We often miss Jesus' tough message about money because we hear only the parts we want to believe.
Jesus had more to say about money than both heaven and hell, but he didn’t have much good to say about it. Specifically, Jesus was quick to judge people with money. He put it simply in Luke 6:24, “But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.” The “woe” statement is a prophetic announcement that judgment is coming. He assumed the wealthy in first-Century Israel had done something wrong to deserve judgment.
We often miss Jesus' tough message about money because we hear only the parts we want to believe.
Jesus is not the “Messiah” people want: Mark’s Gospel redefines the dominant King the disciples expected
The Gospel of Mark hinges on a climactic turning point. After Jesus spends 8 chapters doing miracles that only the Son of God would do, the disciples finally figure out who he is. While other Israelites thought he was a special prophet like Jeremiah or Elijah, Peter proclaimed in Mark 8:29, “You are the Messiah.” That identification changes the trajectory and content of Mark’s Gospel.
Everything leading up to Mark 8:29 is designed to reveal who Jesus is, but everything afterwards redefines what the disciples think about the Messiah. Jesus immediately begins to correct their assumptions about what the Messiah will do. “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). Jesus had to teach them about his torturous destiny over and over again (Mark 9:12, 31-32; 10:33-34). Why? Because the disciples already thought the Messiah would kill all the bad guys, not get killed by them.
On October 3, 2017, my dad Gary Penley died. I had the kind of relationship sons long to have with their fathers. I wish more people could have dads like mine, and I wish I could have had my dad for a little bit longer. I have never felt such a debilitating pain in my gut, such a gaping hole in my heart. I can't imagine how the trembling, the love, or the loss will ever fade. Right now I can only limp forward carrying the legacy and lore of a dad I loved more than any other man on this earth. I can only listen to years of voicemails from a dad who wanted nothing more than to connect and make this kid feel like a king.
I wrote and presented this eulogy at his funeral in Momence, IL on October 9, 2017. I share it with you to motivate, to move you, to paint the picture of how great an imperfect parent can be.
Some of you knew my dad as a friend, a boss, a birder, a co-worker, a brother, a son, a husband, but I knew him simply as dad. My dad came from small-town Illinois and ended up a big-city executive. He was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and he turned that education into an amazing career that allowed him to bless so many other people. Of course, he was the only guy in senior management who came to work in his suit on Monday with grease underneath his fingernails from doing man’s work on the weekend. He worked so hard his whole life to take care of us kids. And he did. So much of my success professionally has come from mimicking his relentless focus.
Jesus vs. Synagogues (Part 2): How he gave heaven’s authority to a new church where "two or three gather in His name"
Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. His life’s fullest meaning can only be discerned in his Jewish context (see Jesus vs. Synagogues Part 1: Where he agreed with Rabbis). Even the word “Christ” is a Greek translation of the Hebrew term for an anointed ruler, Messiah. It isn’t his last name, but rather a theologically charged designation for the long-awaited redemptive role he was playing in an old Jewish story.
However, the overlap between First-Century Jewish culture and Jesus’ Way has limits. Jesus not only embodied his culture and embraced its accoutrements; he also challenged its everyday assumptions.
People often ask, "Why do some churches let women preach when 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibits it?" My Socratic response is: "Why do all churches let women braid their hair when 1 Timothy 2:9 condemns it?"
No one takes the Bible at face value. First, because no one grows up speaking Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew at home (so they can't read its "face value"), but second because English translations tell even the most novice reader that certain commands are culturally irrelevant. When you read Paul's repeated command to "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (Romans 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26), no one gets convicted and starts puckering up for church. Those commands were clearly intended for a different cultural context, and we recognize it. We know to distinguish the temporary cultural expression from its enduring principle.
The same cultural sensitivity must be applied to 1 Timothy 2. In first-century Ephesus where Timothy pastored churches, braided hair and female teachers were a bad idea. Why? The first one is easy. Braided hair, gold jewelry, and expensive clothing flaunted wealth. And Paul wanted "those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited" (1 Timothy 6:17). The injunction against female teachers and Paul's prescription for females to learn quietly in church gatherings are much more culturally nuanced.
"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." Do Jesus' words mean systematically sharing the gospel around the globe can speed up "the end"?
Many Christians think so. The Gospel Coalition (whose council members include John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and Al Mohler) boldly cites George Eldon Ladd's 1959 book The Gospel of the Kingdom to make that claim. "When the Church has finished its task of evangelizing the world, Christ will come again. The Word of God says it." The Issachar Initiative backed by some of the largest financial gatekeepers in evangelical America (National Christian Foundation, Maclellan Foundation, Green Family, etc.) use the same logic to encourage reaching the unreached. As their Tweet below indicates, "We can choose to speed up Jesus's return."
Mission Frontiers magazine pushed readers toward this supposedly clear meaning of Jesus' words, for example, in the July-August 1994 issue entitled "Bring Back The King?". Editor Rick Wood wrote, "Matt. 24:14 clearly indicates that world evangelization is a prerequisite to the Lord's coming."
But why do so many Christians think Matthew 24:14 explains the prerequisite for Jesus' return when the verse doesn't even talk about him? We have to explore the context to discover why, and to discover why they are all wrong.
The way things are said often communicates more than what is said. We know this rule of communication is true when we are talking, but we often forget it when listening to Jesus’ written words in the Gospels.
If you have ever seen a “Red Letter” Bible, you know how easy it becomes to pick out the words of Jesus in the Gospels. You also know that the Gospel of Matthew has a ton more red font than Mark. Why? Because Mark focuses more on Jesus’ activity while Matthew is focused on his teaching.
If you skim through Matthew in a “Red Letter” Bible, you will find a few long sections of uninterrupted red font. Sayings that Luke spread out across many chapters about Jesus’ life are gathered into lengthy sermons in Matthew. Most people have heard about the first one: the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). However, 4 other sermons have been formed out of Jesus’ sayings around common themes: Instructions for Disciples in Matthew 10, Kingdom Parables in Matthew 13, Dealing with Sin in the Church in Matthew 18, and the Judgment Sayings of Matthew 23-25.
In total, Matthew created 5 long sermons out of Jesus’ sayings. We know the 5 sermons were created intentionally because they all have the same ending: “when Jesus had finished saying these things” (Matthew 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This literary marker gets the attention of the careful reader. It brings up the important hermeneutical question: Why did Matthew organize Jesus’ sayings into 5 sets of instructions?
Isn't it obvious what we can do through Christ who strengthens us? "All Things." Philippians 4:13 says so. That's why sports figures love the verse. It's why they tattoo it on their chest. Who cares if it makes no sense for players on opposing teams to believe Christ will help them both win the same game (think about it). It pumps you up with a sense that you have divine power to pummel your opponents.
But that's not why Tim Tebow wrote Philippians 4:13 on his black eye stickers when he played football. During an interview at the end of his college career, he told the Baptist Press:
"A lot of people know Philippians 4:13 -- 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me' -- but a lot of people don't interpret that verse the right way. Most people think it means I can do anything ...on the football field, or I can make a lot of money. But that's not exactly what it's talking about there. It's [saying] I can be content with anything."
Does Tim Tebow know what he's talking about? Not too many sports figures ever provide insight into the meaning of Scripture.
Thomas Aquinas sent Christianity down a disastrous road. What started out as an attempt to translate biblical faith into contemporary philosophical discussions became an irreversible distortion of doctrine. His intrigue with a philosophical fad re-directed how theology was done for the last 700 years.
In the 13th Century when Aquinas wrote, it had become cool again to reason like Greek philosophers. 1,000 years earlier, the Platonic ideas about the Divine essence, logos, and demiurge had already shaped the language of 4th-century church creeds about Jesus’ divine nature and the Trinity. Now, the Greek categories were returning with the Renaissance to reconstruct the Christian faith. Aquinas embraced Aristotle and Plato in a historic act of unintentional syncretism. The systematic Greek logic behind his Summa Theologiae became the standard for structuring the Christian faith. The theological enterprise turned into a “sacred science” (in Aquinas’s words) with its “propositions” and “principles” similar to other philosophical sciences.
The long-term impact of Summa Theologiae on how theology is done was unintentional. Most theologians and historians frame Aquinas as an intellectual missionary. He was trying to express genuinely biblical faith in the language and concepts of contemporary thought leaders, just as the 4th and 5th century creeds were doing. In the most generous reading, Aquinas and the creeds are not examples of the Hellenization of the Gospel but of the evangelization of Hellenism (thank you Van Hoozer for this succinct framework!).
Unfortunately, the context of such contextual theology often gets forgotten in future forms that imitate it. Aquinas was no exception. Aquinas's theological science hopefully affected scientific philosophers in his day, but his Aristotelian assumptions likewise infected future Christian theology. Going forward, doctrine became synonymous with categorizing answers to topical theology questions (Yeah, I'm looking at you Dispensational and Reformed theologians ;) .
By the time Protestant reformers had their heyday in the 16th Century, the rules of the theological game had been established. The Christian faith did not find itself in a trail of divine action left through human history. It was more philosophically astute and well-ordered than that. Christian theologians were now expected to run past epistemological humility in grandiose efforts to restructure biblical content into answers for any doctrinal question (think Grudem’s Systematic Theology). Systematizing theologians of the Protestant tradition have long since employed a dangerous formula: Words from the Bible + culturally and linguistically determined logic = answers to every theological or ontological question. The diversity of biblical genres that embodied truth and the diachronic developments from Genesis to Revelation gave way to uniform answers delivered in synchronic slices that did not reflect a dominant form of delivering truth anywhere in Scripture.
Now what could be wrong with breaking up the Bible into properly categorized propositions? In short, everything. If your theology doesn't look like or act like the Bible itself, then it cannot represent its contents faithfully. It distorts not distillate it’s substance.
"I wish you were cold or hot, not lukewarm" doesn't mean Jesus prefers you hate him instead of "live on the fence"
Mental associations direct the way we interpret what people mean with their words. If the first place your mind goes is to the same meaning someone intends, communication works. But if you associate the words with the wrong meaning, you will misrepresent what someone means to say. That's a big deal when it's the Word of God.
A question that should push us all to study more carefully is: Are we mistaking the echo of our own assumptions for the meaning of God's Word?
If you haven't read it yet, Reenacting the Way (of Jesus) unwraps the commonly misunderstood messages of the Gospels. Jesus' healing miracles, turning water into wine, feeding the 5,000 and calming a storm all lose their meaning when we reduce them to miraculous moments that revealed Jesus' divinity. They had very specific meanings for their original audience not just some generic meaning for everyone.
The same miscommunication happens when we chase the futuristic relevance of the book of Revelation rather than the reason John recorded it for his ancient audience. We miss Jesus' personalized message for a first century audience in Asia Minor. Please stop doing this. Flattening the Bible's first meaning loosens the anchor that holds it from floating down the river of your imagination.
So let's talk about a specific example: being lukewarm. In the popular passage of Revelation 3:15-16, Jesus says, “I wish you were cold or hot, but because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” Why does Jesus want people made of extreme temperatures?
BUY the BOOK
Paul Penley's training as a Bible scholar, life as a human being, and work as a philanthropic advisor overflows into this blog
Top 5 Blogs