It is heartbreaking to think of the many familial relationships that have been shipwrecked on the Rock of faith down through the centuries. Indeed, it is one of the most grotesque perversions of Christ's words and Scripture to use our Christian faith as an excuse to abandon or destroy familial relationships! How many so-called ministers have told their flocks that they must choose the church, Jesus, and God over spouses, parents, siblings, and children to protect their own interests? Even worse, how many of them have twisted Scripture to support that choice?
The reasoning goes something like this: You must not put anything before your devotion to God, and that includes family. Hence, since the minister and church are God's representatives, that devotion is also owed to them. Moreover, anything which gets in the way of that devotion must necessarily be discarded (again, including family). At first glance, this reasoning appears to be consistent with God's command to not have any other gods before him. However, upon closer examination, we will see that devotion to God has NEVER required someone to stop loving or to abandon their family.
Yes, God demanded that Abraham put God before his son, but he did not require him to sacrifice that son in the end. “Don’t lay a hand on the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know that you truly fear God. You have not withheld from me even your son, your only son.” (Genesis 22:12) God knew that Abraham was devoted to him and did NOT require him to kill or abandon his beloved son! God wasn't threatened by (or jealous of) Abraham's love for his son. Unfortunately, too many "Christian pastors" would have their sheep cut off their "unbelieving" or "unconverted" family members to demonstrate their devotion to God and his Church. In other words, if they had been in charge, Abraham would have been required to sacrifice Isaac to demonstrate that he truly loved God more than his son!
In this connection, some of these "pastors" love to quote the words of Christ recorded in the Gospel of Matthew: "If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine." (Matthew 10:37) But did Christ really state in this passage that we must abandon our family members to be worthy of him? Remember, context is essential to the correct understanding of any passage of Scripture.
Notice that Jesus was sending his twelve apostles out to the people of Israel with his message, and he was giving them special instructions for that mission (see Matthew 10:1-8). In other words, this was NOT to be confused with the Great Commission recorded at the end of this gospel account. This missionary trip happened during the time of Christ's own ministry on this earth (prior to his death, burial, resurrection and ascension), and it was specifically limited to their own people (Christ and his apostles were Jews). His instructions make clear that they would be traveling from village to village and accepting the hospitality of anyone who offered it to them (see Matthew 10:9-15).
As a part of this work, Christ went on to make clear that they would experience rejection and persecution along the way (see Matthew 10:16-20). In this context, he told them: "A brother will betray his brother to death, a father will betray his own child, and children will rebel against their parents and cause them to be killed. And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one town, flee to the next. I tell you the truth, the Son of Man will return before you have reached all the towns of Israel." (Matthew 10:21-23) In other words, some would face betrayal and persecution even at the hands of their own families!
Now, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Christ's instructions to his disciples on this occasion foreshadowed the more general persecution which they would experience as a consequence of the Great Commission that would come later, but we must not forget that his remarks here specifically applied to this particular mission to the Israelites of Judaea. He went on to warn them that they would face the same kind of opposition which he had faced as a consequence of his own ministry and instructed them to not be afraid of those who would threaten and oppose them (see Matthew 10:24-31).
Nevertheless, in spite of all of the opposition and persecution that they would experience along the way in ministering to their own people, Christ assured them that "Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven." (Matthew 10:32-33) This assurance to his apostles is followed by his famous warning that his message/ministry would not immediately result in peace and cooperation - that it would actually provoke the opposite reaction (see Matthew 10:34). Then, once again, Christ made clear that some of the hatred and opposition which that message generated would arise from within their own families! (See Matthew 10:35-36) Thus, at last, we come to the passage quoted at the beginning of this post (verse 37).
Hence, the context makes clear that even opposition and persecution which arises from within one's own family would not be accepted as an excuse for abandoning the message and mission which Christ had committed to them. In other words, their love for their families must not take precedence over their obligation to finish the commission delivered to them - it is clearly a matter of having the right priorities. There is NO permission here to stop loving their families or abandon their responsibilities and obligations to their loved ones! They must bear up under this additional burden and be willing to sacrifice themselves for it (see Matthew 10:38-39). Finally, to their families and potential audience, Christ promised: "Anyone who receives you receives me, and anyone who receives me receives the Father who sent me. If you receive a prophet as one who speaks for God, you will be given the same reward as a prophet. And if you receive righteous people because of their righteousness, you will be given a reward like theirs. And if you give even a cup of cold water to one of the least of my followers, you will surely be rewarded." (Matthew 10:40-42)
Yes, but how do we explain Christ's statement in the fourteenth chapter of the Gospel of Luke? In the King James Version of the Bible, we read: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) Moreover, there is no getting around the word "hate" - the Greek word translated into English as "hate" means "to hate, pursue with hatred, detest" (see Strong's at https://www.blueletterbible.org). However, when we look at the context and other translations, our perspective on the stark nature of the language used in this passage comes into sharper focus.
In the New Living Translation, the same passage is rendered: "If you want to be my disciple, you must, by comparison, hate everyone else—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple." And, when we take a closer look at the context, we can better appreciate the decision by the translators to insert the words "by comparison." If we back all the way up into the preceding chapter (Luke 13), we can see that Christ had been contrasting extremes on this occasion.
Christ began his discourse by commenting on a massacre of some Galileans and the collapse of a tower which had recently occurred (see Luke 13:1-5). In discussing the causation of the events, Jesus asked his followers whether the people who had suffered those catastrophes should be regarded as worse sinners than everyone else. Then he went on to answer his own question. No, they didn't suffer those things because they were more wicked than everyone else. Next, he contrasts a productive fig tree with one that is unproductive and resolves to cut it down if it continues to be unproductive (see Luke 13:6-9) Then Christ moved on to contrast the care of animals on the Sabbath with the healing of a woman on that day (see Luke 13:10-17). Next, he contrasted the small size of a mustard seed with the plant it eventually produces (Luke 13:18-19), and how the introduction of a small amount of yeast eventually permeates an entire batch of dough (Luke 13:20-21). Next, Jesus contrasted the acceptance of the righteous with the rejection of the wicked, and those who find themselves in humble circumstances as opposed to those who are considered to be a part of the elite (see Luke 13:22-30). Moreover, the chapter concludes with Christ contrasting his desire to help and protect Jerusalem with that city's record of killing God's messengers (see Luke 13:31-35).
Likewise, the fourteenth chapter of Luke opens with Jesus again comparing the treatment of animals on the Sabbath with his decision to heal a woman on that day (see Luke 14:1-6). Next, we read about how Christ contrasted the efficacy of humility with pridefulness in the context of a great banquet (see Luke 14:7-14). This was followed by Jesus telling his disciples a parable about a great feast - where those who were invited before the event are contrasted with those who were invited after the feast had been prepared (see Luke 14:15-24). Thus, we come at last to that stark passage quoted at the beginning of this section (Luke 14:26), and we see that it is consistent with the way that Christ had been contrasting extremes to make his points to his disciples on this occasion. Why all of this contrast and comparison?
Christ went on to explain that anyone who wanted to be one of his disciples must first "count the cost" of doing so and realize that there would be some personal sacrifice and self-denial involved in that endeavor (see Luke 14:27-35). Hence, we see once again that it wasn't that Christ was demanding that his followers "hate" their families, but that they must love him more than them. Moreover, by comparing this passage with all of the other relevant passages on the subject, we can see that any other interpretation of its meaning would be inconsistent with those other passages!
Not convinced? Let's look at another one of their favorite prooftexts on behalf of Christians abandoning their families. In the eighteenth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, we read: "Peter said, 'We’ve left our homes to follow you.' 'Yes,' Jesus replied, 'and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, will be repaid many times over in this life, and will have eternal life in the world to come.'" (Luke 18:28-20) Once again, we must understand this remark within the context in which it was delivered!
In this instance, Christ had just been asked by a wealthy religious leader what he could do to inherit eternal life (see Luke 18:18-23) Interestingly, as part of his answer, Christ had recited a few of the ten commandments - including the one to "Honor your father and mother." Then, when Christ observed that the man had not responded well to his answer, we are told that he said: "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God! In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" (See Luke 18:24-25) These comments greatly disturbed Christ's disciples, and they wondered aloud how anyone could be saved (Luke 18:26). In other words, Christ was saying that self-sacrifice was necessary to be one of his followers, and some folks didn't like it!
It was in this connection that Peter reminded Jesus that they had dropped everything to follow him, and Christ made the reply quoted above that some of these pastors love to twist to their own ends. Christ was merely responding to the concerns of his disciples by assuring them that they would be rewarded for whatever sacrifices they were making in the present. Once again, there is absolutely no suggestion that anyone is obligated to forsake their family, or that they are somehow absolved of all responsibilities to them!
What about what Christ said about who made up his real family? Let's take a closer look at that one too! In the twelfth chapter of Matthew, we read: "As Jesus was speaking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Someone told Jesus, 'Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, and they want to speak to you.' Jesus asked, 'Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?' Then he pointed to his disciples and said, 'Look, these are my mother and brothers. Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!'" (See Matthew 12:46-50) Was Christ making a statement about the status of his disciples as being an integral part of his spiritual family? OR Was Christ repudiating his biological family?
We should note that there is absolutely NO evidence that Christ ever abandoned or disowned his biological family. Indeed, this very passage provides evidence that their relationship with Jesus was ongoing. Moreover, according to the Gospel of John, one of Christ's final acts on this earth was to provide for his biological mother! (See John 19:25-27)
Hence, we see that the narrative about giving up one's family to be a Christian is NOT supported by Scripture. In fact, Christ specifically reprimanded the Pharisees for adhering to a similar practice relative to the temple (see Mark 7:9-13). Moreover, in speaking about the church's support for widows, Paul made this remark in his first letter to Timothy: "But those who won’t care for their relatives, especially those in their own household, have denied the true faith. Such people are worse than unbelievers." (See I Timothy 5:8) Indeed, the notion that God would ever condone the shunning of one's family, or one's responsibilities to one's family, is abhorrent to several of God's commandments, the principle that God is building a family of children, and the notion that God and his laws are supposed to be representative of love!
No comments:
Post a Comment