For Jesus, God's natural ecosystem is not only one of care, but alos of limits. So when Jesus is tempted (Luke 4:1-3), he refuses to turn stones into bread (which would subvert God's natural system of provision)...
Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 139
Luke 4
4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led in the Spirit in the wilderness
4:2 during forty days, being tempted of the devil. And he did eat nothing in those days: and when they were completed, he hungered.
4:3 And the devil said unto him, if thou art the Son of God, command this stone that it become bread.
4:4 And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone
Matthew 4
4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterward hungered.
4:3 And the tempter came and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.
4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
One can seriously question where in either of these accounts McLaren finds any support for his contention. And if you consider Jesus' other works, his idea simply folds.
For example, Jesus taking water and making it into wine at the Cana marriage. Or Jesus calming storms. Or Jesus healing sick people and raising them from the dead (since sickness and death are a part of nature as well). Or His killing of the fig tree. Perhaps mosts telling, we twice have Jesus taking small amounts of food, enough to feed maybe one or two people, and miraclously increasing it to the point where it fed thousands.
And there are instances of God providing miraculously in the Old Testament, too. Jesus would have been very familiar with, for example, God providing Israel with manna, as well as with water coming from a rock. And Elijah being provided food by birds at the brook. God miraculously provided water for Samson after a battle.
Why, then, did Jesus not make the stones into bread? Very likely because the wilderness and His fasting was in obedience to His Father, and the temptation would be for Him to do something against His will. It's not that turning the stones into bread would be in itself wrong, any more then eating was wrong for Adam, but at that time for Him to have done as Satan tempted would be sinful, and Jesus would have none of it.
...refuses to take a religious shortcut to authority and kingship (which would subvert God's natural system of gaining honor through humble service)...
Luke 4
4:5 And he led him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
4:6 And the devil said unto him, To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship before me, it shall all be thine.
4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Matthew 4
4:8 Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
4:9 and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
In responding to McLaren's contention, look at how Jesus responds to Satan's temptation. One could argue that the world and all its kingdoms were already Jesus'. Jesus responds against the notion of worshiping anyone other the the Lord our God.
One could see it as Jesus refusing to give in to the temptation to compromise, and refusing to cooperate with an Satan-inspired initiative, which would only have made things worse in the end.
After all, if Satan had really given Jesus all those kingdoms, especially for such a seemingly small price, then would it not have been better for them? There isn't even the hint that Jesus would need to fight for them, they would simply be given.
But is that not the type of temptation many emergents fall in to, when they try to tell us that any who worship other gods, such as Allah or any in the Hindu pantheon or whatever it is Buddhists worship, can be as much worshipers of God as those who believe in Christ? Are they not then compromising with satanic ideas, and even if they are only trying to do what they think is good, would that excuse them?
...and refuses to indulge in spectacle to prove himself (which would subvert Gods natural system of being proven through trials and experience).
Luke 4
4:9 And he led him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
4:10 for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, to guard thee:
4:11 and, On their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.
4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.
Matthew 4
4:5 Then the devil taketh him into the holy city; and he set him on the pinnacle of the temple,
4:6 and saith unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and, On their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.
4:7 Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.
Again, Jesus answers a completely different temptation then McLarens says He does. Many of Jesus' miracles were very publicly done, and did provide proof of His divinity. One could, for example, look at the healing of the paralytic to show how Jesus used a miracle to also affirm His power to forgive sin, something only God can do.
But for Jesus to have done the miracle in the passages above would have bene to do something against the Father's will. As with the making of stones into bread, it's not about the act itself, but about the will of God, and whether an action is according to it or not.
So, I contend, and I think rightly, that in this paragraph from the book, we see examples of McLaren's poor interpretative skills, or maybe more likely, his attempts to read what he wants into the texts. His assertions have little to no backing by what the texts really say; instead, it seems his interpretations are influenced by ideas he wants to find in them.
No comments:
Post a Comment