In Luke 4 we read about Jesus beginning His public ministry. He has been baptized and endured the temptation in the desert and then walks into Nazareth on the Sabbath and speaks from Isaiah.
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." And He rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:18-21)Jesus, from Isaiah 61, gives a brief overview of His ministry. What were the key points? Well, primarily, "to proclaim good news" or, as we would say, "the gospel." He notes it is "to the poor" and "to the captives" and "those who are oppressed." Liberty to the captives, sight to the blind, liberty to the oppressed. Good news.
This passage has been dragged out as proof that "the gospel" is simply a social justice gospel. Jesus was here to help the oppressed and the poor and the transgender. Oh, no, not that one, but He would have been if they had been around at the time. You know, any of the mistreated and minimized. Assuming that's so, it's sad to know that Jesus failed. He told His disciples, "You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me" (Matt 26:11). There is not one account of Him lifting a poor family out of their poverty. He certainly did a lot of healing -- sight to the blind and that sort -- but the nation of Israel that He came to save from the oppression and poverty remained in oppression and poverty when He died.
Could it be that it wasn't this kind of "poor," "captives," "oppressed," or, for that matter, "blind" He was talking about? Could it be that He had a deeper meaning? Interestingly, in Isaiah's version it says He had been anointed to preach good tidings to the meek. Literally, the depressed, the humble, the lowly. That could include those without much money, but there is so much more to "poor" than "not enough money." In the Sermon on the Mount He referred to "the poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3) rather than merely "the poor." In that text He also referred to those who mourn (Matt 5:4), those who are meek (Matt 5:5), those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt 5:6) ... and those who are persecuted (Matt 5:10). Are these not also the "poor," the "captives," the "blind," and the "oppressed"?
If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty and the oppressed from oppression, He failed to accomplish His mission. He tried, but apparently it's up to His followers to accomplish what He couldn't. "It is finished" was a dream, not a statement of success. If Jesus came to save the poor in spirit, those oppressed and imprisoned by sin, and to heal those blinded by the god of this world, His mission was a glorious success. He finished it on the cross and we continue today to see the ramifications and proof of His completion every time someone comes in faith to trust Him to save them ... from a poor spirit, a life imprisoned by sin, and spiritual blindness. Now, maybe ... just maybe ... some would think that "saved from poverty and oppression" is better news than "saved from spiritual poverty and the oppression of sin." And it is absolutely true that 1) we who believe have an obligation to help people in need and 2) we are not doing a good job of that. Still, I happen to think that the latter -- saved from sin -- is more impressive and more important ... and more consistent with Jesus's ministry and the rest of the Scriptures (like Jesus's own claim that "The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10)). .
19 comments:
Stan, you just don't understand.
Because Jesus fed some people who were temporarily hungry, that means that He succeeded in feeding the hungry.
Because Jesus healed a few people, that means that He actually did enough to count for His mission.
I know that He really dropped the ball on the poor people, by not actually moving anyone out of poverty, and by acknowledging His failure by saying that the poor will "always" be around.
What you don't understand is that Jesus didn't have to actually end any of the things the SJWs read into His quoting of an OT prophet, as long as He did a few examples He succeeded.
I guess pointing out that the passage literally says "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.", yet nothing actually happened on that specific day, seems to mitigate taking this too literally.
Finally, I've never seen any progressive christian/sjw types who give a lot of credence to the notion of prophecy actually being an accurate prediction of actual future events (inspired by God). Strange that this is the one exception. I wonder why the prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin, or being whipped and killed for our sins aren't as popular among that tribe.
Noting your sarcasm here for the other side, it is TRUE that I don't understand. I don't understand how they can complain that I take Scripture literally ("as written," not "woodenly literal") and then complain that I'm not taking this as woodenly literally as they are. I don't understand (as you pointed out) how Jesus didn't actually accomplish the end of poverty, the relief for all the oppressed, or the removal of all blindness ... even for His own day ... and they still argue He came to do that and even think He did it. I don't understand at all.
And of course, he's Danny-on-the-spot to correct your inability to believe what Jesus said because you cherry-pick when to take Him literally.
I agree that the complaint about taking scripture literally mystifies me. Clearly there are folx who take this particular passage in a woodenly literal sense, even though subsequent events in the gospels contradict that interpretation. Yet those some folx don't understand that to take scripture literally doesn't mean that one takes figures of speech as literal. Taking scripture literally is to simply take scripture for what it is. History as history, poetry as poetry, metaphor as metaphor, and so on.
It's really not that hard, which makes me wonder if it's really just one more straw man.
Really. Take any parable or metaphor and discern the meaning, and it's that which is to be taken literally. In other situations, the command is quite clearly stated without the use of metaphor or parable. That is, anything beginning with "Thou shalt not". An example is the perennial argument, "so we're to pluck out our own eyes???" That's not the meaning behind the use of that hyperbolic statement.
With the debate on the table, it seems ironically clear that a woodenly literal understanding of "poor" is demanded, with no study of the original language which has been interpreted as "poor" and what the original language means based on the usage of the word(s) in the original language. Is it really a reference to material wealth or something more spiritual in nature? I don't see Christ as having that much concern about one's bank account. Even in cases where He's telling us how to treat the materially poor, the concern is for the soul of one who might not have had much concern for the poor. Ultimately, it's always about our own spiritual condition.
I'd also suggest that the actions of Jesus and the early Church make it clear that the gospel was presented to all people regardless of their degree of wealth.
The reality in this conversation is that Jesus did not ever do anything that was intended to eliminate poverty. I think that part of the problem is that some people place Jesus' words above His (and those who followed Him) actions.
Very good point.
I noticed a couple of other anomalies in the discussion. "You're not taking it literally enough," they tell me, but Jesus said, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." If we take that in an absolutely literal sense, it wasn't a plan; it was an accomplished fact. He wasn't going to do it; He already had. Then, I noticed that He said He was anointed to "proclaim good news to the poor," but it didn't say what that good news was. "Freedom from poverty" or even "something to eat" wasn't listed. In what sense did He mean "set at liberty those who are oppressed" and how and when did He accomplish that? I'm sure the oppressed were still oppressed at the end of His life. But the interesting feature I'm seeing is that the "good news" I'm seeing in all their cases is "the good news that I will find acceptable" ... and then claim to be "literal."
Stan,
Interesting point. Jesus painted His accomplishing His/YHWH's plan as an accomplished fact. No plan, no hope, but "is fulfilled". The question is should we take that absolutely literally? I'd say that it's not the only time Jesus speaks of future events as if they were already fulfilled, this seems like one more.
So what we have is folks who'll likely take exception to "is fulfilled" as literal, while insisting that we have to take "poor" in a woodenly literal sense to only mean the materially poor.
I seem this pretty regularly where folks will take bits and pieces of a larger passage as woodenly literal, while dismissing other pieces as figurative, with no logic as to why one is different than the other. In this case, we add things to Jesus words, and act like those additions must also be taken in a wooden literal sense.
Now, If the "good news" Jesus spoke of was not an elimination of material poverty, and not elimination of oppression, in this current world, but was of the reconciling of everything to Himself then the "is fulfilled" makes sense. But, if this was just a "plan" and if that "plan" relied on humans doing "greater works" than Jesus, then "is fulfilled" makes absolutely no sense.
The question we're left with is, "Do we take Jesus at His word when He said "is fulfilled", or do we assume that He was actually saying something else entirely?".
A similar line of reasoning is what started me down the path of rejecting pre-millenialism (which I'd been taught most of my life). If a passage is figurative why suddenly choose to interpret one sentence of it as literal?
Ah, be honest. It's just 'cause you're a rebel. :)
He's responding at his blog and I haven't even had the chance to post and be deleted yet.
His blog? Is that the "Everything Stan has said wrong" blog?
The very same.
Why waste the time posting and being deleted? You know he's just going to take your comments out of context, and use his versions of your deleted comments to paint a false picture of what you actually said.
Has he tried to force his responses to Stan onto your blog yet? I got a lengthy comment, but decided that it's not my place to give him what his behavior has denied him. Especially since I've been banned at his blog.
You got banned?? From a most generous and open blog? Should I conclude, as he does, that banning you means he can't or won't answer you?
I'm not sure what exactly banning me means. I suspect it means that he won't post any comments I might make, but will cherry pick things out of context and misrepresent my comments.
I just decided that it wasn't worth playing his games and don't comment there.
I understand. There are a couple (only two) who are banned from my site, meaning I don't post their comments as a rule. I try not to bother reading them before I delete them. Blogger doesn't have a "block" option. But since I've banned a couple, they seem to think that I can't answer their questions, a faulty conclusion on their part.
I too wish that Blogger would allow us to block people. I've only had one person who I've "banned", and even that has been tempered with mercy as I've allowed occasional limited comments after the banning. Unfortunately, that didn't work out well and now they just get deleted without being read. It is interesting that some folk are so filled with hubris that they'll continue to post comments even after they've been told that the comments will be deleted.
"Why waste the time posting and being deleted?"
I can't help myself. I love to engage. There was a time...it seems ages ago...when there were too many options for "doing battle", as it were. I still have lists of sites from the right and left, but there is now only one lefty blogger who cares to post, and he's not the brightest among them. Each of you (and David, too) have some positions about which I took some issue, but they're mostly minor differences in the grand scheme of things (in my opinion). But when someone is so off the rails as the typical leftist/ progressive/socialist/Dem (same things), there's just something about it.
As to blocking...it's sad there is no option for that. Neil has said that wordpress has such a feature, but I never followed through on transferring my stuff. Comment moderation is the only option, and I really don't like that. I prefer immediate posting, which, if I'm in the mood to converse, makes things easier for all who care to join in. Waiting to approved is a pain. But then, without this option...or a blocking option...trolls run rampant like cockroaches as if allowing comments is an invitation to act like an...well...you know. d
And yes, despite the bad behavior which led to their banishment...trolls believe we fear their "intellect"...which at least makes me laugh.
Post a Comment