the third option
THE 3RD OPTION
The third option is simply an acknowledgement that one cannot do what is required. It is a broken and contrite heart. It is the proper response to law, to acknowledge that one is a lawbreaker.
Now, we can all read what Jesus said to the rich young ruler. He said sell it all and follow me. What I am suggesting is that riches were not the problem, but trusting in riches. It is sort of like the difference between money, and the love of money.
In Mt.19:21, Jesus said, "if you want to be perfect..." What I am suggesting is that Jesus is challenging the RYR's goal.
Maybe you have heard this before, or, you learned this in seminary, as one commented before. I am sure that somewhere in the commentary tradition, it must be considered. I have just not seen it. If you can source it in some book, then great. That would mean that this in not completely in left-field! Harold Hazelip once said the value of "the history of Xn thought" lies in defining the banks of the stream of thought. If one is out of the main channel, he needs to recognize that. I consider him a mentor, wonderful disciple.
About 15 years ago, I heard a sermon in a "Shepherding Movement" church, on the text in Lk.18:18-30, the Rich Young Ruler. The speaker was really reeling them in. The amens and preach-ons were loud and firm. He said, "if you will not sell out, then you are lost. The RYR chose to walk away." Then, the speaker paused, and said, "while risking the possibility of alienating the amens, we need to understand that there was a third option: pay up, shut up, or give up; give it away, walk away, or fall and pray."
Do you know the expression, "grab the bull by the horns"? Do you want the right horn, or the left horn? Thank you very much, I will take them both! And, go through the middle!
Some have commented, "you can read all the Bible, or you can pick and choose", in reference to other matters. (that is lame, to me) Now, we will not apply that "picking and choosing" here. We will not use the "not-my-covenant" clause, or some such device. I am saying, this verse applies to us, but not in some flatland version so many seem to be unable to escape (Jn.3:3; 1Cor.2:14?!). Jesus was speaking to us, as well as him. (now, some smart says he wants to come to the estate sale; but he is missing the point) It has really been the same, all along. What God wants is a broken and contrite heart. It is not about the sacrifices.
Jesus could see deep into this man's heart. The problem was not obedience. The problem was not really riches (the common assumption). The problem could be called self-righteousness, or maybe self-reliance. Just give me one more thing to do, and I will do it The man did not need another commandment to do. He needed a commandment he could not do. But, he heard a commandment he would not do. The difference is subtle, but, oh, so fundamentally different. Can you see it? The RYR walked away thinking he was refusing to do something he could do, but, just did not want to. His proud heart had rebelled (against a fight he would lose), but not broken.
Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to faith, both chronologically and theologically. The purpose of law is to show us we are lawbreakers. Then, and only then, we will fall on our knees and pray for mercy. That is conversion, the third option.
I am reminded of the hymn, My Hope Is Built On Nothing Less!
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.
Refrain
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
grace and peace,
Jerry C
No comments:
Post a Comment