As a result of the question I posted last week, I was discussing the issue of being a “lover of money” with some friends. In the course of our conversation, it was suggested that, perhaps, we are not so much lovers of money, but lovers of security.
This idea helped us move beyond a cursory response to the question, and begin to dig into the issue a bit. But I don’t believe it got us to the heart of the issue. It just helped clarify the question. See, being a lover of security is basic to our existence as humans. The problem is not our desire for security and safety. The real problem is that we believe money will provide it, but God will not.
Over and over in Scripture, we face this choice. We can look to God for security, or we can turn to money (e.g., Psalm 52:7; Hebrews 13:5-6). Two distinct, opposing choices.
By the time Jesus came to earth, the religious leaders of the day, of which the scribes Pharisees were the most prominent members, had rationalized away any conflict between these two options. They believed that they were righteous because of their meticulous attention to the observance of rituals and legal minutiae. As a result, they had earned God’s approval and achieved righteousness. The wealth they had accumulated was seen as God’s blessing, and thus, evidence of this righteousness.
Never mind that in their accumulation of this wealth, they were doing things like devouring widows’ homes (Luke 20:45-47). Of course, in their system, this was no problem. Because, if their blessing was proof of God’s pleasure with them, then the absence of blessing in the lives of others was evidence of God’s condemnation. So, if you were a widow, a beggar, or handicapped, you were a sinner and under God’s judgement. Thus, in their callous attitude toward these people, they saw themselves as aligning with God. It’s not hard to see why they rejected such people (Luke 5:27-39; 7:36-50), and were more concerned about whether Jesus was keeping one of their rules than in seeing a handicapped person healed on the Sabbath (Luke 6:6-11; 13:10-17; Luke 14:1-6).
It was this view of righteousness and the attendant love of money (Luke 12:13-34) which was denounced by Jesus, and generated His harshest criticism (Luke 11:37-12:34; 13:1-9, 17).
In contrast, the righteousness Jesus presented was based, not on merit, but on forgiveness of sins through faith (Luke 5:12-26; 7:31-50). Rather than condemnation, the humility required for this righteousness manifests itself, not in performance, but in a reflection of God’s merciful heart (Luke 6:20-49). Rather than finding validation and security in riches, the security of this righteousness rests in God and His promises of blessing beyond death (Luke 12:1-59; 13:22-30)
By the time Jesus is approaching Jerusalem for the final time, the Pharisees are settled in their rejection of Jesus as the Christ, and the righteousness He brings. They tell Him to leave the country (Luke 13:31-35).
This is a pivotal point in the Gospel of Luke. As a result of their rejection, the scribes and Pharisees will be excluded from God’s feast, while all those that they view as unrighteousness, will take their place(14:16-24). Anyone who wants to follow Jesus will have to abandon the pursuit of life according to their own agenda and evidence of self-righteousness (14:25-35).
In chapter 15, such sinners are eating with Jesus. This produces grumbling among the Pharisees and scribes (15:1-2). This prompts the parables of the Lost Sheep (15:3-7) and Lost Coin (15:8-11). In each parable something is lost, searched for, and found. The typical response of the scribes and Pharisees to these situations is used to illustrate God’s heart toward these sinners who are so despised by the scribes and Pharisees. This sets up the Story of the Lost Son (15:11-31).
You’re probably familiar with the story. The younger of two sons prematurely asks his father for his inheritance. Receiving it, he promptly proceeds to squander it, partying in exotic locations. Impoverished, he reaps the consequences of his choices, and those consequences bring him to his senses. Realizing that his father’s servants are better off than he is, he humbly returns to his father, seeking the role of a servant.
But before he could get back to the estate, his father, who was watching for him, runs to meet him. Instead of rebuking him for his stupid choices, the father welcomes him with hugs and kisses.
This younger son confesses his sinfulness and asks the father’s forgiveness, seeking to be made a slave.
Instead, the father restores him to full son-status and expends even more of his remaining estate in a celebration.
The older son is torqued. The father continues to expend resources on his morally inferior brother, and he refuses to join the celebration. Like the Pharisees, he insists on basing his relationship with the Father on merit.
In this story of the Lost Son, Jesus exposes the flaws in the Pharisees’ theology. They insist on basing their relationship with God on a righteousness of moral superiority. Because of their performance, they see themselves as entitled to God’s wealth, which they view as literal possessions. It follows that all those who make poor moral decisions, like the younger son, are entitled to nothing but rejection.
With the conclusion of the story, Jesus makes two important points:
- All that the father had was available to the older son as well, but not based on merit. All he had to do was ask. He was a son.
- They had to celebrate the restored relationship of the son who was lost. Had to. Relationships are that important.
Now, if I stop reading here, I could conclude that I can have all of the Father’s possessions simply by asking for them. After all, I am a son. And although I have made foolish decisions, I have humbly asked God’s forgiveness. So I can be assured of God’s loving embrace and access to all His wealth. I’m gonna be rich…
But we can’t stop reading there. As surprising as it may seem, Luke 16 immediately follows Luke 15. And in Luke 16, Jesus turns to the disciples – those who have accepted Jesus’ righteousness.
He tells them another story about a guy squandering possessions. This time, it is a manager who is supposed to be building the net worth of a rich man, but instead is squandering it. The rich man, hears of this, fires the manager, and tells him to turn over his records of the accounts.
The manager considers his options. Too weak for physical labor. Ashamed to beg. So, he concocts a plan. One by one, he forgives a portion of the debt owed to the master by various individuals so that they will welcome him into their homes.
Surprisingly, the master praises his prudence. We are left to wonder why he doesn’t seek some kind of punishment or retribution. Perhaps he also benefited from the good will generated by the manager. After all, the manager represented him. So it would appear that he was the one forgiving the debts. That would make it hard for him to turn around and go after the manager. Or, perhaps there is some other reason.
Whatever the case, we don’t have to wonder about the point of the story. Jesus makes it explicit:
“And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.
“He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. “Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you? “And if you have not been faithful in the use of that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own? “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
Luke 16:9-13
In a nutshell, Jesus’ point is that, like the manager, we should use the possessions entrusted to us to make friends. But these friendships are not an end in themselves. There will come a time when the things we possess will no longer benefit us – when they will fail; specifically, when we make the transition to our eternal home. The fruit of these friendships should be that, when we make this transition -that is, when we die – these friends will welcome us into our eternal dwelling. This, of course, assumes that at least some of these friends have died before us.
But it also assumes something else. It assumes that, as a result of these friendships these friends are going to heaven. Remember, Jesus is speaking this to the disciples, who have already believed that He is the Christ. Their destiny is set. It is the spiritual destiny of the friends that is to be impacted through these relationships. We are to use all the possessions entrusted to us to build friendships through which these friends will be spiritually impacted so that they too will live with God eternally.
Apart from this, these possessions are of little value. If we faithfully invest them in these kinds of relationships, we can expect God to give us true riches, riches that are not merely entrusted to us, but riches that we can call our own. However, if we focus on the accumulation of these possessions, we are unfaithful – we are not using them according to the True Owner’s agenda – and can expect no such reward.
It boils down to a choice. We can serve God, investing what He has entrusted to us in relationships through which our friends can come to know Him. Or, we can serve money, managing it in a way that gives us as much of it as possible. But we have to choose.
Looking back to the Story of the Lost Son, we can either be like the Father, or like the Older Son. We can build relationships that last forever or we can love money. But we can’t do both.