Does a Church Minister Possess God's Grace?

DOES A CHURCH MINISTER POSSESS GOD'S GRACE? CAN THE MINISTER RELEASE GOD'S GRACE UPON BELIEVERS?

By Ezekiel Kimosop

INTRODUCTION

This question was raised by a member on the L & D WhatsApp forum on 19th August 2021. He sought to understand if a church minister or pastor possesses God's grace and if he can rightfully assign God's grace to believers or to his congregation or whether God's grace is exclusively vested in God.

What is God's grace? 

The Bible speaks of God's grace in a number of contexts. In its base meaning, God's grace refers to underserved favor or mercy. 

In the context of the redemption works for the cross, God's saving grace is understood as God's unmerited favor. 

God's grace is evident in that the sinner receives God's pardon by reason of his faith in Jesus Christ. It is by God's grace that the condemnation in Adam is graciously lifted from the sinner (cf. Romans 8:1-2). 

In another context, especially in ecclesial salutations, grace is understood as wishes for God's blessings in the general sense. If this context is contemplated, then the pastoral benediction is in order. 

In order for a preacher or minister to release God's grace in person [assuming that ever happens] it is imperative that they must be possessed of it.

Does a preacher possess God's grace? We shall answer this question at the conclusion of the article.

ANALYSIS/EVALUATION

In the Old Testament Scripture, we find the priestly benediction by which God commanded the priests to proclaim blessings to His people. 

Numbers 6:22-27 says "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 23 “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the way you shall bless the children of Israel. Say to them:

24 “The Lord bless you and keep you;

25 The Lord make His face shine upon you,

And be gracious to you;

26 The Lord lift up His countenance upon you,

And give you peace.”’

27 “So they shall put My name on the children of Israel, and I will bless them.”

Noticed that three times, the Lord's name is invoked by the priestly benediction, leaving no doubt as to the source of the blessing (vv. 24-26).  

This rules out the notion that the blessings of God's people emanate directly from the priest or preacher. God confirms in the above passage that He is the ultimate source of blessings (see Numbers 6:27). 

For the purpose of Biblical context, we shall  also examine statements of New Testament Scripture texts that are relevant to this question and draw a conclusion.

In a number of Pauline Letters, the apostle proclaims God's grace upon his hearers under circumstances that can be understood as his apostolic wishes upon them. 

Does the Bible reveal that God's grace is innately vested in apostles pastors or bishops? 

First things first. Let us first do a brief survey through the relevant texts of New Testament Scripture.

Here are examples of Scripture that speak into this question:

Romans 1:5-6 says "Through Him [Christ] we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ."

This Scripture confirms that God's grace was extended to believers through Jesus Christ.

Besides, a typical Pauline salutation in Scripture reads as follows: 

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

(See 1 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1).

Other Letters of New Testament Scripture convey a minor variation to the above salutation in that they introduce mercy into the template statement that saying: "Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord." (1 Timothy 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4)

The Letter of Philemon resumes the first template statement (Philemon 1:3). 

1 Peter 1:3 says "Grace to you and peace be multiplied." This is repeated in 2 Peter 1:2.

Jude 1:2 says "Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you." It appears that Jude and Peter adopt a similar salutation.

None of the two sets of salutations noted above [or anything similar to them] can be identified in the Letters of Hebrews, James, 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation. 

CONCLUSION

Having sampled through the Scriptures, we can confidently conclude that God's divine grace  comes from [and is exclusively vested in] God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Accordingly therefore, my view is that no person, not even a church minister, can possess or purport to convey God's grace in person other than by prayerfully wishing others God's grace in their prayers or salutations/greetings. 

If the apostles of Jesus Christ can reveal this truth in their writings of Scripture, it would be a total misrepresentation of Biblical truth for anyone to purport to possess or convey God's grace in person. 

My concluding view is that no minister, pastor, or Bishop is in possession of or can personally convey or release God's grace at will. We must petition God for His grace and His divine blessings.

God's grace is exclusively vested in God alone. We receive it exclusively from Him and at His divine discretion.

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2021

What did Jesus mean in Luke 22:35-36?

WHAT DID JESUS MEAN BY HIS STATEMENT IN LUKE 22:35-36? 

By Ezekiel Kimosop

Luke 22:35-36 says "And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”

So they said, “Nothing.”

36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

COMMENTARY

What did Jesus imply by his statement in Luke 22:36? Did He mean that God's divine providence ceased from that point and that the disciples should squarely fend for themselves?

In the first set of instructions given under the mission of the seventy recorded in Luke 10:1-12, Jesus gave explicit commands directing that the disciples were to "Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road" (Luke 10:4).

They were also required to seek the hospitality of the hosts that would welcome them into their homes and shake their sandles on those that rejected them.

There was clear urgency in accomplishing the mission. 

It is instructive that Jesus states in Luke 10:7 "And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house."

It is significant that Jesus' primary area of missionary focus at this stage was largely limited to the Jews. Notice the similarity of this mission with the mission of the twelve disciples recorded in Matthew 10:5-26. 

So what changed in the context of the mission contemplated in Luke 22:35-36? 

Why does Jesus appear to change the rules of engagement at this point?

It is important to appreciate that the conversation in Luke 22 comes at the eve of Jesus' betrayal, arrest and eventual crucifixion. 

Jesus would shortly be leaving His disciples as His earthly ministry came to a close.

The next phase of the gospel effort would involve a hostile environment full of persecution and clampdown on the followers of Jesus who will be dispersed beyond Jerusalem. Jesus' personal presence would be dearly missed.

Jesus later appears to the disciples after His resurrection and just before His ascension and asks them to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high (Luke 24:49). This was important for adequate preparation for what would follow.

The ascension of Jesus is described in Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:9-11. 

CONCLUSION

We can conclude that Jesus was painting the real picture of the burden and cost of ministry in Luke 22:36. The disciples were required to adequately prepare for the challenging effort by wisely planning and taking necessary precautions. The ministry would require mobilization of resources on a vast scale.

This does not suggest that Jesus would abandon them or that God's provision will cease the moment He returned to the Father. He was simply revealing the difficult path ahead.

In Acts 2-12, the ministry exponentially grew even as persecution abounded. The disciples were dispersed from Jerusalem and this gave rise to new ministry opportunities, including the founding of the Gentile ministry by Paul and his associates.

There was a heavy price to pay for ministry. Apostle James was martyred by Herod (Acts 12:1-2); Peter was arrested and locked up but was later released under divine intervention (Acts 12:3-19); Herod suffers violent death under God's judgment (Acts 12:20-24). 

Paul and his associates suffer a series of persecutions including imprisonments, violence, floggings (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1-10, 11:22-33).

Paul was finally martyred. His premonition is captured in his statement in 2 Timothy 4:7-8. Bible scholars say that Paul was martyred by Nero in about AD 62 and that most of the apostles including Peter died for their faith.

Despite all the obstacles and challenges, the gospel  ministries rapidly grew and spread through the ages...

The rest is history...

I believe that Jesus was reminding the disciples that the journey ahead was not for the faint hearted. 

Those who choose to serve Christ must be prepared to carry their crosses in the many dimensions in which this is required of them. Serving God doesn't come cheap. It will cost us resources, time and a toll of other personal sacrifices for which we must prudently prepare. It is a war effort. Jesus didn't mince words on that.

Let me conclude with the words of Jesus in Luke 9:23-26: 

"...If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels." (NKJV).

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2021

Did Jesus have Brothers?

DID JESUS HAVE ANY BROTHERS?

By Ezekiel Kimosop

Does Scripture reveal that Jesus had half brothers and sisters? 

Bible scholars say that the author of the Letter of James was Jesus' half brother. This writer had borrowed heavily from the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, especially the beatitudes and the "Sermon on the Mount". This has led some scholars to conclude that he may have been closely following Jesus or had borrowed from the Synoptic Gospels. 

James was not initially listed among the disciples of Jesus perhaps because he was either young at the time or had not believed the gospel until after Jesus' death and resurrection. 

The author of the Letter of James is different from apostle James who was martyred by Herod (see Acts 12:1-2). 

Bible scholars say that Judas, another half brother of Jesus, is the author of the Letter of Jude. He is believed to have changed his name following the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, in order to remove any possible association of his works with the wicked man. 

The names of the four half brothers of Jesus are listed in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3.

Matthew 13:55-56 says "Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” 57 So they were offended at Him." (NKJV). 

Mark 6:3 says "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him" (NKJV). 

Both Scriptures reveal that Jesus also had an unknown number of sisters whose names were not revealed by Scripture. The two texts of Scripture present compelling evidence that Jesus had half brothers and sisters. There is no other text in Scripture that obscures this truth. 

Interestingly, Roman Catholics claim that Jesus did not that have any half brothers or sisters by Joseph, his legal father. This claim is not backed by any explicit teaching of Scripture. 

Roman Catholic dogma teaches that Mary's womb was holy and that she could never have been intimate with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus, a claim that again cannot be substantiated or affirmed in any section of the Scripture!

They argue that the names mentioned in the two Scriptures above are for Jesus' cousins or close kinsmen. 

Some Catholic scholars say that Joseph possibly had children by another wife from a previous marriage who had died and that Mary could have taken over the maternal responsibilities for these children. 

Again these claims are not supported by any text of Scripture. 

Another hypothesis holds that Mary may have been a second wife to Joseph and the reference to the half brothers of Jesus was legitimate in that specific context. 

Still others say that Mary could have moved in with her sister upon the death of Joseph and the brothers mentioned are the children of her sister. According to Epiphanius, cited in Gill's Exposition, the sisters mentioned in the two texts above were Mary and Salome, the two daughters of Joseph from a previous marriage. 

The Bible is however silent on all those claims. 

Matthew Heynen, a Catholic Priest of the Dominican Friars order makes three assertions in support of the Catholic dogma on Mary's perpetual virginity. He argues that the two Scriptures above, read together with Matthew 27:56 could imply that the brothers mentioned were sons of another [unknown] Mary! Secondly, Heynen attempts to broaden the applications of the Greek word ἀδελφοί, for "brothers" to refer to cousins or close kinsmen. While this reference is culturally admissible in Hebrew society, the hermeneutical context of the passages in which the names of the brothers are listed appears to rule out the possibility that another Mary was contemplated by the rulers of the synagogue in Nazareth. 

Besides, the mention of only two brothers, James and Joses in Matthew 27:56 conveys two exegetical possibilities. First, that a different Mary may have been contemplated, in which case the two brothers have no connection with the half brothers of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3 and implied in Mark 3:31-32 other than for similarity of names.

Secondly, if Mary mother of Jesus was contemplated by the author in this context, then the mention of only two brothers could have been circumstantial rather than conclusive. They may have been the only sons present during the crucifixion of Jesus. 

Notice also that Luke 24:10 mentions Mary as mother of James. Could this be the same Mary twice mentioned in Matthew 27:61, 28:1 as "the other Mary"?

The third supposition advanced by Matthew Heynen is premised on a first century narrative that claims that Mary may have made a vow of chastity before she was betrothed to Joseph and that she never intended to engage in a sexual intimacy. This is perhaps the weirdest of the three postulations advanced by Roman Catholics. If this supposition holds a grain of truth, two questions naturally arise. 

First, why was Mary betrothed to Joseph if she never intended to be intimate with him? Secondly, how does the reader reconcile the reaction and intentions of Joseph on learning of Mary's pregnancy before he received the angel's assurance in Matthew 1:18-25?

My view is that none of the three arguments by Matthew Heynen are supported by the Bible. Nothing in Scripture suggests that Joseph did not intend to sire children by Mary after Jesus was born or that both Mary and Joseph had taken a vow of chastity. Equally, nothing culturally forbade Joseph from raising children with Mary since she was his legal wife according to Jewish custom. 

Mark 3:31-32 speaks of Jesus' mother and brothers looking for Jesus, a plain reference to a family initiative. 

A number of Scriptures outside the Gospels affirm that James and Judas were Jesus' half brothers. Galatians 1:19 mentions James, one of the Jerusalem leaders, as "the Lord's brother", leaving little doubt on his identity as Jesus' half brother. 

The writer of the Letter of Jude introduces himself in Jude 1:1 as "a bondservant of Jesus Christ and brother of James". Bible scholars have identified this author as Judas, one of the half brothers of Jesus who chose to conceal his name in order to avoid any possible association with Judas Iscariot, the man who betrayed Jesus, his half brother. The only two half brothers whose roles are fairly obscure are Joses and Simon.

My view is that the arguments advanced by Roman Catholics in support of their doctrine on Mary's perpetual virginity are not consistent with the teaching of Scripture. I am persuaded by my reading of Scripture that Jesus' half brothers are as listed in Scripture in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 above. These brothers together with the unnamed sisters were the children of Joseph by Mary that were conceived after Jesus was born. Two of the brothers, James and Judas wrote the Letters of James and Jude, respectively.  

In Evangelical Christian tradition, Scripture is the only source for the extrapolation and articulation of legitimate Christian doctrine and instruction and any attempt at engaging extra biblical sources for the advancement of any doctrine is an exercise in futility.

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2021

Sources: 

Matthew Heynen, "Did Jesus Have Siblings?" in Dominican Friars, Province of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, 16 October 2019, https://opwest.org/did-jesus-have-siblings/ accessed 17 August 2021. 

Brothers of Jesus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus

Pulpit Commentary, Bible Hubb, https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-55.htm

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/6-3.htm

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/13-56.htm

Why Does the Roman Catholic Bible Contain the Apocrypha Books? Are These Books Inspired by God?

WHY DOES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE CONTAIN THE APOCRYPHA BOOKS? ARE THESE BOOKS INSPIRED BY GOD? 

By Ezekiel Kimosop 

INTRODUCTION 

The seven extra canonical books collectively referred to as the Apocrypha are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, First Maccabees and Second Maccabees. 

Other Apocryphal additions include:

A) Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 - 16:24, see rather in NAB, a Catholic translation)

B) Additions to the Book of Daniel include: 

i) Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Daniel 3:24-90).

ii) Susanna (found in Daniel 13 under the Vulgate and the Septuagint prologue)

iii) Bell and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue) 

These books have been the subject of considerable debates throughout the church ages that have pitted the Roman Catholic Church against the Protestant Church communions who resoundingly reject the additional books and accounts as uninspired and extra canonical literature which cannot be admitted into the canon of Scripture. 

The Bible canonization process took centuries to conclude. It started in the second century and was substantially concluded in the fourth century but not without its share of controversy. 

CANONIZATION PROCESS 

During the Councils of Hippo [393 AD] and Carthage [397 AD], the Church Fathers took time to prayerfully scrutinize all religious literature at their disposal including the Apocryphal books that were written during the 400 year gap between Malachi and Matthew. 

They unanimously arrived at the decision to consider these books as uninspired literature though some held them as mere wisdom books. 

They further determined that the apostolic writings and other New Testament literature should be added to the Old Testament Scripture to arrive at the the 66 Book canon of the Bible available to us today. 

The canonization process was not that simple. Sections of the early church theologians continued to question the inclusion of some of the Scripture books including the Book of Esther and the Letter of James while others held onto the Apocryphal books. 

Interestingly, the Book of Esther was questioned by some Reformation scholars on account of the absence of a single mention of God in the writings!

However its inclusion was defended on the basis that it revealed the working of God to preserve His people in Persia. The church fathers were not convinced that the criticism on Esther was legitimate. 

The Letter of James was also questioned by the Reformation scholars including Martin Luther who referred to it as a "canon destitute of straw".  

Luther insisted that the Letter of James taught salvation by works which contradicted Ephesians 2:8-9. Luther firmly believed in salvation by faith alone. 

This claim was however established to be devoid of theological substance because James primarily taught that true faith should be evidenced by good deeds. 

Most of the early church theologians supported the decision of the Church Fathers on sealing the Scripture canonization process. 

Among leading early church theologians who rejected the Apocrypha are Jerome, Athanasius [who was an Early Church African theologian from North Africa], Cyril of Jerusalem, and others. 

Before the Council of Carthage, there was no unified canon apart from the Old Testament writings which were available in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scripture written in Alexandria. 

This canon was later translated into the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. 

The New Testament apostolic writings were available to the Church and were the key sources of Early Church doctrine. 

The Roman Catholic Church later returned the Apocryphal books into their canon but they were not officially accepted as books of instruction until the Reformation period in the 16th Century when the Catholic Church insisted that the books were equally inspired. This declaration only added to widening division between the Roman Catholic Church and the growing Protestant Reformation. 

Against all reason, the Roman Catholic Church have consistently rejected any attempts at questioning the inclusion of these books in their Catholic Bible despite the obvious flaws that they contain. 

They also introduced a series of unbiblical church traditions and practices into their liturgy and worship. 

This marked a radical departure from the position taken by the Early Church councils. 

The Roman Catholic Bible is therefore extra canonical to the extent that it includes the Apocryphal literature. 

GROUNDS ON WHICH THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS ARE CONSIDERED UNINSPIRED AND EXTRA CANONICAL 

Let us now conclude by outlining some of the key grounds by which the Protestant community finds the Apocryphal books as extra canonical. 

1) The Church Fathers determined the period of their writing as falling into the "prophetic silence" era when there was no evidence that God sent any prophets among the Jews. It is theologically accepted by Protestant theologians that no prophet spoke the mind of God between Malachi and the coming of John the Baptist as predicted in Malachi. 

2) The Apocryphal literature contain several controversial accounts, some of which were not corroborated by independent authors of their time. The authors of some of these books are largely obscure. 

3) The teachings of the Apocrypha are irreconcilable with the Old Testament Scripture concerning the revelation of God. There is no consistent correlation between the Apocrypha and the Old Testament writings. Some of the accounts found in the Apocryphal writings are inconsistent with the corresponding passages of Scripture books. 

4) Some of the characters and events described in the Apocryphal writings cannot be authenticated and neither can their authors be independently acclaimed as speaking the mind of God. 

4) The Apocryphal books teach gross unbiblical doctrines such as the doctrine of Purgatory which is advanced by the Roman Catholic Church but which is totally and manifestly inconsistent with the revelation of Scripture regarding the after life (see 2 Maccabees 12:41-46).

5) The Apocryphal books teach that God hears the prayers of the dead (Baruch 3:4) and lay claim to the pre-existence of human souls (Wisdom 8:19, 20). Protestant theological scholars consider these doctrines as heretical.

6) The Book of Wisdom 11:17 rejects the biblical doctrine of creation Ex-nihilo, that God created everything from nothing. To deny this truth is to completely misrepresent the revelation of God in Genesis 1-2.

7) It is instructive that the Jews have consistently rejected the Apocryphal books as Scripture. Jesus never quoted from a single book of the Apocrypha and neither did He affirm any of their characters yet these writings were largely available during the time of His earthly ministry. 

Jesus mentioned several Old Testament characters such as Noah, Abraham, Solomon, Job, David, but made no single reference to any of the Apocryphal characters and neither even mentioned or taught from the passage of a single Apocryphal book. 

8) Finally, there is no evidence that the Apocryphal books were taught among the Jews at the time of Christ. No writers have ever cited these literature as authority for their works and this weakens their scholarly and theological standing as reference materials for biblical scholars. 

The apocrypha must therefore be relegated to the periphery. They should be understood as ordinary religious literature which are not inspired by God and should not inform Christian instruction or church doctrine. 

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2018 

[key online reference sources: www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm 

www.carm.org/early-church-fathers-canon]

Lessons on Christian Contentment

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ON CHRISTIAN CONTENTMENT?

By Ezekiel Kimosop

INTRODUCTION

I once watched a video clip and keenly listened to a Nigerian preacher as she lamented about the folly of the affluent people of society who amass millions in property only to leave their vast empires in the hands of people who end up squandering their hard earned fortune.

This is perhaps one glaring irony of life! 

I agree with the moral behind the story. No matter how much one accumulates on earth, they will never take their resources with them when they die.

MORAL LESSONS FROM SCRIPTURE

This brings to my mind two relevant exhortations in Scripture: 

First, Job's godly response to his tragedy recorded in Job 1:20-22 is instructive. The Bible says, "Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. And he said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb,

And naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.” In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong." (NKJV). 

At the instigation of Satan, Job lost all his children and his possessions. Finally, Satan struck his body with leprosy and his wife, not able to bear the affliction any further, asked him to curse God and die. Her frustrations had hit the snapping limit!

Despite his massive wealth in livestock, and the blessing of many children, Job recognized that his true worth did not consist of his material wealth or in social prestige but on the integrity of his covenant relationship with God. His humbling acknowledgement of God's sovereignty over his resources is perhaps a powerful edict on the arrogant and self conceited men of this world whose only identity lies in their riches. 

Job rightly recognized that God alone assigns and takes away riches, and indeed anything we can ever own on earth, including our very souls.

Reading on through the Book of Job, we learn that Job remained steadfast in his faith and God restored him in the end.

The second text is 1 Timothy 6:6-8 that says "Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content."

This passage actually amplifies the message of Job 1:20-22. More significantly, however, is the exhortation to godly contentment for the Christian community. No matter how much we may accumulate on earth in terms of material riches or how much power we may wield in society, or honor we receive among men, our spiritual worth does not consist of all these things.

We should always distinguish between our spiritual values and our devotion to God on the one hand and the affinity to material things that will soon pass away.

Jesus warned the warring brothers in Luke 12:15 saying, "Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.”

The two brothers had asked Jesus to arbitrate between them on their dispute over the heritage that their father had left to them. One of the brothers was most likely acting unreasonably because Jewish culture clearly defined for them how the heritage should be shared among the sons. The first son received a double portion.

This incident triggered Jesus' tale on the Parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21). This is another illustration on the folly of ungodly focus on riches. Notice the concluding statement in Luke 12:21 that says "So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

The problem is not about the vastness of the riches we can possess on earth. Jesus never taught that believers should take a vow of poverty or that they should abstain from riches! Far be it!

Contrary to some false doctrines taught by certain cults today, Jesus' exhortation never implied that the pursuit of earthly riches is ungodly or evil for Christians. Believers should robustly engage in enterprise and generate wealth. We require sufficient resources for our sustanance and for honoring and serving God and impacting society. 

In any case, all earthly resources ultimately belong to God (Psalm 24:1-2, 50:10)

The danger beckons when riches become the overriding object of our focus and ultimately obscure our relationship with God. Again, elsewhere in Scripture, Jesus warned that we cannot not serve God and Mammon (Luke 16:11-13). Notice that the rich fool initially started well in his personal enterprise. He grew his farming business in a legitimate way. His turning point came when he forgot about God's providence and attributed his success to his own effort. 

We should honor God for every increase in our lives by whatever description. Divine increase is not necessarily about financial growth only. There are many ways by which God gives us increase in life.

Here are a number of examples: the blessing of a job or growing business; good health; the blessing of years on earth, the blessing of children (and grandchildren), the blessing of an enduring marriage in a world in which divorce, marital conflicts and separation is commonplace.

For the young people on this page, academic progress and God's providence to the parents or guardians for school fees and upkeep is a reason for which to thank God. 

Some of our senior brethren on this page have either retired or are about to. Imagine the years that God has given us in career life and in raising our children and serving the Lord in the church in whatever capacities. That too is a reason to celebrate and glorify God.

The list is long....

One does not have to be a dollar millionaire to be grateful to God or celebrate God's blessings! For the much that the Lord has blessed us, we ought to be thankful even as we seek His provision for our needs.  This is the essence of Christian contentment. 

We should never compare ourselves with others as the people of this world often do and end up boiling with jealousy, strife and covetousness when they witness the progress of their neighbors or relatives and seek to "catch up"! 

CONCLUSION

God blesses us differently in His divine wisdom. Some of the richest men today cannot enjoy their riches because of failing health or diet restrictions.  Others worry too much about their business empires and develop mental complications.

There's always something lacking in one person that another person is blessed with. Let us therefore be grateful for what God has blessed us with even as we petition Him for more...

I recall someone who one time muttered in a sombre mood as we conversed, "kwani sisi wengine tulimfanyia nini Mungu...(what have some of us done to God to deserve the circumstances we are going through). 

None of us can deny that we have experienced unpleasant situations in life where we wondered if God is still with us. No believer is immune to earthly afflictions.

This again reminds me of Psalm 34:19 that says "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, But the Lord delivers him out of them all." 

God takes us through difficult seasons of life, all for the purpose building our spiritual integrity. He never abandons us, no matter what prevails around us. 

David proclaimed in Psalm 37:25-26 "I have been young, and now am old; Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, Nor his descendants begging bread. He is ever merciful, and lends; And his descendants are blessed."

Christian contentment is key to moral prudence and stability in life. We ought to embrace it to the glory of God. 

Shalom. 

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2021