giving a specific formula on this topic, which is why I didn't think it was a very good one to discuss His teachings. To some people He told them to give all, to some He did not. Jesus taught that the core issue is the heart of the person giving.

Lastly, there's no need to post questions again. I appreciate your interest and I hadn't forgotten.

 

[bocannes]

candle glow

But, what I've also experienced is that people generally tend to view themselves as the exception based on "God knows my heart" type reasoning.

Good point. That is why discipline is a good idea (and biblical). And yes, I don't think there's just a black-and-white giving formula for us to follow. I don't believe God is legalistic - a view that is very much in the teachings of Jesus!

 

[Luke1433]

Perhaps, Bocannes, you can give some references from the teachings of Jesus which "very much" emphasise that God is not legalistic about how much he expects people to give.

BTW, the "formula" that I have found "very much" repeated in the gospels is "all that we have".

Luke 14:33. "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he has cannot be my disciple." Sounds a tad bit "legalistic".

Paul had good stuff to say about the O.T. law, but I never see him or anyone else in the Bible applying it to what Jesus taught... though I can accept in theory that one could be guilty of missing the spirit of something that Jesus said through some kind of literal distortion. On the whole, however, we are told that the law came through Moses but TRUTH came through Jesus. It seems to be the truths in his teachings that people want to discard, on the grounds that they are legalistic. But I do not see anything in his teachings to suggest that he does NOT mean exactly what he says. (I DO accept that some things he says appear to be poetic, e.g. "drink my blood". But that doesn't seem to be the case with instructions like, "Go and sell what you have, and give the proceeds to the poor.") Pretty clear stuff.

 

[bocannes]

My statement about not being legalistic was in general - not specific to giving. Look at His interactions with the Pharisees. Matthew 23:23, John 8:1-11, Luke 14:1-6, etc. They try to justify themselves by exacting laws without mercy, compassion and love. All throughout the Bible, God admonishes us to show those. Jesus tells us that even if we don't physically murder or commit adultery (legally 'clean'), we can commit sins in our heart.

Luke 11:41, Jesus says to be generous. He does not say give away everything. Luke 19:1-10. When Zacchaeus, the tax collector declares he will give away half his possessions, does Jesus say it's not enough? No. He calls him "a son of Abraham" and declares that "salvation has come to this house".

In Matthew 19:17-21, Jesus tells the rich man to give up everything. But that is to demonstrate the man's heart and the danger of wealth. In that same passage Jesus affirms the commandments (from the Old Testament), which the man says he has followed. Jesus didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Look at Mark 12:28-31. Again, Jesus confirms that what was written in the OT was true and important. He uses it to confirm marriage in Mark 10. Truth is also in the OT because it also is about God (Luke 24:44). We need both, just like acts and faith are inseparable but faith is paramount.

Luke 14:33 is not legalistic. It's dramatic and attached to the parable from 31-32. Consider the preceding Luke 14:26-27. We do not literally need to carry a cross nor everyone forsake family. Jesus is saying that nothing can be more important to us than God. It doesn't mean He will literally ask us to give up everything (though He may). In Mark 5:18-19, the man who was healed by Jesus begs to go with Him. But Jesus tells him to instead go back home and tell people what God has done for him.

 

[Luke1433]

I watched a murder mystery last night, and the detective said, "I'm always most interested in the questions that people avoid answering." Certainly no one can be forced to answer questions, but one is entitled to guess why they would refuse to answer.

I inquired as to whether Jesus had set a standard for how much of our wealth we should give to God (in the context of some saying that we should give ten percent). Obviously, the answer is right there in Luke 14:33:

"Whoever does not forsake all that he owns cannot be a Christian."

And the context makes it clear that Jesus is quite serious about that. He was not just talking to the rich young ruler, but he was talking to the multitudes, and he said that one's faith would become little more than a laughing-stock if we did not take him seriously in what he was saying. His disciples forsook all that they had... their families, their jobs, their homes, so they apparently understood what he meant.

Bocannes, there is a lot of waffle in what you have written, but if Jesus did not literally tell the multitudes that they need to forsake everything that they own to be a Christian, then we need to inform a lot of Bible translators about the mistakes they have made with Luke 14:33. I don't see anywhere that Jesus is saying, "I don't mean this literally, so don't get too upset if you find it a bit inconvenient to actually obey me."

The arguments about exceptions abound, but they do not disprove the rule. Take Zacchaeus, for example. He only said that he would give HALF of his wealth to the poor. (How many of us have even done that?) So it becomes a good excuse to revert back to ten percent as the rule... or even less, as in "whatever you feel 'led' to give". But take a closer look at what Zacchaeus did. The Bible tells us what he did with the other half. Tax collectors in those days made much of their profit by over-charging people. If they could convince someone that they owed 200 shekels when Caesar only expected 100, they could keep the difference. So much of Zacchaeus' wealth had come from doing that. Consequently, he announced that he was going to repay the people he had cheated by SEVEN TIMES what he had taken. If that did not take the other 50% of his wealth, I would say it took something pretty close to that.

Yeah, sure, there probably was room for the disciples to keep the clothes on their backs when they left all to follow Jesus, but that's not really what most professing Christians are dealing with today. They are, instead, generally finding that they are not even prepared to give a 10% token donation to God (as required in the Old Testament), much less the 100% that Jesus expected of his followers in the New Testament. Far from getting the spirit of what Jesus was saying each time he compared his standards with those of the Old Testament, the church today has tended to throw standards out altogether, so that people can cheat, lie, steal, commit adulter, and do almost anything else they like as long as they put something in the collection plate on Sunday.

If Jesus was not literal about exceeding the standards of the old testament, we need to ask ourselves if ANYTHING can be taken literally in the Bible. Maybe he only figuratively died. Or perhaps he only figuratively existed? Is that the way things are heading?

 

[bocannes]

Oh, I know Jesus did express exceeding OT standards and I stated that. There is much that Jesus said to be taken literally. I would not argue that, either. But do you follow Matthew 23:9, for example?

Sorry, I simply think you're wrong. Luke 14:33 is attached to a parable. You are taking it out of context.

 

[bocannes]

Funny that you should mention not answering questions, since you did exactly that. I'll also add that your extrapolation for Zacchaeus is flimsy and certainly not in the text. Anyway, you just don't understand what I am saying.

You seem perfectly convinced that you have the answers and then you don't need my thoughts or contributions. That's not a discussion. So, I won't be contributing to this thread anymore.

 

[candle glow]

hi bocannes. Although you've said you won't contribute here anymore, I'd still like to respond to some of what you've said (for the sake of anyone else looking on).

I'll also add that your extrapolation for Zacchaeus is flimsy and certainly not in the text.

I think luke said Zac agreed to pay people back 7 times, but the text actually says "fourfold" so although he was mistaken about that, the text DOES say that Zac gave up half his wealth and then announced that he'd pay back any man he cheated, 4 times over again. (luke 19:1-10)

It seems like you are trying too hard to see nothing where there is something.

But do you follow Matthew 23:9, for example?

This is a place where Jesus teaches the crowd about people giving themselves special titles, and using those titles to flatter and lift one another up. Jesus then commands that we should NOT use these kind of titles for one another because of those reasons. He specifically includes "master" and "father" and follows this up with exhortations about whoever exalts himself being humbled and whomever humbles himself being exalted.

Why do you think this teaching should not be followed literally, Bocannes, or what gives you the impression that this is a non-literal teaching?

With all these examples, it starts to look like you'd have a problem with taking any teaching literally, which involves discipline or sacrifice.

Sorry, I simply think you're wrong. Luke 14:33 is attached to a parable. You are taking it out of context.

In luke 14:28-32 Jesus tells a parable about people who start something, but then are not able to finish. Then in verse 33 he says, "likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

See that word, "likewise"? All parables have lessons. What Jesus does in verse 33 is to explain the lesson of the parable he just told. In other words, don't claim to be a follower of God while rejecting the discipline that comes with it. If you are not willing to go all the way for God then it's better than you not even start. Count the cost. The cost is everything.

 

[Luke1433]

Bocannes, discussing is neither hurling insults nor storming off in protest if someone disagrees with you. If I failed to answer a question that you asked, you are free to form your own theories for why I did it. (Is a simple oversight one of the possibilities?)

With regard to my question about what standard Jesus set, I asked the question several times and then you stated that you had deliberately refused to answer it... without an explanation as to why.

Not, the extrapolation about Zacchaeus is NOT flimsy, and some of it does come from the actual text... text that you left out. The text says (of the other half of his wealth) that he repaid the people from whom he has stolen seven times more than what he had stolen.

Nor have I interpreted Luke 14:33 contrary to the context in which it appears. In fact, the context only strengthens my argument that Jesus was telling people to count the cost of discipleship before they started shouting Lord, Lord!

But then, you know that already, don't you?

 

[Luke1433]

Bocannes, engaging in a discussion neither requires people to hurl insults nor to storm off in protest if someone disagrees with us.

The extrapolation for Zacchaeus was certainly not flimsy, and it was clearly based on the text (some of which you left out when trying to imply that he kept 50% of his wealth for his own personal use). The text says of the other half of his wealth that he repaid all of the people whom he had cheated while collecting taxes SEVEN TIMES what he had taken from them. I simply stated how much tax collectors in those days depended on cheating to boost their income.

Likewise, I did not take Luke 14:33 out of context. It is eminently SUPPORTED by the context, as Jesus was urging people to count the cost before pretending to be his followers, and he finished by saying that if the "salt" is taken out of what he taught, then those teachings become pretty much useless.

Finally, you asked if I follow what Jesus taught in Matthew 23:9:

9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father,(A) and he is in heaven.

Yes, I do try to follow that command. It's one of the easiest ones that he gave, so why not follow it?