There is a beautiful passage in C.S. Lewis’s Reflections on the Psalms [1] on Jesus and Mary, his mother, which I would simply like to quote here:

I think, too, it will do us no harm to remember that, in becoming Man, He bowed His neck beneath the sweet yoke of a heredity and early environment. Humanly speaking, He would have learned this style, if from no one else (but it was all about Him) from His Mother. ‘That we should be saved from our enemies and from the hands of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant.’ Here is the same parallelism. (And incidentally, is this the only aspect in which we can say of His human nature ‘He was His Mother’s own son’? There is a fierceness, even a touch of Deborah, mixed with the sweetness in the Magnificat to which most painted Madonnas do little justice; matching the frequent severity of His own sayings. I am sure the private life of the holy family was, in many senses, ‘mild’ and ‘gentle’, but perhaps hardly in the way some hymn writers have in mind. One may suspect, on proper occassions, a certain astringency; and all in what people at Jerusalem regarded as a rough north-country dialect.)

---

[1] C.S. Lewis, Selected Books (London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2002), 311-312.

Question: If everything that is the case is is so because God willed it to be the case and everything that is willed by God is rightly willed by God, then how can anything be rightly said to be against the will of God and how can we want to change something without going against the will of God?

Response: First of all, note that if everything that is the case is so because God rightly wills it to be so, then our having a desire to change something is also rightly willed by God and is in that sense in accordance with the will of God. Furthermore, even if God rightly wills a state of affairs to be currently actual it does not follow that (1) God rightly wills that state of affairs to be actual at all future moments of time or (2) that God would want that state of affairs to be actual in different circumstances. It is possible that even if something is rightly willed by God to be the case now, it can be rightly said to be against the general will of God and to not be what God wills everywhere, always and under all circumstances (what we might call the universal will of God). If our desire to change some state of affairs s is merely a desire to do something sothat s is no longer actual in the future, it can be easily reconciled with the will of God. The following is clearly possible: God wills s to be actual at t1 and wills that s is not actual at any moment after t1 & We want to do something sothat s is no longer actual at any moment after t1.

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Matthew 6:19-22 (ESV)

Aspiring modern followers of Jesus, whether they count themselves among the rich or the poor, may find themselves severly troubled by this passage. Although the instruction not to lay up earthly treasures for one’s self was given to a specific audience (at least in the story), we have reason to believe (1) that it clearly reflects stable convictions of the first century Jesus and (2) that Jesus, if he were alive and among us today, would instruct us along similar lines.

It is more probable that Jesus would do the latter if this passage does not reflect mere arguments offered in support of the teaching, but rather main reasons for the teaching. After all, it is still the case that moth and rust destroy (although this may be less of a problem in some parts of the world today) and it is still the case that thieves steal. Furthermore, one can still plausibly hold that “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”.

But what, exactly, is the instruction that Jesus gives in Matthew 6:19-22? Is it an instruction against (1) having valuable possessions on earth, (2) collecting valuable possessions on earth, (3) storing up valuable possessions on earth, (4) storing up valuable possessions on earth for one’s self? or (5) storing up valuable possessions of a particular sort or in a particular quantity on earth for one’s self? Is it aimed against individual actions or against a practice?

One could certainly argue from “where you treasure is, there your heart will be also” as well as other Gospel passages (e.g. Luke 18:18-25), that Jesus was opposed to having many valuable possessions on earth. But the instruction in Matthew 6:19 seems to deal with storing up valuable possessions.

Luke 12:16-20, the Parable of the Rich Fool, can arguably help us better understand Jesus’s instruction. The parable is roughly the story of a rich man who decides to build bigger barns to store up his abudant harvest for his future self. The rich man plans to enjoy himself and live off his supplies for many years to come, but his soul is going to be required (back?) by God that very night, perhaps in divine punishment. After telling the parable, Jesus says, “So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.” Luke 12:21 (ESV). From what is said, we can conclude that it is not unlikely that Jesus’s instruction against laying up treasure is aimed at something that involves storing up at least certain kinds valuable things for one’s future self.

Further, it is not unlikely that it is aimed at least at a practice of storing up certain valuable things for one’s future self and the parable provides evidence that even individual actions of this sort would / could meet with Jesus’s disapproval.

It is noteworthy that the man in the story is rich. Is Jesus’s instruction perhaps only for the rich? We might be tempted to think that if we count ourselves among the poor. There are certainly indications in the Gospels that Jesus was critical of the rich in his own time. However, although relatively rich and well-earning people can store up more valuable possessions for themselves than relatively poor and little-earning people, people of the latter sort can nevertheless have a practice of storing up valuable possessions for themselves. Moreover, note that the context of Jesus’s instruction in Matthew is that of speaking to his disciples (see Matthew 5:1-2) and that he does not specifically address the rich before giving this instruction, but rather seems to speak to all his disciples (cf. James 5:1-6).

It is also noteworthy that what the rich man plans to store up is not large amounts of money, but the abudant harvest of his land. Are we to understand that Jesus was opposed to storing up food for one’s future self and was rather in favor of an absolute reliance on the future provision of God? A proponent of such a theory might point to Matthew 6:25-34 (see my reflection on it here) and Matthew 6:11 (“Give us this day our daily bread”). There are certainly indications that Jesus had a great trust in the provision of food by God (see, for example, Matthew 6:31-33 and 14:19) and relativized the importance of human agricultural activities such as sowing and reaping (see Matthew 6:26). In addition to that, asking God for bread on a daily basis admittedly makes sense if one does not have bread from the previous day.

However, Jesus does not condemn agriculture outright in the Gospels nor does he seem to have a big problem (quite the opposite) with fishing, buying food and plucking grain (see Luke 5:1-11; John 21:9-14, 4:8, 6:5 and Matthew 12:1), which would be a bit odd if Jesus were an advocate of absolute dependence on God for food. Of course, although agriculture involves the storing of edible seed, most of what is mentioned here is very much compatible with Jesus being okay with food production, but against the storing up of food for one’s future self. An argument against such a view is that such a position would seem to be in conflict with parts of Scripture. One might point out that in Genesis 41 Joseph stores up food in preparation for the years of famine and that in Exodus 16 YHWH gives manna for two days on the day before the sabbath and the people are supposed to collect it for both that day and for the sabbath itself.

If we look at the story of the rich man, we may notice that he does not merely plan to store up crops, but rather plans to store up a large and unusual quantity of crops. His current barns are too small to contain what he wanted to store and yet they presumambly could contain what he needed for survival and future crop planting. Instead of giving thanks to God for the extraordinary harvest and planning to give away what did not fit in his barns, he plans to build bigger barns. Not only that, he plans to live a more relaxed sort of life (perhaps not unlike that of the rich man in the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus, see Luke 16:19-31).

Jesus’s instruction to his audience not to store up earthly treasures for themselves could perhaps be part of a larger ethic in which caring for people who are presently in need is central (although perhaps not absolute, see Matthew 26:6-12). There is evidence for such an ethic throughout the Gospels. Think of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Think of Jesus’s concern for sick people. Think of his instructions to sell possessions and give to the poor. Think of the judgement in Matthew 25. Think of his instruction “Give to the one who begs from you” (Matthew 6:42a ESV). Acts 4:34-35 provides further, if somewhat indirect evidence, that Jesus had such an ethic: “There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet and it was distributed to each as any had need.”

It is not hard to see that an instruction against storing up valuable possessions for one’s future self could flow from a principle of caring for those presently in need. But we must tread carefully here, for the instruction is not is explicitly argued with reference to the poor or the needy, but with reference to moths and thieves and rust and the principle that “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”. That principle (arguably) also stands behind Jesus’s instruction to lay up treasures in heaven, an instruction we might have missed in reading the passage.

We might be tempted not to take that instruction particularly seriously, perhaps not valuing heavenly treasure (arguably acquired through doing the will of God and being rewarded with heavenly treasure because of that) as much as Jesus did. Note that there are multiple indications that Jesus was concerned with heavenly treasure, or at least divine reward, see for instance Matthew 6:1-4 and Luke 6:32-35. Further, if the principle that “where your treasure is, there you heart will be also” is true (a principle that perhaps stands behind Jesus’s comments about it being all but impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God), then perhaps we should take the instruction seriously.

This is the tenth post in a series highlighting similarities between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels.

The Royal Entry into Jerusalem

“So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”” John 12:13 (ESV). All four Gospels indicate that Jesus approached Jerusalem on a donkey around the time of the Passover and at least two of the Gospels indicate he was treated by people as a king. See also Luke 19:28-40; Mark 11:1-11 and Matthew 21:1-11.

Last Supper

All four Gospels indicate that Jesus and the disciples had an evening meal together before his crucifiction. See Mark 14:12-20; Matthew 26:17-35; Luke 22:7-38 and John 13:1-17:26.

Arrest

“So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.” John 18:12 (ESV). All four Gospels indicate Jesus was arrested by a group of people. See Luke 22:47-53; Mark 14:43-50 and Matthew 25:47-56.

Is being autonomous a necessary precondition for being happy? Can we be happy if we are under authority?

It is possible to be happy and under authority, even if our being able to do what we most strongly want to do is a necessary precondition for our being happy. Our being able to do what we most strongly want to do is not necessarily incompatible with having an authority over us, even an authority that is able to prevent us from doing all or some of the things we most strongly want to do. This authority might for example approve of what we most strongly desire to do or at least not want to prevent us from doing those things.

Of course, if one of the things we most strongly want to do is live without an authority over us and our happiness depended on it, then our being happy and having an authority over us would be incompatible.

There is a distinction between the writings of a human author and the beliefs of that author. In priniciple, the writings of a particular human are shaped by beliefs of that person. There might be cases in which that is not so, but it is at least ordinarily the case that human writings are, to one degree or other, shaped by beliefs of their authors.

Authorial beliefs ordinarly play a causal role in the process of human writing. Someone may write x, in part, because she believes that x is true or, for that matter, false, funny, hurtful, profound or silly. More basic still, someone may write down x, in part, because she believes she is able to do so. Whether or not all the beliefs of an author play a role in the writing process is for me less clear. There is reason to believe that no aspect of the author is dispensible in the causal process that gives rise to a text. If so, even authorial beliefs that are about very different matters can be said to play a role in the writing process. But let us leave this issue to the side.

That human writings are ordinarily to some degree shaped by at least some beliefs of their authors does not mean that a full picture or inventory of their beliefs can be easily constructed from their writings, even when those have been preserved. Often features of the text are explainable and even plausibly explainable in terms of differening beliefs. A human author having written x might be the partial result of having belief y, but might be plausibly explained in terms of her having belief z.

Furthermore, the beliefs of people on certain topics can change quite radically over time. Just because a human author believed certain things when she wrote a particular book, paragraph or sentence does not mean that she believed them ten years later. That being said, there is also a lot of continuity and stability when it comes to human beliefs. If we have strong evidence an author believed y at t1 then this also counts as evidence, and in the absence of strong counter-evidence, arguably as strong evidence that she believed y at t2.

Why do people, in our day and age, start and continue to study theology at some seminary, school or academic institution?

Let us make some points at the outset. First, the reasons someone has to start studying theology and to continue studying theology may differ. Indeed, perhaps they always do differ to some extent. Second, the reasons someone has to start studying theology or to continue doing so may differ over time. Someone may, for instance, acquire or lose reasons over time to start studying theology at a particular place. Third, the reasons people may have to start or continue studying theology may differ even if they are at, or want to go to, the same school. Fourth, some of the reasons someone has to start studying theology and to continue doing so might be very particular to them. We should not, perhaps, be very surprised about that. Human beings, for all the commonalities, are unique and have unique lives.

All this does not mean, of course, that the reasons people have for starting and continuing to study theology are never somewhat similar. Those who start and continue to study theology in our time are often motivated by (1) a relatively strong interest in one or more topics dealt with in the study of theology, such as God, Jesus, the Bible and Church history, and a relatively strong desire to know more about this/those topic(s), (2) a desire to be a pastor, missionary or teacher and the belief that studying theology, at least in certain cases, will help them become that and (3) a sense that God does, or might, want them to study theology.

People who start to and/or continue to study theology can have additional and even other reasons for doing so (although there are perhaps very few, if any, that lack a relatively strong interest in theological topics). These reasons might include expectations and desires of parents, a desire to be like someone one admires, a desire for new friends or even a spouse, a desire to be respected by one’s teachers and classmates, a desire to have a degree from a university or a seminary, a desire for power and authority, a desire for credibility, a desire to leave one’s home or one’s home country and even a desire to have a job that pays well (although I have a hunch that in many cases this will not be the primary reason to study theology).

Now, I am concious of the fact that people might take the things just mentioned as the ‘real’ reasons people study theology. I shall tread carefully here. It is possible to be overly suspicious about someone’s motives for studying theology, but it is also possible to be overly idealistic about them. And interestingly, the overly supicious and the overly idealistic may find themselves in agreement about one thing: Someone cannot possibly study theology because they are interested in it. That, I deny. One of the most universal reasons for studying theology, one had by convinced Christians, doubting Christians, former Christians and non-Christians, is a desire to learn and know more about matters dealt with in the study of theology.

People often have multiple reasons for studying theology and often the reasons are not equally lofty or, for that matter, equally lowly. Also, they might not find their reasons equally weighty or be equally conscious of them nor might they be equally forthcoming about them. It is possible that people are more quiet about the reasons just mentioned, but what reasons someone gives for studying theology arguably depends on the circumstances. For example, in a hostile atheistic context people are probably less likely to mention a sense of divine calling even if that is their primary reason for studying theology.

This is the ninth post in a series of blogposts on similarities between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels.

Complicated Relationship with Mother and Brothers

“For not even his brothers believed in him.” John 7:5 (ESV). All four Gospels contain indications that Jesus had a somewhat complicated relationship with his mother and especially with his brothers. See Mark 3:20-21, 31-35; Matthew 12:43; Luke 2:41-52, 8:19-21 and John 2:1-5. Admittedly, John 2:12 points in a positive direction.

Jewish People Who Wanted Jesus Dead

“After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.” John 7:1 (ESV). All four Gospels provide evidence that there were Jews who wanted Jesus dead. See, for example, Matthew 12:14, Mark 8:31 and Luke 23:18-25.

Mary and Martha

“Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.” John 11:1 (ESV). The sisters Mary and Martha are also mentioned in Luke 10:38-42.

This is the eighth post in a series highlighting similarities between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels. For this post I have made use of the ESV text (2011).

Walking on the Sea

“When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened.” John 6:19 (ESV). Two Synoptic Gospels also contain a story of Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee, see Matthew 14:22-33 and Mark 6:45-52.

In Samaria

“So he came to a town of Samaria called Sychar, near the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.” John 4:5 (ESV). Luke’s Gospel also indicates that Jesus was in Samaria (see Luke 9:51-55).

Betrayal by Judas Iscariot

“He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.” John 6:71 (ESV). All four Gospels indicate that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus (see also Mark 14:10-11, 43-50; Matthew 26:14-16, 47-56 and Luke 22:3-6, 47-53).

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Luke 6:35-36 (ESV)

Luke 6:27-36 deals in large part with the treatment of other people, and especially people of the sort one might deeply dislike. In verses 27-30 Jesus instructs his audience to (1) love their enemies[1], (2) do good to those who hate them, (3) bless those who curse them, (4) pray for those who abuse them, (5) offer the other cheek to those who strike them, (6) not withold their tunic to those that take away their cloak, (7) give to those who beg from them and (8) not demand their goods back from those who take them. Further, in verse 31 he lays out a general or an absolute principle for their treatment of others: “And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.”

Now, suppose that one of his hearers would ask him why they should do these things. Based on the passage, we might suggest that Jesus would answer roughly that (1) they would want these things done to them if the roles were reversed, (2) by doing these things they will go beyond what sinners do, setting them apart from them, and preform true feats, (3) doing these things is in accordance with the way their heavenly Father treats others, including “the ungrateful and the evil” and, as His children, it is therefore fitting that they do these things, (4) by doing these things they will be obedient and/or ‘true’ children of the Most High and (5) by doing these things they will do things that are pleasing to their heavenly Father and will be greatly rewarded for it.

A principle which is not mentioned in this passage, but which connects well with it and may have played a role here is ‘Do not repay evil with evil’ (see Romans 12:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, 1 Peter 3:9 and Proverbs 24:29). We may also connect this passage to Jesus warning: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20 (ESV). We may also connect this passage to passages which provide evidence that Jesus lived in accordance with his own teachings, see for example Luke 23:34 (“Father, forgive them”), Matthew 8:5-13 (healing of centurion’s servant) and John 4:4-42 (dealings with Samaritans).

---

[1] We may find that, if we are honest, we are not quite sure what Jesus’s instruction “Love your enemies” means. But perhaps we can get a bit clearer on it. In English to love someone is, at least ordinarily, something along the lines of deeply liking someone and/or wanting their ultimate welfare and wellbeing. In trying to understand what is in view it can also help to analyse what hating one’s enemy is, since that is, at least arguably, the opposite of loving one’s enemy. Hating one’s enemies is something along the lines of intesely disliking one’s enemies and/or wanting their ultimate death, destruction and/or suffering. Of course, one could argue that the English leads us astray and that what is in view, at least in the Greek text, is pure action and behavior. The passage admittedly deals to a large extent with actions and behavior, but we also have evidence that Jesus’s cared about more internal matters (e.g. Luke 6:45, 14:18; Matthew 5:22, 15:19, 23:27-28). Moreover, it is difficult to make sense of Luke 14:18 on a purely behavioral theory of agapao.