Mt 19:21 - do we believe Jesus?

[Julia_Mae]

I was reading a blog by the woman who wrote “Blest Atheist” and she was speaking of a retreat she’d been on focusing on Franciscan spirituality. They quoted this passage:

Jesus responds as follows to a wealthy young man who asks what he must do to be deserving of eternal life:
“Go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Then she goes on to tell what happened at the retreat:

There were a number of wealthy people at the retreat. In fact, probably only those individuals with some money could have afforded to attend the retreat. This particular verse created some consternation with them until the priest who led the retreat interpreted the verse in a way that they found comfortable to accept, and one in which I have seen it interpreted on a number of occasions, a non-literal interpretation. To support the priest, here are a couple of other sources that use the same interpretation.

From the Corporation Sole: A person who has been initiated into a Religious Order may take a vow of poverty at any time during their membership in the Order. The vow of poverty is not to be interpreted as being for ever poor, but rather to sharing everything in common. Those who embrace a vow of poverty do not claim private ownership of any possessions: everything they have is used for the common good of the Religious Order.

From a Secular Franciscan website: Poverty was another thing that worried me when I was first discerning a call to the Franciscans. The example of Francis was one of total financial poverty… I later learned … that one could live in spiritual poverty while being financially wealthy.

Is “spiritual poverty” something to be desired? Do we just decide that anything Jesus says we find too demanding isn’t really what He said? If we do, how much Scripture are we reinterpreting for our own comfort?

If we can reinterpret for this issue, then we can’t really fault a Protestant who believes the bread and wine are symbolic, can we?

BrJR? Anyone?

The worst part to me is that they didn’t just use the whole passage and explain what Jesus was saying more clearly. He gave the young man a simple answer. But pride made the man want to be more than just some average Joe keeping the commandments:

Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”*
17
He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.* If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18

• i He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
  19
  honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
  20
• The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”
  21
  j Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect,* go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
  22
  When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

 

[JRKH]

You ask good questions and we have gone round and round about this here at CAF more than once.
I do think that this passage is difficult for many, impossible for some, and for this reason is often “soft pedaled”.

To me the Bottom line relating to the story is that the young man, “went away sad, for he had many possessions.”
What this indicates is that the possessions he “had” really “had” him. In other words he was invested in his “things”. Things that he could not take with him into eternity. Jesus, knowing this, set him a difficult challenge.

That said, it is important to recognize that wealth (as opposed to things), as defined by our modern society is not necessarily a deterrent to heaven. If a person has control of a lot of money, but uses that money for the benefit of the most people while living modestly and piously himself, then the money is not his 'wealth" but merely a tool by which he does God’s work.
On the other hand if a person has control of a lot of money and only seeks to secure his own pleasure, big house, fancy car, boat, expensive vacations etc…without regard to his responsibilities to his community or to God, then this money is a tool to do the devil’s work.
Of course in between these two extremes are a lot of “grey areas”…

Peace
James

 

[NHInsider]

Jesus didn’t say it would be impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, He said it would be difficult. Earthly wealth can draw the heart away from the things of God. It can seduce its owner into thinking that he/she holds the wealth because of some inherent entitlement, or as a result of God’s approval.

And when the LORD your God brings you into the land which he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you, with great and goodly cities, which you did not build, and houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which you did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which you did not plant, and when you eat and are full, then take heed lest you forget the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name. Deut. 6:10-13

 

[Julia_Mae]

Thanks for the responses. I think, though, that what I really want to hear is not what we think about wealth. Personally, I believe true wealth is so distorting of reality no one can actually live “modestly and piously” while having it except in a Hollywood fantasy. But my opinion isn’t very important either.

The retreat was about Franciscan spirituality, the verse was the central theme and all the rich folks had the words of Jesus interpreted to them so they would still feel warm and fuzzy about the fact that thousands of children starve to death every month and they can save rather a lot of them just by giving away about half of what any reasonable person needs to live and they don’t do it.

In the context of the Gospel message, of other parts of Scripture, without trying to assauge anyone’s survivor guilt, what did Jesus mean for us to do?

 

[cap76]

Jesus didn’t say it would be impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, He said it would be difficult.

How difficult is it to thread the eye of a needle? Difficult but hardly impossible. Now, how difficult would it be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? Difficult and impossible. Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to do this than for a rich man to enter into Heaven. Difficult to do the impossible. Who then can be saved? Praise be to God, the Savior of sinners, that the things impossible with men are possible with God. (Matthew 19.23-26)

 

[cap76]

In the context of the Gospel message, of other parts of Scripture, without trying to assauge anyone’s survivor guilt, what did Jesus mean for us to do?

Matthew 6.19-21, ‘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.’

Then there is Paul’s instruction to Timothy, the young pastor:

1 Timothy6.17-19, ‘Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.
That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.’

It is not a sin to be rich. God gives us richly all things to enjoy, just some more than others.

One often misquoted verse is 1 Timothy 6:10. It’s not money that is the root of all evil. Rather, it is the love of money.

 

[garysibio]

I was reading a blog by the woman who wrote “Blest Atheist” and she was speaking of a retreat she’d been on focusing on Franciscan spirituality. They quoted this passage:

Then she goes on to tell what happened at the retreat:

Is “spiritual poverty” something to be desired? Do we just decide that anything Jesus says we find too demanding isn’t really what He said? If we do, how much Scripture are we reinterpreting for our own comfort?

If we can reinterpret for this issue, then we can’t really fault a Protestant who believes the bread and wine are symbolic, can we?

BrJR? Anyone?

The worst part to me is that they didn’t just use the whole passage and explain what Jesus was saying more clearly. He gave the young man a simple answer. But pride made the man want to be more than just some average Joe keeping the commandments:

Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”*
17
He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.* If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18

• i He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
  19
  honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
  20
• The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”
  21
  j Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect,* go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
  22
  When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

While Jesus did command this person to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor, He did not require this of everyone. Joseph of Arimathea was rich - only the rich could afford to have a hewn tomb like he did - and Jesus never gave him this command. I believe the difference is that Jesus knew that, in the case of the young ruler, the possessions owned him. They were a problem.

Franciscan spirituality recognizes that living in the world does require a certain amount of money or possessions. St. Francis of Assisi founded three orders: the Friars Minor, the Poor Claires and the Secular Franciscan Order. The latter order was for those who chose to live in the world as opposed to living in community. SFOs make promises of poverty, chastity and obedience but do not take vows. The differences - at least in my case - were taught during the novitiate. Let’s take a car for example. You can own a car appropriate to your needs but buying a luxury car violates the spirit of the promise.

When I was a Baptist there was a man in our church who was quite a bit richer than everyone else in the church. He had a huge vacation home. However, he was mature enough that he did not allow his possessions to own him. While others who had more modest vacation homes often missed church to use them, this man regularly let the church use his home for retreats.

Does this help at all?

 

[Julia_Mae]

One often misquoted verse is 1 Timothy 6:10. It’s not money that is the root of all evil. Rather, it is the love of money.

I think it is less a problem that it is misquoted, than quoted out of context:

Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions, and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain.

Indeed, religion with contentment is a great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, just as we shall not be able to take anything out of it. If we have food and clothing, we shall be content with that.

Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.

The word translated “love” here, is not the word used for love in so many other places, it actually is better translated “avarice.”

What stops anyone from selling all that they own and giving to the poor? What stops a man from buying a 24 room house, and instead buying a 12 room house and giving the money he would have spent to the poor? Does he need a 12 room house? What stops us from being reasonable and content with what is needed, and instead let others starve so we can have simply what we want?

What does Jesus say about this?

As for the misquote, it is also having money that is the root of evil, because few who have wealth do not love it and are not loathe to lose it. It is the fact of the money that is so dangerous and corrupting, for money brings power.

 

[Julia_Mae]

While Jesus did command this person to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor, He did not require this of everyone. Joseph of Arimathea was rich - only the rich could afford to have a hewn tomb like he did - and Jesus never gave him this command. I believe the difference is that Jesus knew that, in the case of the young ruler, the possessions owned him. They were a problem.

Franciscan spirituality recognizes that living in the world does require a certain amount of money or possessions. St. Francis of Assisi founded three orders: the Friars Minor, the Poor Claires and the Secular Franciscan Order. The latter order was for those who chose to live in the world as opposed to living in community. SFOs make promises of poverty, chastity and obedience but do not take vows. The differences - at least in my case - were taught during the novitiate. Let’s take a car for example. You can own a car appropriate to your needs but buying a luxury car violates the spirit of the promise.

I agree. Here is the issue as I see it. Fred has 5 million dollars. Guy LaLiberte has 5 billion dollars. Fred decides taking the family to Hawaii for vacation is a reasonable expenditure. The kids wanted to go to Fiji, but he put his foot down in the name of avoiding excess. Guy decided to go to space on vacation and spent 35million dollars to get there.

How much money you have heavily influences how you see reasonable and excessive.

I have a question: why is it okay for me to have Internet access when the money I spend on it every month would support two Guatemalan families? How many people died so Guy could go into space? How many died so Fred’s family could go to Hawaii? I am trying to figure out where the lines are.

I’m hoping to move somewhere soon where I may, myself, become a SFO. (Women can be that, also, right? I know they can be some sort of 3rd order… I thought the Poor Clares had a 3rd order specific to themselves but I can’t seem to find any.)

My point is that these questions are not idle mind meandering to me.

 

[cap76]

What stops anyone from selling all that they own and giving to the poor? What stops a man from buying a 24 room house, and instead buying a 12 room house and giving the money he would have spent to the poor? Does he need a 12 room house? What stops us from being reasonable and content with what is needed, and instead let others starve so we can have simply what we want?

We should worry about our own investments. God will judge our fellows.

As for the misquote, it is also having money that is the root of evil, because few who have wealth do not love it and are not loathe to lose it. It is the fact of the money that is so dangerous and corrupting, for money brings power

The fact that money gives power is not bad in itself. It is the stewardship of power that matters. Power equals influence, therefore money can be used to yield a great influence for the Kingdom of God. I try not to spend all my money on a single act of benevolence, but rather invest it in such a way so that it yields as much good as possible to many people and causes. This is true with regard to all of our talents.
This is according to Jesus’ teaching on the parable of the stewards in Matthew 25.

 

[garysibio]

I agree. Here is the issue as I see it. Fred has 5 million dollars. Guy LaLiberte has 5 billion dollars. Fred decides taking the family to Hawaii for vacation is a reasonable expenditure. The kids wanted to go to Fiji, but he put his foot down in the name of avoiding excess. Guy decided to go to space on vacation and spent 35million dollars to get there.

How much money you have heavily influences how you see reasonable and excessive.

I have a question: why is it okay for me to have Internet access when the money I spend on it every month would support two Guatemalan families? How many people died so Guy could go into space? How many died so Fred’s family could go to Hawaii? I am trying to figure out where the lines are.

I’m hoping to move somewhere soon where I may, myself, become a SFO. (Women can be that, also, right? I know they can be some sort of 3rd order… I thought the Poor Clares had a 3rd order specific to themselves but I can’t seem to find any.)

My point is that these questions are not idle mind meandering to me.

The SFO is open to all Catholics.

It’s easy to deceive ourselves about needs. Maybe the better question is “Does it bring us closer to God?”

 

[Mintaka]

First, it’s supposed to be an uncomfortable verse that makes you think. But there really are many ways to live out poverty, and there really is a place for spiritual baby steps.

A lot of people who are atheists are really spiritual zealots at heart. They would laugh at St. Francis stripping down naked in the middle of the street so as not to have anything of his Dad’s still on him, but they would also sympathize. So of course this person is unhappy about a baby steps interpretation.

The secret of the baby steps interpretation is that, if you live it out fully, it’s not any easier than totally giving up possessions. If you think of everything you own as being administered for the poor in a fiduciary relationship – and a good businessperson couldn’t duck the full implications of that – God’s put you into a 24/7 service full of work and worry, You’d be thinking twice before spending money on anything. But people with no possessions are free of worry. Meanwhile, even people who think of their money as belonging to their kids and spouse have a heavy burden of responsibility.

Now, whether most people manage to live out the baby steps – that’s another question.

But a lot of people do. That famous DJ over in the UK who just died – he went to Mass every day, he gave away 90% of his money, he spent pretty much all his spare time on charity, and he practically ended up running a place for the criminally insane during the Eighties, just because he volunteered there and nobody else was running the asylum (literally). Everything he had, he used either for the good of those in need or to help him make money and time for them. And yet, to look at him, you would have thought, “he’s rich and famous and has tons of possessions.”

Heck, even the guy who goes to space for vacation usually doesn’t do it for his own fun. Like a lot of space enthusiasts, his primary goal is to demonstrate the practicality of space travel in order to open it up for everyone, including for applications which will help medicine and technology do amazing things for the sick.

 

[ethereality]

A tangential note: Recently on Catholic Answers Live there was a guest who commented that this passage contains Jesus claiming divinity; to repeat his argument: The Ten Commandments were on two tablets, the first three about God, the second seven about us. Here the young man says he keeps those seven commandments about us. Asking what more he lacks, the obvious answer to the Jews to this man’s question is, “The first tablet: the commandments about God”. Instead, Jesus replies, “Follow me.”

As for the content of the passage you’re asking about, yeah, the idea is to subordinate everything to God, and to consider nothing of this earth as really “your own”. Watering down this passage for wealthy people does them a disservice.

 

[Mintaka]

I like that thing, about Jesus pointing out He’s God…

The other thing is that “the young man” was already pretty religiously and morally mature. He did follow the Law and the commandments, He did love God, He did have a lot of this stuff down. He also wasn’t married yet and didn’t have the obligations that many Jewish men had from a young age. So he was ready to take the next step.

A lot of people out there are not spiritually mature when they try to follow this counsel, or they aren’t as free of obligations as they want to pretend. So you get people deciding that it means they should sell all their stuff but neglect to cover their debts to other people first; or you get people turning over their goods to dubious causes. God doesn’t mind honest mistakes like the latter (although He advises being “wise as serpents” in such things), but He does mind slitheriness like the former. (Or notice what happened to Ananias and Sapphira, when they sold all their possessions just to look good, but weren’t honest about what they did with the proceeds.)

 

[JRKH]

I agree. Here is the issue as I see it. Fred has 5 million dollars. Guy LaLiberte has 5 billion dollars. Fred decides taking the family to Hawaii for vacation is a reasonable expenditure. The kids wanted to go to Fiji, but he put his foot down in the name of avoiding excess. Guy decided to go to space on vacation and spent 35million dollars to get there.

How much money you have heavily influences how you see reasonable and excessive.

Good point.

I have a question: why is it okay for me to have Internet access when the money I spend on it every month would support two Guatemalan families? How many people died so Guy could go into space? How many died so Fred’s family could go to Hawaii? I am trying to figure out where the lines are.

Indeed it can be difficult to know where to set the lines. The primary question needs to be for all of us is, how does this or that expenditure promote the kingdom and give glory to God.
You having access to the internet IS helping you to get answers to your question(s)…

I’m hoping to move somewhere soon where I may, myself, become a SFO. (Women can be that, also, right? I know they can be some sort of 3rd order… I thought the Poor Clares had a 3rd order specific to themselves but I can’t seem to find any.)

May God bless you on your journey.

My point is that these questions are not idle mind meandering to me.

Indeed.
The thing to remember about such things is that it is all about attitude and focus. You can only control your own, you cannot control others. Likewise you can only know your own heart, you cannot know others.

Peace
James

 

[Julia_Mae]

We should worry about our own investments. God will judge our fellows.

I asked the questions looking for actual answers. There was no judgement involved.

The fact that money gives power is not bad in itself.

I completely disagree. Power corrupts. The more power, the more corruption. This is human nature.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Heck, even the guy who goes to space for vacation usually doesn’t do it for his own fun. Like a lot of space enthusiasts, his primary goal is to demonstrate the practicality of space travel in order to open it up for everyone, including for applications which will help medicine and technology do amazing things for the sick.

I really liked your post, but just FYI, he did it for fun. He said so. Then as a kind of afterthought he said something about wanting to use it to get attention for a charity he started. He’d have helped more folks by giving the 35m to charities that already exist. But mostly he was indulging a childhood dream.

 

[Julia_Mae]

A tangential note: Recently on Catholic Answers Live there was a guest who commented that this passage contains Jesus claiming divinity; to repeat his argument: The Ten Commandments were on two tablets, the first three about God, the second seven about us. Here the young man says he keeps those seven commandments about us. Asking what more he lacks, the obvious answer to the Jews to this man’s question is, “The first tablet: the commandments about God”. Instead, Jesus replies, “Follow me.”

As for the content of the passage you’re asking about, yeah, the idea is to subordinate everything to God, and to consider nothing of this earth as really “your own”. Watering down this passage for wealthy people does them a disservice.

Agreed. I also like this way of looking at the passage.

And I am aware that rich people followed Jesus. And that it was, in this specific case, his wealth and status that came between the young man and true unity with God.

 

[ethereality]

Right, so money doesn’t always get in the way of one’s relationship with God, just as a firearm doesn’t always get in the way of justice (sometimes good on a policeman, usually bad on criminals). Having ready access to money presents one with a closer near occasion of sin (e.g. people winning lotteries and subsequently buying drugs or becoming alcoholic), just as having ready access to firearms presents one with a closer near occasion of killing someone … Doesn’t mean you will, but if you’re not well-disciplined, you might …

Such are my past-bedtime rantings. Oh well. I think the best way to deal with money is to always have as little of it as possible, rather parallel to one’s social status (being as humble as possible). Ideally, I want to invest in a large family and then have my kids take care of me when I’m old, but I have no idea how that would work or what my future is …

 

[fred_conty]

I believe that the young man wanted to advance closer to God.
Jesus presented him with that opportunity, He gave him a special higher calling.
Happens all the time even today. Noone is obligated to answer that higher call.
He turned it down. Other people turn it down for all sorts of reasons.
It dosen’t sound like Jesus was condemning him for refusing. Being rich
is not wrong but there may be some disadvantages at times. But just think,
he may have been invited to be the 13th apostle.

Just a thought.