On Being “Rich Toward God”

“But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou has provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God [εἰς Θεὸν πλουτῶν].” (Luke 12:20-21)

This notion of being “rich toward God” is well worth exploring. We do not normally speak of being rich toward (Greek, eis) something or someone. Now, the construction can, it seems, be easily translated into a more familiar one, like “rich in respect of” or “rich in” for short: rich in wisdom, rich in children, rich in talent. And yet the preposition suggests not just “in respect of”; it suggests a receiver of the wealth, and since God is the receiver, rather than ourselves, we might also say a person “rich toward God” is rich in service of God.

It is as if one had accumulated spiritual wealth for God. Now, one does not normally speak of the wealth accumulated on behalf of another as one’s own wealth; the wealth that a servant accumulates for his master is not also his own. But sometimes scripture treats the wealth that is “toward God” that way.

A similar construction is used elsewhere, that of “treasure in heaven.” In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says: “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.” (Matthew 6:19-20)

The rat race would, if we let it, make us focus primarily on the accumulation of wealth for ourselves. That phrase, “the rat race,” suggests something new, but this is an ancient concept. There is nothing new about the notion of the mere accumulation of things as being the purpose of life and the definition of success. It is precisely this notion that leads Jesus to declare, “Thou fool.” True and permanent wealth, worth seeking, is wealth toward God, as he puts it: it is wealth in God’s service, in the service of his Kingdom.

This does not mean literal wealth either, of course. So what does it mean? What are some “treasures in heaven”? This is what the rest of this little essay will examine, because it is important. It is important because this, rather than our own wealth, is what Jesus said we ought to pursue in this life.

Let us begin with one obvious answer: good works. Whether you are a sola fide Protestant or not, you must admit that this answer is often repeated in the Gospel accounts. For example: “And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones [the children of God] a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” (Matthew 10:42) This is of course only an example; the image is developed in more detail in Matthew 25:31-46, when good works are described as, particularly, feeding the hungry, watering the thirsty, taking in the wayfarer, and visiting the sick and imprisoned. Jesus says that when you show such mercy and love for others, you are showing mercy and love for him. By keeping our fellow man out of abject poverty, by easing his distress, by making his life less painful, we become more “rich toward God”; we “lay up treasures in heaven.” And this is, surely, still only a suggestive list. Especially with modern tools and opportunities, we can help ease the great pains of God’s children in this age in many ways indeed.

In Luke, the principle is given more generally, albeit using another metaphor: “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.” (Luke 6:38) How you “give” to your fellow man in this life will be returned in abundance to you in the next life. And even more explicitly, Jesus declares in some of the last words of the Bible: “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Revelation 22:12) That is, he holds in his hand the reward that he will mete out those who show mercy to his children.

But is there any other “treasure in heaven” that makes us “rich toward God”? Yes, or so it would seem: scripture speaks of faith in a similar way. “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?” (James 2:5) It is interesting that the writer most associated with “works-based salvation,” James, here says that it is “the poor of this world rich in faith”, who “love” God, who will be rewarded as the (wealthy) “heirs of the kingdom”. Peter, too, finds “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 1:7) There are, of course, many more examples.

I will not carefully construct the case now, but there is no contradiction here. The pursuit of wealth toward God, of the treasures of heaven, has two closely connected and mutually entailing aspects. The work we do for our fellow man, especially but not only our fellow Christians, is work for God, which will be richly rewarded. But at the same time, to be faithful to the Lord entails that we repent from the sins of this world, the greed and selfishness and everything that keeps us from living as God wishes us to. Faithfulness to God means repenting, changing so that we are oriented toward the things that God encourages: most of all, toward the love of God and the love of our fellow man. These are two aspects of the same thing. Genuine faithfulness to God will emerge as a life changed by its orientation toward the mercy we show to his children.

There is a kind of modern Christian who finds this message mildly distasteful. It sounds, frankly, a little too much like socialism. Is life really only about taking care of the poor? Shouldn’t they be taking care of themselves? If this is your reaction, let me gently suggest that you have missed the point. Strictly speaking, the answer is no: life is not only about taking care of the poor. The Bible endorses no ideology, and the Gospel transcends ideology. The point is not precisely. and not only, to provide for the poor, although that remains part of it. Both the political left and right claim to agree with this much. The non-ideological point, again, is that we concern ourselves with the well-being of all of God’s children, with special attention given to those who through their circumstances find it very hard to do for themselves. God is the God of life, he is the Living God, and life in our fallen world is hard: some of us need a great deal of help indeed. As we were helped as children, as we continue to be helped and blessed in many ways now, so also now we do our duty as mature Christian men and women must, in any culture that, to thrive, entirely depends on lovingkindness, which reflects that of God himself.

“But wait,” I hear certain libertarians (especially the devotees of Ayn Rand) saying: “Wait. Am I permitted to seek my own happiness or not? Is life really only about sacrifice of everything for others? Isn’t that a rather bleak outlook?” Again, let me gently suggest that you have missed the point. If you are typical, then no one can help you more than you can help yourself. Scripture is very clear that we are to do the most we can with the gifts we are given. No one has suggested that you should not provide, adequately and even abundantly, for yourself and your family. But to answer the question, yes: we are permitted to seek our own happiness, unless we are called upon to sacrifice all; and yet at the same time, yes also, life really is about sacrifice of everything for others. “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me”, said Jesus (Mark 8:34). Even when we allow ourselves some reward (in this life), this ought ultimately to be on behalf of the children of God and therefore of God himself. But, sure, perhaps in many cases we should be shunning self-indulgent and unnecessary expenses. Do you really have a problem with that?

Jesus was clear on this, and we must not pretend he was not. To a “rich young ruler,” he said, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” (Matthew 19:21) Here again we have the reference to “treasure in heaven.” Do you see now the centrality of this notion of wealth toward God? It is not exaggeration. We are to devote all we have to God’s children; to say this is not to dabble in rhetorical excess. It is not a side-issue you can ignore. It is the very purpose of our lives on earth. This is the very core of the Christian life. If this is news to you, very well; I say it is good news, which is what “Gospel” means. The good news is that the Kingdom of God has come near to you, and it is made up of God’s children, who live in loving service of each other. If you did not know this, good: you have learned something excellent, true, and important, which Jesus was most concerned to teach you.


by

Posted

in

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

3 responses to “On Being “Rich Toward God””

  1. You’re onto something. Synchronistically, providentially, serendipitously, it is related to the simple conclusion I am coming to. To live is to work, to produce. Retirement is not a biblical concept. But also, as you imply, to live is to love. To love God and to love one’s neighbor. Love is willful action, not a mere feeling. I’m pondering…

    1. Thanks, friend!

      (I know your name, and I’m sorry I can’t use “Sparky” because I always used to use that as a mild dismissive ironic insult!)

  2. 3ly

    In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law.

    If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts.

    In the latter book we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 C.E Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles—^that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules—and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were ” unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, ” becaus that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”‘

    This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworth; witness in these matters.

    According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to ” the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia”—where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been.

    But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction.

    About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, presumably apostles, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles,

    Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself.

    Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted
    [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted

    (John 1:29) Jesus was seen
    (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God

    (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God
    (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man

    (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn
    (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn’t ever need to learn

    (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died
    (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die

    (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation
    (Luke 1:37) God doesn’t need salvation

    (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept
    (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn’t sleep

    (John 5:19) Jesus wasn’t all powerful
    (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful

    (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn’t all knowing
    (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing

    Older one is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3).

    2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain.

    It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings.

    How can one beieve that the One that decrees that which is a ‘sin’ and that which is good “die for their sins” ? He is the One who decreed it thus, can decree it not so. To whom does the One with whom final authority resides in sacrifice for? a registrar? – No. None are greater than He.

    Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1

    God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *