a class of nudist paupers

The experts say that Jesus' demand to “give to everyone who asks” would result in a class of saintly paupers and another of prosperous idlers and thieves. The experts say that the principles given by Jesus are not to be taken over-literally. My reply: good, sort of, wrong.

The forward torpedo tubes of the USS Torsk, a submarine in the collection of Historic Ships in Baltimore.

---

Luke 6.30

Give to everyone who begs from you.

Matt 5.42

Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

There are multiple answers to this. I do not mean there are multiple possible answers, I mean there are answers for people at different stages in their Christian life. Paul talked about milk and meat. With the church at Corinth, it was a criticism: they should have been ready for meat but he still had to feed them with milk.

There is nothing wrong with milk. Feeding a baby meat too early could cause serious harm. The problem is that not everyone can be babies. Some must be the parents.

This is what I mean by saying there are multiple answers. There is the answer for one group of Christians and another answer for a different group. Both are legitimate for their group. Neither are legitimate for the group they are not in. The two levels are these:

1. Give to everyone who begs from you, because the Greatest Commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. Walking past someone who asks for help embarrasses God. He wouldn't do it; he does not allow the people who claim his name to do it either. The Good Samaritan doesn't fulfill the demand by doing it once. Every person in need makes you the person who helped, or the person who walked by on the other side.

2. Give to everyone who begs from you, because the thing God needs you to do requires you to be wealth-free, and these people are your first step.

The common thread is this: Giving is a matter of who you are, not who the other person is. If you don't give, it's because you don't give. It has nothing to do with the worthiness of the other person. The character assessment is totally upon you.

The difficulty we have with this demand is that it has been muddied by people who don't want to do it. They make light of it and, create horrifying scenarios of what would happen if people actually did it. These people are your teachers in Seminary. These people walk on the other side of the road and need to explain why they are allowed to do that, and why you should too.

So before we get into the long explanation, here is the short answer: Jesus is not saying you need to hold a neon sign over your head flashing FREE MONEY! FREE MONEY! He is saying that when you see someone in need and they ask for help, you don't cross to the other side of the road and pass by. He doesn't say you hunt for them, he doesn't say you hand over your life's savings. He only says, quite simply: if someone begs from you, give. Because you need to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. The Good Samaritan does not walk by.

It is astonishing that commentator after commentator insists that you are allowed to walk by. It is made more astonishing because exactly in the place where Jesus says "you have heard, but I say", they reply "you have heard, but I say!" Amazing. Jesus is correcting the wrong teaching of their experts, and our experts do it of Christ! With no embarrassment, they tell us that it is not necessary to pay attention to the words of Christ. With no shame, they tell us we should listen to them instead!

This a pathetic showing, but they repeat it, in every commentary. Not one expert looks at the demand with a clear eye. It is too fearful for them to look at, because the light exposes their life, so they turn off the light!

The first rule of explaining the word of God is to not change it! Full Stop! If you feel your conscience being pricked, great! That's what Scripture is for! The word of God has done its job and your response is to change it?! Remarkable. Changing Scripture to conform to your beliefs is horrifying. No one is allowed to do that, most certainly our experts.

Mocking the demand by saying we would all end up poor is absurd. First because Jesus said "blessed are the poor" a few verses earlier (so that's not such a bad thing), and second because there is no example in the teaching of Christ where this happened. He congratulated Zacchaeus for giving half his possessions. Can we not look at that example as a way to satisfy this demand? Do we have to make it ludicrous?

Yes, Jesus did demand absolute poverty of a few. Those few are in the second group. But Jesus never said it was required that everyone empty their pockets. What he did say is, you cannot cross to the other side of the road and pass by. That is an absolute requirement. No child of God is allowed to do that.

And now, on to the explanation:

The Sermon on the Mount is both memorable and provocative. "Blessed are the poor" is a cherished part of our Christian faith. "Give to everyone who asks" is not so cherished. It's a curious thing that some words of Christ are so tightly embraced and others so kept at arms' length.

What if we have it wrong? What if the truly contentious passage is "blessed are the poor" and the simpler one is "give to everyone who asks"? What if they are the same thing?

There is a scene at the end of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" where (spoiler alert!) the T-1000 falls into a cauldron of molten steel and flairs wildly as his metal body merges with the steel. Each time that he slips under the surface and struggles back up he morphs into a different version of itself: the policeman, the mother, the hospital guard. He has no way to escape and in panic reverts to disguises that once worked but now are useless.

"Give to everyone" is the cauldron of molten steel for commentators. They flail and morph into one shape after another. Any explanation might work, so every explanation is tried. But it's hopeless. There is no way out.

It would be a joy to find one commentator who looks at the words of Christ without panic. That possibly is an unrealistic request, because they have a good reason: they must explain everything and they can't explain this, so they do it anyway. Badly. Why can't they just say "I can't explain this, but Jesus said it so I am not going to speculate."

It is deeply disappointing that not one commentator takes this seriously. The say it is not an expectation but an attitude. They make it absurd so no one will do it. The single thread that runs through all their explanations is a sharp turn into illogic. None of their conclusions are grounded in Scripture.

The New International Greek Testament Commentary. The Gospel of Luke.

I. Howard Marshall. p. 261.

It goes without saying that the examples and even the principles given by Jesus are not to be taken over-literally. If v. 29b were so taken, ‘the issue would be nudism, a sufficient indication that it is a certain spirit that is being commended to our notice – not a regulation to be slavishly carried out. But this fact does not entitle us to evade the demand, which is here put forward in an extreme case. What Jesus here says is seriously, even if not literally, meant; and his followers have the task of manifesting the spirit of the injunction in the varied situations which arise in actual life’ (Manson, Sayings, 51).

Some of this is not Marshall’s commentary per se, but he includes the explanation of T.W. Manson, so he presumably agrees with it.

Marshall sees silliness. He says we could not possibly literally do it, because then we’d all be naked. His intent, like so many others, is to push the demand to extremes to prove it is extreme. His conclusion, like so many others, is that it can't be done exactly so it's not expected be done at all.

You’re registering your child for school and are told she must be there every morning at 7:45. You react in surprise: “Every morning?!” The administrator says, “yes, of course. School is open Monday through Friday and your child must be there every day.” You say, “whew! I thought you meant every morning!” The administrator looks at you and wonders what planet you’re from, because everyone knows that school is Monday to Friday. You ponder your life for a moment and then ask, “What if she is sick or there is a family emergency? We planned to take a trip this summer to Canada. You're serious? Every Monday through Friday?!”

The administrator begins speaking very slowly to explain what sending your child to school means. Yes, "every" means every, and a truant officer will come to your house if you don't send your child to school. But no, if there is no school, then you cannot send your child to school, and if you do a child protective services officer will bring your child home and you will have to explain why you left a six-year-old standing on the sidewalk for three hours.

The problem is not the rule. The problem is that you are from a place where they have no school (Antarctica?) and so you don't know how things work. If you did, you wouldn’t ask silly questions, you wouldn’t claim that the rules are outrageous, and you would happily have your child ready for school, knowing that this is not an interference but a valuable part of your child’s life, and that other important matters of life do have to be balanced with the school year but you cannot just disregard the rules because you don't see the point. People who already do it don’t think there’s anything unusual or unreasonable about it. The problem is not the rule: the problem is your inexpiable and embarrassing lack of experience with such a normal part of life.

You’re applying for a job and are meeting with the human resources worker. She says your work hours are 8 to 5 every day, with an hour for lunch. You say “really? Every day?!” and she says “yes, every day, Monday through Friday, you need to be here by 8:00.” You say, “Hmm, I don't know if I can do that. It takes an hour to get ready, an hour to get here on the bus, and an hour to get back home. So for the rest of my life I must give up my days from 6:00 to 6:00?! That’s 12 hours! If I sleep eight hours that gives me only four hours for everything else: my family, eating, tv... and what if there’s a traffic jam or my alarm doesn’t go off? I can’t promise I'll be here every day at 8. What if I’m here are 8:10?”

If she is polite she explains, “If you must be late, please call in to notify your supervisor of the situation. If you or your child is sick, please explain the problem to your supervisor. You get weekends off, holidays, two weeks of vacation, maternity leave, and bereavement leave. And no, it is not for the rest of your life, but for as long as you work here. You can quit any time you want with two week's notice. But yes, so long as you are employed here, that is your schedule.”

If she is not so polite she says, “Possibly this is not a good fit. I think we’ll not finish the application.” She knows you have never had a job before (at least no job that made your boss happy) and doesn’t want you messing things up. You have not asked anything about your job and have only talked about how this detracts from your life. You have tried to make the rules look as silly as possible because, in your view of things, going to work seriously interferes with your plans.

If you are an 18-year-old from a small out-of-the-way town and no one in your family has ever held a job before, such questions might be overlooked--if you were nice about it. But Marshall is not a teenager, and he is not nice about it. He is an adult with multiple degrees who presents himself as an expert, a teachers. For him to have no idea how the work of God is done is disgraceful. He is so unfamiliar with the concept of work that he mocks it. He thinks it impoverishes a person’s life instead of enriching it. Explain that to your boss: that there is a certain spirit to his rules that can be commended but you object to regulations that must be slavishly carried out.

You are enlisting in the military. You fill out the paperwork and are told to be back Monday morning with nothing but your photo ID and prescription glasses or contact lenses. Monday morning you show up naked, wearing only your glasses and your driver’s license in your hand.

You should expect a miserable couple of months in basic training. The sergeant will have endless, cruel fun with you: this man with a doctorate who makes a mockery of the rules by following them to the letter. Every day you are tormented as the sergeant mercilessly insists that you follow every rule precisely.

“Bring nothing except your photo ID” is a completely understandable rule. For a person with a doctorate to say that means coming naked does not make him look smart.

Marshall knows how to live in his world but not in God’s. He looks at the demand and claims it can’t be followed, so he says we can disregard it. He’s aware that the word of God is the word of God so he adds “does not entitle us to evade the demand” to make a show of wanting to obey, but the fact remains: he tells us that doing it is silly.

How can a so-called expert think the word of God is strange? You do not prove yourself intelligent when you are confused by things that are so easily understood. There is nothing wrong with the rule. The problem is that you’ve never done it. The problem is that you are so unfamiliar with the things of God that they seem ludicrous.

Marshall has a life and the demands of Christ don't match up. Everything he has built up and holds valuable defines his boundaries for what is possible and not possible. He can’t imagine life without all his stuff, so he says “it goes without saying” that the word of God is impossible to obey.

If you’re living the way you want then yes, the demands of God are nonsense. If you’re trying to live for God, then the demands of God make sense, because you see the connection between the demand and the reason. Marshall can’t see the reason so he says demand is unreasonable.

God is not asking for you to act silly, and would not put someone to work who is going to embarrass him. He’s asking you to compare the demands of his work to the demands of your work and see that there is nothing extreme about it: only that you can't then also do what you want. Complaining to your boss that expecting you to come to work every day is unreasonable will give you your wish: you get to stay home. Then consider how God reacts when his rules are called silly. Is there any surprise he doesn't use such people?

For Marshall to look at the command of God and warn us that this is “not to be taken over-literally” means he is looking it from the perspective of how following the rule will impact his personal life. He thinks his personal life defines the boundary for the demand of God. Things he would naturally do for himself or his boss are silly when God asks the same thing.

Truly: Your excuse is that if the word of God were more reasonable you’d do it? What is not reasonable is saying we have given our life to him and then keep it for ourselves. What is no reasonable is saying we have died with him and then live for ourselves. What is not reasonable is saying it can't be done when we have never tried.

God places this job offer in front of you and you reply, “Wow, that’s a lot! How am I supposed to have a life if I do that?!”

In 1 Cor 15 Paul is explaining why the resurrection from the dead is so important to the faith. He listens to criticism after criticism and finally blurts out “Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies!” People who make the word of God silly come up with an endless list of reasons why it can’t be true. Paul replies with a completely illogical reason: There is no life unless you die! For the person who cares nothing about God, arguing that death is the end is reasonable, but for a person who claims to believe in God, death cannot be the end and Paul calls the person who says such a thing a fool. Why? Because God's answers are not found in your mind; they're found in Scripture. If you say Scripture is silly, then what hope is there that you will ever try to make sense of it? No Christian can look at the things of God from a worldly perspective and claim they don’t make sense. Of course they don’t! That’s why we have to be told: because we would never see things God's way without God telling us it's his way.

To give worldly answers to spiritual demands makes you a fool. To say that the demand of God is meant to tell us how to deal with “the varied situations which arise in actual life” is nonsense. The word of God does not tell us how to deal with actual life. Why would God give us instructions on how to live in the world? We already know how to live for ourselves. God tells us how to live for him.

Make these complaints to your boss. Say it to your boss what you say to God. Treat your boss the same as your treat God.

If Marshall had done the work he’d know that God is a good boss. He is wise and reasonable to those who try. Yes, God really wants us to do it. He wants to do something and wants to include us. But he will not use people who show up naked or complain it can't be done because rush hour traffic is impossible to predict. And what if there is an earthquake? An act of God! Oh no!

Marshall should stay away. Obviously he’s unqualified. But, to tell others that they don’t have to do it is a terrible thing. Telling others to not do what you won't do is not exegeting the word: it’s denying it.

“Give to everyone” means you give to everyone. Forget what “everyone” and “anyone” means. The demand has nothing to do with that. Forget being generous: Jesus did not give the Sermon on the Mount to tell us what decent people already do. The problem is not them or the demand: it's you. You have too much! Your stuff is keeping you from following Christ. You are told to give so you get rid of it, not because the other person is deserving or because it makes you a kinder person. So long as you are carrying all this weight you will never be in the race. So long as you think giving it all is silly, you are unfit for serious work. So long as you look at them and say they don't deserve it, you will never understand God.

The rich young ruler had enough class to walk away. He didn't mock; he didn't embarrass himself by claiming that "a certain spirit" was the same as doing it. The commands are there to bother us. When we come up against a demand of Christ we cannot do, the only honest reply is to admit we're not going to do it. Saying the demand is silly is dishonest and cowardly.

A person who already does it is not bothered by the demand. It’s not silly; it's the way the work is done. People do it. Not many, but enough to prove that it’s possible. And reasonable. And enjoyable actually.

For Marshall to say that “the examples given by Jesus are not to be taken over-literally” is disappointing. Apparently his “example” is not Christ.

Why can't he just say, "I have never done this, but they are the words of Christ so we leave them at full strength until we understand." To set yourself up against Christ and declare yourself the winner because you know Greek (Jesus didn't?) and have a couple doctorates is shameful.

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Luke. Revised Edition.

Leon Morris. p. 143

Once again it is the spirit of the saying that is important. If Christians took this one absolutely literally there would soon be a class of saintly paupers, owning nothing, and another of prosperous idlers and thieves. It is not this that Jesus is seeking, but a readiness among his followers to give and give and give. The Christian should never refrain from giving out of a love for his possessions.

Morris thinks the idea of “a class of saintly paupers, owning nothing” is a bizarre thing, possibly the pole opposite of “prosperous idlers and thieves”—another class of people that we should never want to become or encourage. “A class of prosperous thieves” is irrelevant to the discussion because they are not thieves if it is given to them.

For Morris to say we should not use this verse to encourage the development of “a class of prosperous idlers” is remarkable because that is precisely the problem. For Morris to so squarely hit the nail on the head and imagine he has made a joke is a bit eerie. Christ is wanting to rouse his people from their selfishness and their indifference to the things of God, and Morris—who is so immersed in the problem that it is invisible to him—discards as ludicrous the very thing he is supposed to see when the verse is placed in front of his face.

Jesus is not talking about “the spirit” of anything. He is talking about doing it. He is saying that his people are so at home in the world that they are useless to God. They think they can satisfy the demand of God by being a bit more generous and loving from within their worldly nest. They think they are generally okay but that a gentle reminder now and then is helpful to keep them aware to the plight of the less fortunate. They think that if they leave the edges of their field for the gleaners they are doing what God wants.

Not leaving anything for the gleaners means you are a petty, pathetic person. Leaving something gleaners means you are not a petty, pathetic person. But it does not accomplish the work of God. Jesus did not come all this way to remind us to be nice. He came to announce that he was ready to populate his kingdom with people that God wanted to have there. Leaving gleanings is not the way in.

There is nothing wrong with a class of saintly paupers. There is, in fact, everything right about it. The world has not seen, and probably never will, a class of saintly paupers who worship God by being like him rather than by constructing cathedrals and monasteries and chapels and universities. We disregard what God wants and instead do exactly what he doesn’t want. “I appeal to you by the mercies of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, which is your reasonable worship.” "Reasonable" is giving God what he wants. "Spiritual" is giving God what we want.

The vast majority of the hours of our pastors are spent taking care of us, which means very little actual work is done. The billions and trillions of dollars tied up in real estate would, if unleashed, turn the world upside down: not just because the poor would be fed and orphans housed and the sick treated, but because the people of God would be transformed into a bride that Christ would be proud to present to his Father.

In fact, there was no chance that a class of saintly paupers would ever arise. Jesus knew that only a few would do it. But even then, for Morris to regard it as something to avoid means (quite literally) that anyone wanting to listen to the demand of God must do it in spite of our teachers. They have to find their own direction and make all the mistakes (again and again) that they could have been warned about if they had someone who had been there already. It is slow progress: falling down so often and learning how to do it right the next time. Or maybe the time after that if it's a hard lesson.

Morris knows how to lead people into a life of comfort because it’s the life he knows. He looks at the path of Christ and tell us to stay where we are: that it’s not “literally” expected to be Christlike, that it’s good enough to just be “ready”.

Morris continues:

Love must be ready to be deprived of everything if need be. Of course, in a given case it may not be the way of love to give. But it is love that must decide whether we give or withhold, not a regard for our possessions. Give, incidentally, is in a continuous tense. Jesus is talking about the habitual attitude, not the occasional generous impulse.

It’s a legitimate argument that sometimes it’s loving to give and sometimes it’s loving to not give. No good parent gives to their children without filtering. Children who get everything are not nice people. If we want our children to be more caring and generous, giving them everything is the wrong thing to do. But this is not your family; it’s the path of Christ. Giving to your children does not accomplish the work of God. It simply makes you a normal loving parent. But Jesus wants people who aren't normal. Or loving. He says that whoever does not hate his children cannot be his disciple. In the work of God, love is hate.

You do not love God by loving your children. You love God by hating your children. Whatever that means, it means at least this: the normal rules don’t apply. In the work of God, wisdom is foolishness and foolishness is wisdom, life is death and death is life, the first are last and the last are first, power is made perfect in weakness, when I am weak then I am strong, and God has mercy on whomever he chooses and hardens whomever he chooses.

For Morris to interpret Scripture normally is reprehensible. To look at the demand of Christ to “give to everyone” and define it as an attitude is profane. Do you also claim that “you must be born again” is just an attitude?

In Morris’ world, “everyone” means no one. He's not going to do it. People will protect their valuables. If Morris was doing the work of God he would protect that and he would nothing else to interfere: wealth, family, self.

The work of God is not accomplished by people who decide, from their place of comfort, to measure out some goodness now and then. It is done by people who endure afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, and hunger. It is done by people who are dying yet are alive, sorrowful yet rejoicing, poor yet making many rich, and having nothing and yet possessing everything.

When Jesus says “give to everyone” he is placing us at the beginning of the path. Those two words, “give” and “everyone”, require us to look down that dirt path winding off into the dark and consider the difficulty and uncertainty. Jesus tells us not to worry about it. Morris agrees: we must not worry because then we miss what life is all about (p 235). Interesting. Morris says, "If we worry we miss what life is all about." Jesus says, "do not worry about your life". Again, Morris comes so close but still so grandly misses the target. How can the same words (worry and life) be used to tell us to go in opposite directions? It's simple actually. Words don't make the path. A person can be on one path and use the word "faith" and have it mean something completely different from a person's understanding of path on a different path. The same thing goes for terms such as spiritual, grace, sacrifice, love, hate, gifts, self, holy, perfect, law, prayer, fasting, revenge, judgement, submission, weak, strong, truth, baptism... The list goes on and on. The significant thing is your path. Using these words with people on your path will be understandable and reasonable. Using these words with people not on your path will lead to endless disagreements, and ultimately division. In 1 Cor 11 Paul says this is an unfortunately reality. People will always interpret words according to their path.

For Morris to use the same words to point in the opposite direction is completely normal.

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Matthew.

R.T. France. p. 127.

This free and unselfish attitude to rights extends also to property. Luke’s version (6:30) is more far-reaching: ‘Give (regularly: present imperative) to every one who begs from you.’ Matthew envisages a specific instance (give is aorist imperative, normally of a single act). Literal application of this verse as a rule of life would be self-defeating: ‘there would soon be a class of saintly paupers, owning nothing, and another of prosperous idlers and thieves’. [Morris, Tyndale Commentary on Luke. p 130] But the principle is that the need of others comes before my convenience (cf. Dt. 15.7-11). The suggestion that begs means ‘asks for a loan’ (Hill), or the reconstruction of the verse into an attack on usury (involving the insertion of a negative for which there is no textual authority; AB) is unnecessary if this is not a pragmatic rule but a radical expression of the disciple’s unselfish concern for others.

France agrees with Morris that a “literal application of this verse as a rule of life would be self-defeating.” He says it is not a pragmatic rule but an "expression". He regards it as unthinkable that there would be a class of Christians that would actually follow the example of Christ.

The reference to Deut 15.7-11 is very good. The demand of God there is good and gentle and right. But for France on the one hand to say that the Sermon on the Mount is the radical demand of Jesus the Messiah (p 107) and a teaching that transcends the Old Testament revelation (p 114), and then to say on the other that Deut 15 explains “give to everyone” is strange. If they were expected to do it, how can it explain our expectation to not do it?

The Kingdom of God is at hand and so some things will be different. The thing that won't be different is the word of God. The Kingdom does not mean that now the the people of God are free to interpret his demands as they feel. We want on a literal interpretation but not a literal application. How does that work?

Jesus is not Moses. That should make his word more respected, not less.

In the Kingdom the standards are higher, not lower. God’s plans are not fulfilled by people opening their hands to the poor but by people ridding themselves of wealth so they can follow their Lord. The disciple must not just live for Christ, but like him. The disciples would have been sent home if they held onto their former lives. Paul could not have done anything if he did not give up everything. Jesus tells us, clearly, you cannot put your hand to the plow and look back. If you cannot leave your former life, then stay in it. You can't do that and this too.

Jesus is not speaking about principles; he’s talking about doing it. He is not talking about less stuff, but no stuff. He is not talking about being generous, but about being on the path. And he’s not worried that this would result in a class of saintly paupers, because that's exactly his point:

Do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

How can God accomplish his work with people who have an unselfish "attitude"? How is the cross of Christ borne by the "principle" that the need of others comes before my convenience?

The issue is not whether the people of God shouldn’t be more generous. Of course they should. But Jesus did not come all this way to tell us that. Everyone should be more caring: both the people of God and otherwise. We don’t need God in the flesh to tell us that. Jesus said our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Quoting Deut 15 as an example of “give to everyone” is setting the target very low. The demand of Jesus is not “give to everyone”; it's “give yourself”.

France aims for the low target instead of the impossible height Jesus has set. He imagines the body of Christ as being composed of good, church-going people—just like him. He insists his example is the right one for you.

Christ gave everything; Paul gave everything. To ignore these examples and say that the demand is fulfilled an unselfish concern is to rob the Church of those who would follow in these giant footsteps, for they are told by the experts (and therefore by their pastors) that there is no need: it’s enough to stay where you are and show more concern.

Imagine a person wanting to join the military but there is no one to tell them what it is like or what to expect. Friends and relatives are asked for advice but there is no one who has done it, so the standard response is, “Why would you do something like that? It sounds a little extreme doesn’t it? What will it do to your parents? Your wife? Your children? Will you be able to support them? Actually, it sounds a bit like you’re abandoning them.”

But someone joining the military isn’t treated like this, because we all know what it means. Yes, there’s uncertainty, and it’s a different life, but no one thinks you’re abandoning your parents or wife or children to sign up. If you’re called into battle, you go, even if it’s dangerous, even if it takes you from your family, even if you are injured or killed. And when you return home you are honored and thanked for your service and sacrifice.

Not so in the work of God. Taking on such deprivations and risks is not met with encouragement, but warnings. The pastor tells you that something like this requires a direct call from God, that putting your family at risk is wrong. Even the advice and support of your closest friends, who want to help, counts for very little because they haven’t done it either. Your first step on that dirt path winding off into the darkness is your step, all alone.

When commentary writers say that the demand of Christ is satisfied by not doing it, then they also tell us that doing it is going to ill-advised extremes. By painting desperate images (naked, poor) they make it sound silly, and so if you do the risky thing, you're a bit silly too. Your motives are suspect because unless God has personally told you to do it you are not following Christ but abandoning your responsibilities.

When France and Morris and Hagner tell us to stay where we are and be more loving and generous they place themselves squarely on the other path. They can shine the light on their path, but not hours.

To follow Christ, you have to leave the church.

That’s too extreme you say: There are a lot of people who go into foreign missions. Yes, there are. And that's a problem. They cannot go until their financial needs are met, which includes medical and life insurance, savings for sabbatical years and retirement, education for their children, air fare, housing, ministry needs, a car, monthly expenses, and whatever else minimizes the risk. On the one hand, the church has more than enough money to support missionaries and should do more. On the other hand, someone who wants to follow the demand of Christ is not allowed to. Not within the church anyway. If you insist on obeying these words of Christ you do it on your own. Which is probably a good thing.

Yes, it's good to make sure our missionaries are trained and equipped. We need to know they are prepared, serious, up to the task. The rules have been developed by people who have seen failures and want to keep the chance for another embarrassment as low as possible. They know what happens when people go out unprepared. All that is true.

But the fact remains, the church does not allow someone to obey the demand of Christ. That is a problem. The church is so organized and so institutionalized that it doesn't know how to deal with someone wanting to do it outside the institution. There is no reason for this. Well, actually there is a reason for it: their seminary professors taught them how it is to be done. If the professors knew what they were teaching, or at least knew what they didn't know, it would leave open the possibility for both types of missionaries. The church would be better for it: two paths into missions: the traditional path where financial support is required, and the other path where you take nothing. Why do it through the church if you don't get their financial support? Only one reason: it is so desperately difficult to do it alone.

What a difference it would make in the church if there was an expectation that some would enlist and take that dirt path into the darkness.

Should everyone do it. Absolutely not! Almost no one should. Most people should not be pastors or elders or deacons either. Actually, there should be fewer. Not everyone should be in traditional missions (but I think there should be more). Most people should not do any of these things, but no one is allowed to say that because they don't no one else should!

In my experience, the best work is done by those outside the church. In my experience, the strongest interference comes from first, the church, then the government agencies, then other missionaries and charities. Churches in America don't know how to treat you so they regard you with suspicion. Local church leaders (in Romania) see Americans as targets. They are certain you have money and insist you pay the bills if you are going to work together. Government agencies are government agencies: you see you as a strange thing and need to rope you in so they do what they do best: they make rules. Lot's of rules. To keep you inside their boundaries. Foreign missionaries and pastors, coddled by the American church, spend more on themselves than the work. The problem with being told they cannot go until they have provided for themselves according to the American understanding of things is that they then build a little America wherever they go: they cannot live without the things they need. That means they live far above the local economy. That means they take photos of desperate people to raise money which they largely spend on themselves. That means they generally make themselves an embarrassment. But since they're only an embarrassment here and no one (certainly not them!) is going to report what is actually going on, their mission boards are satisfied and continue to send the money.

Out of fear that they will be exposed, they teach that their life is the expectation. If the experts were honest, they would admit they has never done it rather than telling us not to do it. How refreshing it would be for just one commentator to admit there is something in the text he doesn’t understand. But they are required to understand. When they write a commentary on Luke they are required to comment on everything from Luke 1:1 to 24:53. There's a lot in there they don't understand, but that can't happen, so they fit it to their understanding—even if that means it says the opposite of what Christ said.

The body of Christ is infinitely complex. There is not one job or expectation that fits everyone. When we set our aim at the level of the people we miss Christ. Paul says, “I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” The church has abandoned its upward call. We're content spending our days in the pasture, waiting for the day we will be ushered into the better pasture where we can rest forever. We are certain that so long as everyone is here, grazing with us, we're all safe.

Safety in numbers. Ten thousand people saying Christ is wrong makes them right. Wow.

---

#Sermon_on_the_Mount

#Luke_6.30 #give_to_everyone

#Matt_5.42 give to everyone

#Matt_5.3 #blessed_are_the_poor

#1_Cor_15.36 fool!

#Deut_15.7-11 give liberally

#I_Howard_Marshall, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. The Gospel of Luke.

#Leon_Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Luke. Revised Edition.

#RT_France, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Matthew.