If Jesus Had a Blog: This One Religious Guy SO Didn't Like My Answer

So this one religious guy walks up, and he's got this rep for knowing all the rules.  And he goes all like, "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

So I said unto him, "What is written in the law? How readest thou?"

And he answering said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

And I said unto him, "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

...and lo, he was not cool with that.  At ALL.

Posted 1:34 p.m.  in Category "Check Me Out I'm Talking in Elizabethan English"

16 Comments

----------------------------------------------

COMMENTS

Can't say I blame the guy.  You just wrote off studying scripture, being baptized, repentance, the church -- the whole works -- as worthless. 

Maybe he was hoping for someone to actually help, instead of a simplistic sound bite. 

-- savedbygrace313

I usually like your blog.

But you totally had a chance to seal the deal with this guy, and you just gave him an answer you knew would upset him.  You could have prayed the sinner's prayer with him, could have showed him the chart-thing with the two cliffs and the stick figure on one side and God on the other and how the cross would bridge the gap, but instead you do this, knowing he'd be ticked off.  I don't get it.

-- phillyphan22

And how are we supposed to quantify "love"?  How do I know I'm saved then?

How is this answer supposed to help?  How do I check this off? 

I'm with "savedbygrace".  Instead of being simplistic, why not just give him the right answer?

-- studytheword111

Wow...just wow.

-- i_always_say_wow_just_wow24

this is neat because i love GOD a LOT an d i cant do much right sometimes so i love that you said that

-- jess

Sure, it's really neat that a carpenter from backwater Nowhere can wipe out 2000 years of theology in one blog post. 

Seriously, do some reading before you make up simplistic answers to eternal questions. 

-- theophilus_phd

This is why I LOVE this blog.  You tick off religious people, and make people like me feel like God loves me.  God actually *loves* me.  That is so wild to think about sometimes!

-- marymags123

Jesus Christ, I don't know where you get this stuff.

I realize it's "hip" and "emergent" now to say it's all about love, blah blah blah, but there IS such a thing as the Bible, and we do have rules about the Truth, and it's not just "love".  Sorry.

Jesus, it's amazing what people will believe when we get away from solid teaching.

-- rootedintheword1972

I think what Jesus REALLY meant to say is that this guy wasn't particularly loving, so he needed to love.  He did everything else just fine, like tithing and keeping the Sabbath, and love is just another one of the things you're supposed to do. 

That's the way I look at it.  Jesus was just saying love is another thing to check off the list, and this guy was doing a good job on the list, and so it's just one more thing.  Right Jesus?

-- sallyann

No, Jesus REALLY means that you have to take this in context with all of the Bible.  Jesus knew that guy would eventually have a New Testament, so he could understand that Jesus didn't really mean that eternal life wouldn't really be based on loving God with heart, soul, strength mind, and loving neighbor.   God knows it's not that simple.  If it were, I could preach in less than 35 minutes.

-- RevBoy22

No, what Jesus REALLY means is that God has a wonderful plan for your life, and you need a daily quiet time like NOW or else you're really blowing it, big-time, and you need to start witnessing more fervently, and memorizing The Word.

-- goterrapins1990

No, what Jesus is REALLY trying to say here is that we've lost a sense of right and wrong, and especially kids these days.  Which isn't surprising, because we don't even pray in schools!  Pass this on to ten friends if you love Jesus!

-- huckafan2008

huckaby sux

-- blinkrulz

I think what Jesus is REALLY saying is that he's freaking nuts.

Imagine if we really started believing this stuff.  All we have to do is "love" God, "love" our neighbor as ourselves, and we live eternally in the Kingdom of God.  So everyone who doesn't "love" God, even if they tithe, pray, preach, evangelize, memorize, all that stuff -- won't be in the Kingdom?

Is that what you're saying?  So I guess we can just do whatever we want then.  Neat.  Hellooooo chaos.

-- disappointed_with_this_blog

Hey "disappointed"...if you don't love God here, why would you even *want* to go somewhere where He's FULLY in charge?  Think about it.  Maybe people who don't love what He's about here would really hate heaven anyway.

-- hunterboy99

i like ur blog jesus and i love you lots!!!!!!!!!

-- horsegirl1999

Comments

[Seaton]

"...and lo, he was not cool with that. At ALL."

Bwahahaha! Are you sure you're not channeling Keanu?

[Jim]

And doocegirl gets a book deal! There really is no justice in this world.

[scott eaton]

Great post, Brant!

However, I'm really afraid to actually make a comment because I don't want to sound like any of those so-called fictional ones in the post.

Thanks alot. You've ruined it for me

[Nic]

Comment for "If Jesus had a blog"

Radical Christianity, that is what Jesus preached, radical reform, radical renewal, a radical faith that comes with a radical way of living. It is not about what Jesus can do for us, it is not about our 'rewards' it is about what we can do for Jesus, why - because he first loved us. He asks us to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength - if we do that, if we love others like we love Christ it is not a free reign for chaos, it is not ignoring the bible - the truth that is to be a lamp onto our feet - because when we love, truly love, we put others before ourselves, we put Christ first and at the center of all things and suddenly it is not about us, not about what he can do for us or what other's can do for us, but about how we can love, about how we can worship the God who died for us. When we do that, when we love him we want to serve him, we want to evangelize and tell people about the hope we have in Christ, we want to tithe and further the kingdom of God, we want to do the next right thing because his love is making us holy, his love means we don't want to become chaotic and forget all the rest, we turn to him and say I will surrender all, I will give you all. In turn, we love others the way he loves us. In love, we fulfill what Jesus, what the bible, has preached. We forgive, we serve, we stand in battle, we trust, we reach for him and worship him in all things. In love we allow the Kingdom of Heaven to flourish here on earth. When we love, we move the gospel of God forward and we live radical lives. Suddenly our lives are shaped by Christ and suddenly we become less as he becomes more and the Bible comes to life.

[scott eaton]

OK, I can't resist. I really do have a question.

I think this "If Jesus Had a Blog" thing is a great idea, clever, interesting, and thought provoking. And I believe what Jesus said. And thanks to you (among others) I'm reading the Gospels and therefore Jesus more than I ever have before. I'm loving this!

But does anyone ever love God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength? I don't - do you? I seem to bomb out on the neighbor thing too. I try, but alas I fail. Hence the need for the sacrifice of Christ for me.

So is it possible that what Jesus was doing was stripping away this guy's self-righteousness or put another way, dependence upon self instead of God? And is it possible that Jesus did this to actually deepen his awareness of sin to bring him to the feet of Jesus where all he can do is cry out, "Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner"?

In other words my only hope is Jesus love FOR ME. This was this guy's only hope too. I think this is the point Jesus was trying to make.

Do what Jesus says - absolutely yes. And if you are not interested in that I don't think you get what it is to be a Christian and aren't really following Christ. But this command of Jesus also reveals my need and total dependence upon the love of God FOR ME - a sinner who is lost without it.

Would you agree or do you think I'm missing the point?

[From Brant: Well, maybe. As I think about it, it's true that we're dependent, ultimately, on God's love for us. And yet, not all will enter the Kingdom in its fullness, the restored Kingdom.

So, I think, we're back to the guy's question, right?

"Love the Lord with all your heart...and neighbor..." is not just another checklist item of things to do. Jesus said his collection of teachings was LIGHT. He said everything else could be summed up with that. Everything. No one seems to believe me when *I* say it, but Jesus said that. I think we miss out if we think this is just the checklist item the guy hadn't crossed off yet. It's the whole ballgame.

I think we're so primed by our theology and complexifying that we miss the simple. I get lectured at by people who think that, in my simplicity, I'm at the very beginning, and haven't encountered the great theological mysteries and working-out of the formulas. But I'm not at the beginning, and I've heard their arguments, and once offered them myself.

But I now agree with Ricoeur: There is a second naivete, at the far side of complexity.

And it's sweet.

We work out these formulas and such, but Jesus lays out judgment in Matthew 25, too. What are we to do with that? And yet it fits perfectly with this.

And a WONDERFUL thing about Matthew 25: It doesn't say "if you've done it unto the least of these" as most suppose. It says if you've done it unto ONE of the least of these, you've done it unto me.

We love to quantify and make a mathematical standard out of LOVE, even. But a child can understand the kingdom. I sit here a horrible sinner, but you know what? Even in my sin -- shoot, because of it -- I can say, yes, I love God.

Again, why would someone who DOESN'T love God even WANT to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? If people don't want Him as He is -- authority and all -- Heaven would be rather horrible, wouldn't it?

Could God be so good as to allow the simple to simply love Him, and then He receive them into His Kingdom? Could it be possible?

As for "assurance" -- some kind of mathematical, "you did it, you're in" checklist or whatever -- no one can ever offer that. We're all ultimately dependent on God's goodness, and I'm banking on it, I can tell you, and I get the feeling, from reading more and more about Jesus, God really IS that good. He really is.

I'm not a universalist, I'm a theological conservative. But no, I don't know the wideness of God's mercy, I can't measure it, and it will seem perfectly like Jesus if, in his Kingdom, he welcomes us, and other tipsy stragglers, who just honetly love him.]

[Monica Battaile]

Wow, just wow.

Oh, wait, someone already said that.

Dang.

Woweth, justeth woweth.

(Check ME out, I'm ALSO speaking in Elizabethan English. Sort of. eth.)

[Brian]

It is not about what Jesus can do for us, it is not about our 'rewards' it is about what we can do for Jesus, why - because he first loved us.

Actually, I thought it was all about was Jesus has done, and is doing, for us. The moment it becomes focused on "what we can do for Jesus" then the focus is directed the wrong way. A.W. Tozer says :

"Faith is the least self-regarding of the virtues. It is by its very nature scarcely conscious of its own existence. Like the eye which sees everything in front of it and never sees itself, faith is occupied with the Object upon which it rests and pays no attention to itself at all. While we are looking at God we do not see ourselves--blessed riddance. The man who has struggled to purify himself and has had nothing but repeated failures will experience real relief when he stops tinkering with his soul and looks away to the perfect One."

Gotta say I agree with Tozer.

[Rainer]

Brant,

Thou art funny.

Only recently have I realized how much we, as "Christians", add ridiculous amounts of complexity to the simple message that Jesus was sharing.

We think it just can't be that simple, can it? But maybe it really is...

[Mike Taylor]

"But I now agree with Ricoeur: There is a second naivete, at the far side of complexity."

That sounds like agreeing with Chesterton :-)

[From Brant: Well, yeah, but I needed to find someone new with whom to agree.]

[Nathanael]

i like ur blog brant and i love you lots!!!!!!!!!

[Eric Tonjes]

I've gotten a chuckle from both these posts, but am actually touched by the way you end with horsegirl1999, the little girl who gets it better than all of us. May I have such an attitude as well.

[Samuel Jones]

So uh. . . I'm missing the part in the Bible where this particular religious guy was "not cool with that. AT ALL."

Mark 12:32 The teacher of religious law replied, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth by saying that there is only one God and no other.33 And I know it is important to love him with all my heart and all my understanding and all my strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. This is more important than to offer all of the burnt offerings and sacrifices required in the law."
34 Realizing how much the man understood, Jesus said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God." And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.

So uh. . . whatcha doin'?

And just to throw in my 2 cents: It's not so much about either/or, as why and how. But yes, the why and how are simple. It's not obedience or love, it's obedience by and through and for love. Trick is obeying God in a thicket of human regulations.

John 15:9 "I have loved you even as the Father has loved me. Remain in my love.10 When you obey my commandments, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father's commandments and remain in his love.11 I have told you these things so that you will be filled with my joy. Yes, your joy will overflow!"

[From Brant: You've got the wrong story -- I'm referencing Luke 10. And Jesus just leaves it at that, and doesn't unpack it or develop or qualify it to fit our theology, which may be why people don't remember this story in Luke 10.]

[John Warren]

Life isn't simple.

Having said that, sometimes simple is exactly what is needed. You chew on it for a while, then cry out to God in despair of yourself, and He then gives you the ability and will to carry out what He simply commanded.

[Samuel Jones]

In Luke 10, if you take out the section title between verses 29 and 30, it seems like Jesus does qualify, or at least clarify, with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Verse 30 does begin with the phrase "And Jesus answering said" even in the King Jimmy. That parable is what gets a lot of attention in that passage most of the time, which is probably why people don't remember this story in Luke 10.

I still don't see in this story where the lawyer dude was irate. Shifty, yes, but he stayed to listen and at least gave the right answer at the end of the story. But I guess that's not so much what you're getting at anyway.

[From Brant: Didn't say he was irate. But he didn't like Jesus answer, because he got defensive, needing to justify himself.

Too bad our Bibles have chapter and verse divisions inserted, and subject headings, too. Seriously.]

[Samuel Jones]

Also. . . just for clarification? The other side of the story in Matthew 25 also uses that word "one." “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

I'm not sure if that is contrary to the point you were making in the comments on Scott Eaton's comments or not, but it sort of makes the 'one' in verse 40 less comforting. But like you say, it's not about check lists. This is why that whole by faith thing is so terribly important. If the simple come by faith then Christ's righteousness is sufficient for them, and their righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Brain's Tozer quote was really good, I thought.

[From Brant: The "one" is comforting in both contexts.

Sam, I'm not sure why we can't let Jesus's words stand, without processing them through the lens of our theology and saying, "He really means obedience through love," etc. Why do we feel a need to do that?]

[chris, without chapters OR verses in Kentucky]

Here is a Bible without chapter and verse divisions, for those who might want one...

http://thebooksofthebible.info/main.php

I've had it for about 6 months, and love it.

[From Brant: Chris, my friend Shawn just gave me a copy. I've been reading it a lot. LOVE it. I love the intro, too, how it tells us about reading the Bible. Very, very cool.]

[Seaton]

At the risk of being told to never, ever, include these words in a comment again, I find that this quote might explain a little of why we feel the need to qualify Jesus' words with our interpretations.

“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”
-Soren Kierkegaard

[Samuel Jones]

Darn those theological lenses! "Obedience" and "Love" being together in our relationship to God isn't a theological abstraction though. After all, the whole discussion was about which was the greatest commandment. Good thing he gave us a story so we know what it looks like.

Thanks for making me think.

[From Brant: And thank you, Sam. It's certainly *not* an abstraction.]

[Heidi]

((at least this time I know those aren't actual comments! haha))

[Pete Wilson]

Love the blog Brant. Just found it and subscribed. Look forward to more thought provoking posts like this one!

[Rich Barrett @ Access Church]

Hilarious. True. Convicting. Thanks!

[RevJeff]

I so enjoyed that as a starter for this crazy day...

Then I came back to read the coments, and now I'm confused... can you put me intouch with "horsegirl1999" so she can clarify these comments for me?

[Brady]

My interpretation of that passage can be summed up as "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer". The rich kid should not have asked what "must I DO to inherit eternal life?" he should have asked "how can I have eternal life GIVEN to me?"
There's nothing you can "DO" to earn it!

[From Brant: Brady, this isn't from the rich kid. It's a different story entirely.

And some will not enter the Kingdom, even though Jesus died for all. Perhaps those who will enter will be God-lovers?]

[ChestertonianRambler]

You should really repost your edits on Scott Eaton's post, as a new post or something.

I think that's kinda what I was trying to push you into saying. Not that I want to defend myself (who has been well-caracturized, now, I feel) by saying it's all been a big misunderstanding, but I will say this:

It can't be about "lists vs. not-lists." It can't even (I think) be about "lists vs. my-love-for-God-and-man." It has to, somewhere, be about God's love and mercy. And yes, the only way to turn to Him is through love.

Also, I still think you (like Jesus) have a lot more "theology" (in the good sense) than it first appears.

I think I'm going to quit talking about this for a while, now.

[From Brant: I'm truly (seriously) sorry if I gave you the impression I wanted you to stop talking about it. Please forgive me for sounding cranky. Your comments and issues are always a highlight.]

[Terri]

Great! I accidentally deleted my comment. Let's see if I can remember the gist of it: This post is clever, witty, and right on. I like what you said in response to one of the above commenters that there is a second naivete on the far side of complexity and that we should be able to let Scripture stand on its own without us always having to view it through our own theology.

By the way, this post and the resulting comments have hit on something that I have been thinking about a lot lately which has resulted in my own blog post. I guess that's what I love about your blog. Agree with you or not, you definitely provide much food for thought.