Today we wrap up this week's theme: Hard Sayings of Jesus.
We saw all of these sayings make sense when viewed with respect to profitability...God's metric for reward and salvation (remember these two are completely separate).
However, these sayings are initially tough to understand and look contradictory because we believe God values APPEARANCE. This may even make some people so uncomfortable they will try to change the meaning and/or words in the Bible to fit their perspective...to make a good APPEARANCE. When this happens it is proof we are following tradition in place of the Word of God.
Recently, a pastor stated publicly, "The Bible and God would never tell anyone to harm their own children."
This makes a good APPEARANCE of the Bible...however Genesis 22:1-2 says:
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
What was the result of God telling Abraham to offer Isaac for a burnt offering?
"And the angel of the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:15-18)
Profitability was the result! Notice, God's focus was focused on if Abraham was willing to offer everything to God...and his son was the proof. This story also points us towards Jesus...because God DID offer up His Son unto death. So there are TWO incidents...
Remember, this as we look at today's topic: community. Jesus' words and intent are consistent with the Old Testament AND what was going to happen in His life.
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29-30)
The objective and metric is profitability. Overall profitability is MORE important to God than one member...IF that member makes the whole body unprofitable.
Notice, having a part that makes the WHOLE body unprofitable is different than valuing uniqueness. Paul recognizes some parts have more need (are less profitable), but these parts are not making the whole body unprofitable:
“For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” (I Corinthians 12:14-26)
Paul is saying the PURPOSE of the BODY is to make everyone MORE profitable than they could be by themselves. Paul celebrates uniqueness when he rhetorically asks if the whole body was the same part how would the body be able to be profitable.
The non-contradictory definition of "community" is "three or more people who can accomplish something more than they could separately".
The "something" determines the type of community. If the "something" is serving coffee...then the "community" is a coffeehouse.
Church is a type of community. Notice, there are churches that exist who are trying to create community. They have it backwards! They are a community and the "something" determines if they are a church and/or what type of church they are.
Yesterday, we looked at Matthew 18 from the beginning of the chapter up to the verses about dealing with a brother who won't hear...a member of the church that is unprofitable. You may want to read the rest of the chapter. In fact, there are three more verses that complete Jesus' answer to the question posed in verse 1. What is the last verse of Jesus' answer? What is His conclusion?
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)
Jesus will make up the third or fourth person when at least TWO are gathered in His name. Jesus will make it a community. Jesus will make it profitable. Jesus will make it CHURCH. Jesus explains the process to stop the church from being unprofitable...then He assures us He will do His part to make church profitable! He is PERFECT. This is an objective statement that can be PROVEN...there is NO way to be more profitable than what Jesus stated.
(Defining the "something" that results in church will have to wait until another time. However, if you have some time think to yourself what that "something" OUGHT to be that defines a community type as "church". Also, ask people who use the word "community" to define it...you may be shocked at the lack of answers you will get.)
Taking the two passages together, we see that there are three levels of profitability:
-Profitable is when a member creates more through exchanging value through its uniqueness with other members through their uniqueness.
-Need is when a member can't survive unless he or she creates more through exchanging value through its uniqueness with other members through their uniqueness.
-Unprofitable is when a member consumes more than they produce and is unable to create with others enough to exceed what they consume...eventually making the entire body unprofitable.
Yesterday, we saw how Jesus taught a process for dealing with an unprofitable member of the body. The process had a maximum of three steps with the last step being removing the member from the body. Taking everything we have looked it, this process is focused on DETERMINING if the member is profitable, in need, or unprofitable. The PROOF they are unprofitable is that they won't hear...they won't interact...they won't exchange. There is NO WAY to be profitable without an exchange according to uniqueness.
Now let's look at some hard sayings that have to do with Jesus determining who HE has community with.
“And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.” (Mark 3:33-35)
Jesus is saying that His community isn't driven by APPEARANCE or tradition...it is driven by who is DOING the Will of God...who is profitable.
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
We covered this in the effects of love post...hate means "to love less". Anyone loving ANYONE else MORE than God cannot follow Jesus. This is the same mentality God had with Abraham over Isaac. Notice, this verse mentioned "wife". This explanation softens the APPEARANCE of this saying. Would Jesus REALLY say ANYTHING that would come between a husband and a wife? Actually, Jesus had a really HARD saying concerning wife and kids. It is Luke 18:29,30.
“And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,..."
What is the rest of the verse? Taking everything you have learned about LEADERSHIP and Jesus, what is the rest of this statement? What will it be focused on?
"...Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time,..."
Jesus offered a value! He is focused on profitability! In fact, Jesus says "manifold more". It sounds like it is A LOT more profitable. Notice Jesus is using quantitative language (manifold, more). Leaving something for the kingdom of God's sake results in a value...in this case a Reward.
But wait...there's MORE!
"...and in the world to come life everlasting.”
Jesus offers ANOTHER value! This time it is Salvation! Reward AND Salvation for leaving your wife and kids for the kingdom of God's sake!
Obviously, the ONLY way someone would do this is if God told them (GRACE)...and the PROOF that it was God would be profitability.
Most pastors and teachers don't teach these hard sayings of the Bible because they are afraid people will do them for the wrong reason. The way to make sure people don't do it for the wrong reason is to explain OBJECTIVELY what the RIGHT reason is...to be able to give a reason and a value that is non-contradictory. To be able to explain how God's objective measure (profitability).
However, it is better for these pastors and teachers NOT to teach the WHOLE Bible if they don't understand what they are talking about...if they don't have answers.
SUMMARY
Jesus (and the Bible) have A LOT of HARD passages that appear contradictory. Most pastors and teachers won't teach on these verses...let alone mention them. And most that DO teach on these change the meaning or water down the impact. Their focus is on APPEARANCE...TRADITION...IS.
However, these passages are in the Bible to point us towards God's metric: PROFITABILITY. The ONLY way to interpret these passages in a non-contradictory manner is to view them from the perspective of profitability.
Bonus Jesus Saying: Tradition has defined "grace" (charis) as "unmerited favor". The Greek word for "unmerited favor" is not "charis". Charis is "the divine influence on the heart and its reflection in the life". One of my favorite passages for a preacher or teacher to explain is when JESUS says to Paul "My Grace is Sufficient". The ONLY way to explain the ENTIRE situation in a non-contradictory manner is to view it from profitability...from Reward. The ONLY way pastors and teachers can explain it with "unmerited favor" is to omit key portions of the situation. Click the link and see for yourself.
The choice is yours: tradition or the Word of God.
Next Post
18 comments:
If you are going to assert something as truth, have the guts to identify yourself. Tim Snell did...
For the rest of you...the first two posts were replicates posted by "Anonymous".
I have the post and will share it with everyone because it makes for a great teaching aid. However, in the meantime, I would ask "Anonymous" some questions (in case they come back):
1. Did you write this or get it from Tim Snell?
2. Are you affiliated with Tim Snell's church (Christ's Church of the Valley)?
3. Do you think this is Christian behavior?
Tim knows the next two steps are:
1. Get a group of pastors to meet with me
2. Give his hermeneutical process for interpreting Ephesians 2:8.
I am and have always been willing to meet with Tim Snell anytime...
Why delete the comment? Are you afraid of the truth? Afraid to discuss things openingly on your blog?
BTW, isn't it true that you sometimes use pseudonyms to hide your identity when you post comments elsehwere?
I embrace the truth. The post was misleading and by people who are not interested in standing up for it publicly.
I don't post under "anonymous"...which is not a pseudonym.
I've answered your questions...as I always strive to do.
Now show us your heart and objectives by responding (or not responding) to my questions.
I have posted under screen names, etc.
I've never hidden my identity when asked.
By the way, my response to Tim's work is in the "Rebuttal" post on this blog. It is public and documents that Tim intentionally misrepresented and misquoted "Modeling God". Read that and make your comments over there.
How was the original post misleading. 85% was either quoting you directly from this blog post...or quoting numerous Greek sources disagreeing with you.
And no - you haven't answered my questions. Have you ever taken any courses on Greek? If so, how many credit hours? What institutions? Any courses on Hermeneutics.
I think you are afraid to have that post up because multiple Greek sources refute what you claim.
The Devil quoted the Bible...so 100% of what was quoted was from God...yet it still wasn't truth.
What is your objective? Is it to create or destroy?
IF you are interested in creating, take this to the rebuttal post.
I haven't taken any credit hours of Greek, etc. I have spent 14 years studying the Bible and talking with "experts". My information is public on this blog.
You have yet to answer the questions.
I don't want to hide anything because God sees everything. We will all be judged. To think that Christians can get away with being un-Christian and destroying is a belief that God has lower expectations for us than for unbelievers.
Please use all your hermeneutical skills to explain how your actions are justified.
If you don't want to hide anything, why don't you repost the post you deleted? There is nothing destructive in that post unless you are afraid of what the Greek actually says.
I will post it when I can go through it point by point for the public...otherwise it is misleading.
Some people can't tell the difference between what I write and what others write...then they quote the assertion of facts by others as if I wrote it. I have deleted posts before that have done this.
So I will post it and I will show how the thought process is contradictory...
Now there is the issue of you answering the questions. It is time to show your morality...
Will you answer the questions or not?
I didn't think you had taken any Greek.
As I thought, you wouldn't allow the direct quote from Vine's, Strong's Exhaustive, or other sources...or really anything that might refute your claims. That is a sign of a very weak argument.
I didn't take any Greek courses for credit. Your interpretation skills are lacking.
The sign of a weak argument is avoidance and contradiction...
Tim Snell told people to buy a CS Lewis book instead of my book. What was CS Lewis' background? How much Greek did he take? Where did he get his theology degree? Tim Snell publicly declared CS Lewis the "expert"...
CS Lewis wasn't a Greek "expert", yet Tim considers him to be a source. Likewise, taking courses in Greek doesn't PROVE understanding.
As for avoidance, apparently, you are choosing not to answer the question after being given several chances. If you don't answer with your next post, I'm taking that as a sign you are either unable or unwilling...
Take it as you will. Your unwillingness to repost the first post shows your fear of people actually knowing the truth and deciding for themselves. It is when TRUTH contradicts you that you have the problem...not when you do not contradict yourself (even though what you are saying has no basis in truth.)
BTW, I'm not writing about Tim's work...I'm writing about the last paragraph of YOUR blog from last Friday. Sounds like you are too afraid to discuss that.
Speaking of avoidance...look who is avoiding posting and discussing the first post. You violate your own rules.
Yesterday, sitemeter recorded two hits between 10 AM and 1 PM.
There was a hit that began at 10:23 AM from an unknown location that had two page views.
There was a hit that began at 11:31AM that had three page views and went for fifteen minutes.
There wasn't another post for well over 90 minutes.
The original two posts on this thread that ended with "I find myself in agreement with pastor Snell's refutation of your work." occurred during the session that began at 11:31 AM.
The location?
"66.202.72.# (christ church of the valley)"
It ACTUALLY NAMED Tim's church!!!!
Someone on a computer located at Pastor Tim's church wrote that post. Who has access to computers at Christ Church of the Valley? What is the real reason they find themself in agreement with Pastor Snell?
Numbers 32:23:
"But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out."
I'm still going to post the original comment and go through it for the public, but I will also include this thread because it demonstrates a heart attitude held by our current "Christian leaders".
Where in the Bible is it a sin to post anonymously or under a pseudonym. You yourself acknowledge you do it. Can you give me the book, chapter and verse on that one?
Come on John,
Deal with the Post...not who is writing something or where it is written from. That is a red herring - a form of illogical argumentation and debate. Deal with the arguments in an open discussion. Or can you?
Post a Comment