I came across this the other day in something I was reading. I forget what I was reading now, but I scribbled it down in my fake Moleskine because it made sense to me.
People who insist that the sacredness of Scripture depends on belief in creation in a literal six days seem never to insist on a literal reading of ‘to him who asks give,’ or ’sell what you have and give to the money to the poor.’
That really punched me between the eyes. I need to re-evaluate.
*This is not a post about how to interpret Genesis nor is it an announcement that I no longer believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis so please, for the love of Harry Potter, don’t make it out to be so. Please don’t miss the forest through all the toothpicks.
17 Comments(+Add)
I wholeheartedly agree. It is the same principle I have suggested that wonders why the ODMs are militant about doctrines like the Trinity, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the 24 hour creation day but almost never are demonstrative defenders of love, grace, mercy, and that pesky little one called humility.
The Risen Christ and His eternal redemption neither rises and falls upon the scaffold of the 24 hour creation day. (For the record, I do not believe it.)
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
That nonliteral statement was made by the nonliteral Jesus. The statement was in principle, and the one who spoke it was but a fictional representative of congealed principles that was creatively given a human caricature in a narrative of only principles, some literal and some extremely flexible. The reader can choose.
And all the 24 hour creationsits picked up stones against me.
…oh, so you LOVE Harry Potter eh?
Neil – I place Harry Potter and the 24 hour creation day in the Shakespearean play:
Much Ado About Nothing.
#1 Only the veracity of scripture does.
If Genesis 1-3 is not true, than how can we trust “I am the way the truth and the life” or “I am the Alpha and the Omega” “or “Ye must be born again” or “For God so Loved”
That being said, my OT Theology book I am studying makes a valid point re: the Genesis account stating that it wasn’t about the how it was more about the why.
And “who”.
#5–thanks for completely ignoring my request to not make this about Genesis or creation or interpretation or …
PB was disiclined to acquiesce to your request.
#7 Especially when you quote someone who believes neither.
I guess I get her point, but coming from a sister in Christ it would have a lot more meaning. Also, it (the quote) forgets entirely about grace. It is not about what we do, it is about what Christ has done and completed. Because we are in Christ, our heart has been changed and as a result, we live in grace, and we function in that reality. We give because Christ has given, we share because Christ has shared. We do not do these things as a demonstration of our goodness, but as a proclamation of God’s goodness.
I am not sure, but I seem to remember a recent “I will never respond to you again” to PB.
I am not sure, but I seem to remember a not so recent ‘Jerry, you are carnal.’
So what do you care if I break my own rule?
People who argue such things as
never seem to quite grasp the nuiances of general statements vs. specific statements made to individuals, nor seem able to discern between descriptions and proscriptions.
And people who write such things as
often hide their own unwillingness to obey in language about descriptions and proscriptions as if Jesus really cares about our neat and tidy compartments.
Jerry. “Neat and tidy compartments” Seriously? One can get in all sorts of trouble taking descriptive passages and converting them into proscriptions, the referenced passage above being a prime example. Jesus’ statement to the young ruler to sell all was specific to him and not universally applicable, just as Jesus’ command to Peter to walk on the water was to to him and him alone. God’s command to Joshua to walk around Jerico 7 times, etc., was for a specific time and event and not to be normative for all attacks on all cities. The voluntary communism of the proto-Church in Jerusalem was descriptive and not proscriptive for all churches. The use of blessed cloths for healing was specific to Paul and not normative of even any other 1st centruy apostle, much less today. etc., etc., etc. Scripture is usually fairly clear when it proscribes things vs when it is just providing a historical account. The author’s quote above posted a false dilemma among other erroneous assumptions.
“Give to him who asks” is proscriptive with universal applications. “Sell all” is descriptive of a proscription made to a specific individual.
Discernment is required with these things and such mis-applications have caused serious trouble, even today, especially in hyper-Charismatic circles. You have your own false dilemma here. “Neat and tidy comparements are not **necessarily** a bad thing when applied correctly.
And this is not to say that we cannot draw wonderful and helpful life lessons / examples from these descriptive passages because they obviously do show Christianity lived out in practical ways.
why? sometimes comments from outsiders have more punch.