The Parable of the Landscaper (Matthew 13:44)

Oliver, a man never good at taking commands from a boss, decided he wanted to be his own boss, so he quit his landscaping job to start his own landscaping business. Unfortunately, Oliver decided to do this at the worst possible time: during the 2008 recession. Because of the housing bubble bursting in 2008, not too many people had yards that needed landscaping, and the few that did manage to hold on to their house couldn’t afford any more landscaping than mowing the lawn. Therefore, most of Oliver’s clients hired Oliver to mow their lawn, something Oliver use to do for his neighbors as his high school job. That did bum Oliver out a bit. He viewed his landscaping as a work of art, even naming his business Masterpiece Landscaping to reflect those views. He wanted decorate people’s yards like a work of art, not just mow their lawn, like he did in high school. Nevertheless, Oliver felt grateful that he had enough lawns to mow to keep his business afloat, and he tried to display that thankfulness to all his clients.

 

One of these clients was Alfred Pennybags. Alfred was an elderly man, so old he could barely take care of himself, yet he insisted he would die in the house he built when he was a younger man. Therefore, he hired maids to tend to the inside of the house, and Oliver to tend to the outside of the house. As so many of Oliver’s client, Alfred could only afford to pay Oliver to his mow his lawn, but what Alfred could not pay with hem, he tried to pay with hospitality. Alfred definitely stuck out to Oliver as his most hospitable client. Every time Oliver visit, it seemed like Alfred would attempt to extend him some sort of hospitality. One day it could be “Gee, it looks like I bought way too many cold cuts at the grocery store. If you want to come in and make yourself a sandwich, you can!” Another day could be, “Boy, it is quite a sunny and hot day! I got ice cold water, lemonade and iced tea in the fridge if you need a drink!” Of course, every day Alfred would remind Oliver, “If you ever need to use that bathroom, my doors are always open to you!” Of the three, Oliver only accepted the offer of the third, but only when Oliver forgot to use the bathroom between jobs. Those few times Oliver entered Alfred’s house, he noticed the walls decorated more with paintings of landscapes instead of photos of people. The few photos of people all seemed to have elderly people, around Alfred’s age. From these few photos, Oliver concluded that Oliver was the youngest of his sibling and had no wife or children of his own. By this time in Alfred’s life, all his family and friends had died. Oliver thought of this sad reality for Alfred a bit, and so Oliver would occasionally engage in small talk with Alfred, just so Alfred would feel less lonely.

One morning, as Oliver prepared for work, his phone rang. Looking at caller ID, it read “Susan Hida, Esquire.” At first reaction, Oliver’s heart sank. “Oh no, I’m getting sued! What did I do wrong?” After briefly thinking about it, Oliver concluded he did do nothing wrong, so no one should sue him. He then thought to himself, “Oh! A new client! An attorney, too! As a lawyer, I bet she has a big yard, which needs a lot of work. This could be a big account!” Oliver picked up the phone and answered the call. Clearing his throat, he said in his most professional voice, “Masterpiece Landscaping: Your yard is our canvas, and we will make you a masterpiece. How may I help you today?” “Oh, excellent, I have the right number,” said the voice at the opposite end of the line. “My name is Susa Hida. I am an attorney representing the estate of Alfred Pennybags. I regret to inform you that Mr. Pennybags died in his sleep last night.” Oliver’s heart sank into sadness. Yes, he was a little bit sad that he had lost a client to death, but he was a lot sad that he would never see and hear from such a friendly man ever again. “Oh, I am sorry to hear that,” Oliver spoke up, showing sympathy. “Yes,” the lawyer continued, “sadly, with no heir or next of kin alive, all of Mr. Pennybags’s household possessions, including the house itself, will be auctioned off to pay off any remaining debts, and the rest will be donated to Alfred’s favorite charities. I see on Mr. Pennybags’s wall calendar that your scheduled to mow his lawn tomorrow afternoon. Would you mind mowing his lawn one last time, so the yard will look neat for the property auction the next day? We will make sure you get your pay once the sale is finalized.” “I would be delighted to,” Oliver replied.

The next morning Oliver found it a lot harder to wake up and get ready for work, still dealing with the grief of Alfred’s passing. As Oliver loaded his truck, he got an idea. He would honor the memory of Alfred Pennybags by planting a tree in his yard. Yeah, sure, nobody else would know what the tree meant, but every time Oliver would drive by the house, he would see the tree and remember Alfred. Before driving to the house, Oliver stopped by a nursey on the way, picked out a nice evergreen, and then finished his journey to Alfred’s house. By the time, he got there, the maid staff was packing up, and they waved at each other passing. It gave Oliver the peace and quiet (besides the hum of the tractor) to reflect on Alfred. After finish mowing the lawn, Oliver found the perfect spot for the tree, where everybody driving by could see it. Of course, Oliver called 811, so he would know before he dug, and they assured him nothing existed below that he could hit if he dug. So Oliver began digging. He dug a pretty good size hole in the ground, but upon further inspection, he decided it could be a bit deeper. He plunged his shovel into the ground once again, but this time, it felt different. Shortly after, a black liquid, which had a distinct smell, slowly came bubbling into that hole. Yes, you guessed it. Black gold. Texas tea. Oil. At first reaction, Oliver panicked. “Oh no!” Oliver panicked. “I hit an oil pipeline! Now I will get sued!” but then Oliver realized something. “Wait a minute,” Oliver thought, “I did call 811, and they assured me nothing existed under the ground. Oliver’s eyes opened wide as he realized put it all together. Oliver had the discovered oil! Quickly, Oliver filled up the hole, threw all his equipment back in his truck and drove home as fast as could.

 

When Oliver got home, he barged into his house, so loudly it startled his wife Pearl. “PEARL! PEARL! How much money do we have in our checking account?” he screamed at the top of his lungs, as he ran around the house, looking for the checkbook.  “Why? Why are you asking that?” Pearl asked. “And how much money do we have in our savings account?” Oliver yelled, as he continued to run aimlessly around the house in search of the bank book. “Why are you asking? What happened? What did you do? Oh my gosh, are we getting sued?” An excited Oliver did not hear. “And how much do we have in our 401K or IRA or whatever our retirement plan is? And how much in stocks? And what about CDs? Do we have any of these?!” “Woah there!” Pearl said, stopping her husband in his tracks. “You’re going to slow down and explain to me what happened.” “Ok,” Oliver said, taking a breath. “So yesterday, I got a phone call from a lawyer…” “Oh my gosh, we are getting sued!” Pearl interrupted. “No, we’re not getting sued!” Oliver continued. “The attorney called to inform me that one of my clients died, and she asked if I could mow his one last time, to which I agreed. I decided that, not only would I mow the lawn, but I would also plant a tree in memory of him. I had nearly finished digging the hole for the tree when a black liquid came bubbling from the ground.” “Oh my gosh, you hit a pipeline! Why didn’t you call 811?” Pearl interrupted again. “Of course, I called 811!” Oliver continued. “They assured me absolutely nothing was there. Honey, I discovered an oil field!” Pearl’s face of concern turned into a face of excitement to match her husband’s.

That next morning, Oliver and Pearl marched down to their bank to withdraw all the money in both their checking and savings account and close the accounts. Then they drove down to the house that once belonged to Alfred, registered for the auction, and sat down in the back row, waiting for the auction of the actual property themselves. When it came time to auction off the property, it came very close, but Oliver and Pearl made the winning bid. They were now the owners of this property. The next day, Oliver went online to register “Oliver’s Oil LLC” as his new business’s name.

What you have just read is what I call The Parable of the Landscaper. This is a 21st century version of a parable Jesus told in the 1st century. Back while in seminary, my preaching professor taught us that when teaching a parable of Jesus, a preacher should re-tell the parable in a 21st century context. I agree with his teaching. All the parable Jesus taught Jesus extremely contextualized, so his open-minded audience would understand the message, while the close-minded audience would not understand. Therefore, Jesus used the 1st century culture as his context, a context which would make no sense to the modern-day culture in the 21st century. Thus, a  preacher should study what Jesus intended the parable to mean, and then teach the parable in a 21st century cultural context that the audience could comprehend. Still, because I am not an omniscient rabbi, my parable fails in comparison to the Lord’s parable, so let’s understand the original parable in light of the 1st century context.

Please turn to Matthew 13 in your Bible. Turning to Matthew 13, it becomes apparent Matthew 13 has plenty of parables, 6 in this chapter alone, to be exact. These 6 parables come in 2 sets of 3 parables each. For the first set, Jesus addresses crowds uncertain about his message. Therefore, the first set of parables seeks to explain why some accept Jesus while others reject Jesus. In regard to the second set, Jesus speaks to people convinced of his teaching, like his faithful disciples. Thus, these parables seek to understand how to take Jesus’s message deeper.

44 ⸆ Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὃν εὑρὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔκρυψεν, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ ὑπάγει καὶ πωλεῖ °πάντα ὅσα ἔχει καὶ ἀγοράζει τὸν ἀγρὸν ἐκεῖνον.

~Matthew 13:44 (NA28)

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure that was hidden in the field, that having found it, a man hid it, and out of joy he goes away and sells all that he has and buys that field.

~Matthew 13:44 (my translation)

If reading Matthew 13:44 out of the KJV or NKJV, the verse begins with “again.” Modern scholarship has ruled out “again” belonging in the verse. The word “again” probably got added by a scribe copying the text, attempting to show that the Parable of the Hidden Treasure in Matthew 13:44 links back to the Parable of the Leaven in Matthew 13:33, which links back to the Parable of the Mustard Seed in Matthew 13:31 (and even possible the Parable of the weeds in Matthew 13:24. Not only do the earliest manuscripts discovered not have this “again,” but it does not make sense in how Matthew structured his gospel. If Matthew did intend to link all the parables in Matthew 13 as one solid teaching, he would not have interrupted it with an explanation of a parable right in the middle. Most likely, Jesus taught the first 3 parables in Matthew 13 at a different place and time than the last 3 parables in Matthew 13.

In this parable, Jesus uses a simile to compare the kingdom of heaven to a hidden treasure in a field. The kingdom of heaven in Matthew equates to the same kingdom of God in Mark and Luke. The Jewish people held God in such high esteem that they selectively referred to him. Since Matthew, a Jew, writes his Gospel to Jewish people, he uses the same respect and regard to God by calling it the kingdom of heaven. The Greek term θησαυρός (thesauros) literally translates into “treasure,” and its definition stays true for both Greek and English. It refers to something of high value, and it can be anything of high value. The participle used to describe this treasure is κεκρυμμένῳ (kekrummeno). Literally, it translates to “hidden,” but in the context of this verse, it means “buried.”

Simply because Jesus compares the kingdom of God to hidden treasure, no one should think of hidden treasure like a pirate’s buried treasure, like that of Treasure Island (although such stories did exist during the time of Jesus). No one should equate this parable to winning the lottery (although that will be discussed later). For both of those, one can chalk it up to an accident or luck. This parable actually had a very purposeful and very probable likelihood. Remember that banking as known today did not exist until fairly recent in history, around the late Middle Ages. During the time of Jesus, the business of banking solely went to loans. People only used banks to borrow money in the form of a loan and pay back that loan. Banks did not hold people’s money. Therefore, when a person wanted to save or store riches in a safe place away from robbers and raiders, especially in times of uncertainty, they would put their valuables (coins, precious metals, gemstones) in sometimes a wooden box, or more often, a clay jar, and then place it in a secure location, like the innermost closet, a vault under the house or a chosen spot in the field. Those in urban settings could only bury it under the house, while those in rural settings could bury it anywhere on their property, including their fields. Someone at this point may think, “Wouldn’t the treasure be buried safer within the walls in the house?” Maybe, but within the floorplan of the house, the robber or thief only has only a little surface area to cover in comparison to the house and the fields of a farmer, which the robber or thief would have a lot to cover.

Such a process should not sound too foreign, as the New Testament references it many times. When Paul writes “But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us” in 2 Corinthians 4:7 (ESV), he refers to this practice. In the Parable of the Talents, as told in Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:12-27, when Jesus says that the third servant hid his talent in the ground, he refers to this practice.

 

In the late 1940s, the Dead Sea Scrolls, scrolls written by the Qumran community, a people during the intertestamental time (between the Old Testament and New Testament), were discovered. The most important discovery among these scrolls were copies of the Old Testament books, the oldest copies still in existence. The second most important discovery among these scrolls was scrolls recording community living. They have given modern scholars an eye into Jewish life during the intertestamental times and the 1^st century Greco-Roman world. In the third cave, a bronze scroll was discovered. One would think it would have some important Scripture passage on it to be worth of bronze. Nope, it did not any Old Testament Scripture. Rather, the bronze scroll had a treasure map! Ok, that’s a little bit of an embellishment, but in cave 3 the bronze scroll did list the hidden treasures of all the households. Scholars hypothesize that the Romans were encroaching in on this Qumran community (the Essenes of the Qumran community were very much a sect), and the Qumran community feared the Romans would make an example by executing the leaders which would be a problem considering only the leaders knew the burial location of the family treasure, so they wrote it down in case somebody became the new leaders. Again, this scroll proves the regular practice of buried treasures.

 

With this knowledge in mind, this one verse in Matthew 13:44 sets up a detailed setting. A rural man, probably a farmer (because he has a field), has passed away, leaving his home and the land on which it resides to an heir. The heir, either unknowing of the buried treasure or forgetful of the buried treasure, has no personal intention for the land, so he decides to sell it to pocket some extra cash. From here, the setting can diverge into two different scenarios. Perhaps the heir hires somebody to tend to the field, overgrown with weeds, so it looks presentable for sale. Upon cleaning up the field, the employee notices something sticking out of the plowed ground, and thus discovers the treasure (the above modern re-telling of the parable went this direction, as do a majority of scholars). Maybe the heir has invited potential buyers to an “open house” of sorts to inspect the land before buying (cf. Luke 14:18). Upon his inspection of the field, he notices that the recent storm has eroded some ground, revealing something buried in the ground. In either scenario, the man fears he will lose the  treasure, so he acts by hiding it again. Perhaps he fears that the heir may change his mind about selling the field if the hear finds out about the discovery, or maybe he fears it will attract even more people to bid on the land, especially the rich who he could not outbid, or even possibly than a thief will rob the land of the treasure, so the finder hides the treasure again.  In either situation, the man discovering the treasure buries it again until he can buy the land, and thus claim rightful possession of the treasure.

Somebody might question the morality of the man who, upon, discovering the buried treasure, hides it again and buys the land to take possession of it, instead of reporting it to the seller. Even if someone from modern times does not question it, someone from the time of Jesus would have definitely questioned it. Interesting enough, though, as crazy as this sounds, believe it or not, the rabbis highly debated the morally right action for the exact scenario depicted in Matthew 13:44. Since such a highly debated situation had a range of answers from the rabbis, the rabbis did come to a general consensus. Most often, the answer depended on what treasure consisted of. Here, the Pharisees and Sadducees did what the Pharisees and Sadducees did best: nitpick the Law down to the letter to make it more complicated. For example, if the treasure consisted of coins scattered about, it belonged to the man discovering it, but if it the treasure consisted of piles of coins, which the religious leaders defined as three coins on top of each other, it belonged to the owner. Generally speaking, the rabbis went by the age-old saying of “finders-keepers, losers-weepers,” but only in the case when the original owner could not prove possession or died and the discoverer proved he represented himself instead of somebody else. If ever unclear, the disputing parties split the treasure in half. Ultimately, the man’s integrity has no impact on the parable, as it concludes the same way, whether the man acted properly or improperly. If anything, the man deserve praise for his discernment and prudence on the fly to give up his possessions in exchange for this property.

That also leads to another clue about the treasure. Somebody might have wondered why the man who discovered the treasure did not, in the words of the Steve Miller Band, “take the money and run.” If the man did take the treasure without buying the field, the original owning family could ultimately accuse him of stealing it, and rightfully so. If the man who found the treasure purchased the land, then everything on or in the land becomes his possession, including the treasure. Quite possibly, though, the man discovered a large treasure, so large that it does not fit in his pockets or his bag. Such a big treasure would fit the metaphor here. Either way, the only way to obtain the treasure would involve obtaining the field.

Before moving on to what the parable means, let it be clear what it does not mean. No one should mistake buying the field to equate to buying salvation. Rather, the man’s willingness to buy the field at all costs represents pursing the kingdom of heaven at all costs. The pursuit of the kingdom of heaven does not limit itself giving up money and other worldly possessions, it also requires sacrificing time and resources in exchange for spiritual discipline

Notice how the buried treasure in this parable laid deep in the ground the whole time. The heir who inherited the land could have found the treasure himself if he would have just looked for it. In fact, the man who discovers the treasure did not go out hunting for treasure, yet he stumbles upon it. The parable may even go as far to hint that only by divine intervention the man found the treasure. Likewise, the presence of the kingdom of God might be out in the open, but the only ones who can see it are those who actively seek it. After all, “Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, [Jesus] answered them, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you’”  (Luke 17:20&21 ESV). Through nature, the Lord has revealed his presence, and through the Scriptures, God has revealed his will. Humanity just has to look for it. Some will merely stumble upon him, but others, as seen in the next parable, will seek and find it.  This parable clearly puts emphasis on the man finding the treasure. Likewise, Jesus highlights the importance of seeking the kingdom of God. For those who have found it, they can aid in helping the lost find the kingdom of God. They can help by pointing out the need for salvation or the way to Christ.

Note the man’s heart and mind when it comes to his choice of actions. While the man’s behavior come across as thoughtless, the man actually reveals the decision is a no brainer. The decision to give up all comes with ease and in happiness. The man never feels like he should do it because it ought to do it or it is the right thing to do. He gives up all because he wants to give up all, and he gives up all with joy because he knows the payout is worth it. Anybody pursuing the kingdom of heaven should feel the same way. The kingdom of heaven’s worth far outweighs any earthly riches, so the disciple of Jesus needs to pursue the kingdom of heaven as those of the world pursue wealth. Not only does this pursuit of the kingdom of heaven include giving up worldly possessions, it also requires sacrificing time and resources in exchange for spiritual discipline.

Now here fits the lottery analogy. Back in January 2016, the Power Ball lottery reached an all-time high of $1,590,000,000, setting a record for any U.S. lottery. The odds of winning that Power Ball jackpot is 1 in292,200,000 because there are 292,200,000 possible combinations of Power Ball numbers. Power Ball tickets go for $2.00 per ticket. 292,200,000 x $2.00 = $584,400,000. Not counting taxes, and assuming one sole person won that lottery, if that person bought $584,400,000 worth in lottery tickets, he or she would have spent $584,400,000 to make $1,590,000,000. That’s a 172% profit! For the Christian who finds the lottery sinful, remove the premise, but keep the numbers. If somebody promised someone else $1,590,000,000 in exchange for a $584,400,000, and that somebody could assure that investment wasn’t a scam, a pyramid scheme or a cult (if your business’s motto is “It’s not a [insert name of good/service here]; it’s a lifestyle!” then it’s a cult because the Christian’s lifestyle is Jesus, not some good/service, no matter how effect said good/service is), of course that someone would do everything in his or her power to get that $584,400,000 because of the 172% profit! What would that involve? It would involve liquidating assets. It would involve withdrawing all money. All in all, it would have to mean prioritizing the drive for the money. Anything less, and the person would not achieve the funds needed. If someone would make such a pursuit for worldly wealthy, how much more for the Christian pursuing the kingdom of heaven!

Honestly, Jesus asked for a lot in exchange for the kingdom of heaven. For example, Jesus commanded a man with great wealth to sell all his possessions and donate the money to the poor (Matthew 19:21/Mark 10:19/Luke 18:22). Jesus instructed this command, not because the man with great wealth had to buy his ticket into heaven, but because the man’s wealth got in the way of his full loyalty to God and his kingdom. Jesus instructed his disciples that he had to become a priority over their own family (Matthew 10:37/Luke 14:26). Jesus taught that a human must give us the world and his or her life in exchange for a life that may lead to the cross, or death (Matthew 16:24-26/Mark 8:34-37/Luke 9:23-25). If anyone thinks Jesus asked for too much, that person should not forget how much Jesus gave up for them. Philippians 2:6-8 reminds everyone of the three-fold self-sacrifice Jesus gave. First, Jesus gave up his divine, godly throne in heaven. Second, Jesus gave up the right to have a royal or priestly birth, and in exchange, he took up a birth in a lower-class family. Third, Jesus gave up the right to a long life and peaceful death for a short life and horrible execution. Jesus gave that all up to seek after and chase after humanity, then the least humanity could do in exchange involves sacrificing worldly wealth, family and freedom! If Jesus can give up so much for his contribution to the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of heaven most definition expects the same self-sacrificing contribution from believers.

In conclusion, the Parable of the Hidden Treasure teaches 4 truths about kingdom living. First, always look out for the kingdom of heaven. Second, the kingdom of heaven costs the Christian everything, yet it profits far exceeds its expenses. Third, pursuit of the kingdom of God must become a priority for the Christian, and any business that gets in the way must be rejected. Fourth, the Christian should appropriately respond to the kingdom of God with joy. In the Greek text, the phrase “out of joy” is fronted. Jesus emphasized that joy is the right emotional response to the kingdom of God.

Bibliography

Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016.

Blomberg, Craig L. “Matthew.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

---. Matthew. Vol. 22. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

Campbell, Iain D. Opening up Matthew. Opening Up Commentary. Leominster: Day One Publications, 2008.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007.

---. “Matthew.” Pages 904–45 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Freeman, James M., and Harold J. Chadwick. Manners & Customs of the Bible. North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Vol. 33A. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1993.

Hughes, Robert B., and J. Carl Laney. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. The Tyndale reference library. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Knowles, Andrew. The Bible Guide. 1st Augsburg books ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001.

Mills, M. S. The Life of Christ: A Study Guide to the Gospel Record. Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999.

Newman, Barclay Moon, and Philip C. Stine. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1992.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005.

Robertson, A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. St. Matthew. Vol. 2. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909.

Stein, Robert H. “Differences in the Gospels.” Pages 1500–1501 in CSB Study Bible: Notes. Edited by Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017.

Utley, Robert James. The First Christian Primer: Matthew. Vol. Volume 9. Study Guide Commentary Series. Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2000.

Ward, Wayne E. “Matthew.” The Teacher’s Bible Commentary. Edited by H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1972.

Weber, Stuart K. Matthew. Vol. 1. Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Weltanschauung (Proverbs 3:5&6) [2nd ed.]

Weltanschauung. Let me say it again, but this time I’ll stand back, in case I don’t say it, but spray it. Weltanschauung. A simple word-for-word translation of this German word would render the world “worldview,” but linguists (that is, someone who studies language) wouldn’t call worldview a definition for weltanschauung. A person’s weltanschauung is a worldview that fully covers beliefs about philosophy, religion, morality, government, society, politics and economics. To have a weltanschauung, the person just doesn’t know about these topics, but the person fully understands them, has come to a conclusion about, can fully defend his or her stances, and knows how they affect life and how to live them out. The book of Proverbs stresses that people need to have a weltanschauung, but mores specifically, God’s people need to have a godly weltanschauung, and not a human weltanschauung.

If you have your Bible book with you, turn to Proverbs 3:5. If you have a Bible app on your tablet or smartphone, boot up your Bible, and put in your search bar Proverbs 3:5.

5     בְּטַ֣ח אֶל־יְ֭הוָה בְּכָל־לִבֶּ֑ךָ וְאֶל־בִּֽ֝ינָתְךָ֗ אַל־תִּשָּׁעֵֽן׃

5. Trust towards Yahweh with all your heart, and towards your understanding do not lean.

6     בְּכָל־דְּרָכֶ֥יךָ דָעֵ֑הוּ וְ֝ה֗וּא יְיַשֵּׁ֥ר אֹֽרְחֹתֶֽיךָ׃

6. In all your ways know him, and he will make straight and smooth your manners

Before diving into the text itself, the text needs some analysis of its historical context. Solomon contributed 3 books to the Old Testament: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. Each of these 3 OT books came at different times in Solomon’s life, and the text reflects when Solomon wrote them. Solomon penned Song of Solomon during his early adulthood, and therefore, the book is optimistic. Song of Solomon is a romantic book, not just love romantic but also feelings romantic. It is an idealistic book on how love and romance should work. It is almost like a Jewish fairy tale. Solomon scribed Ecclesiastes in his later adulthood, and thus, the book is pessimistic. Elderly in years, Solomon undergoes the stage in life Erik Erikson called ego integrity versus despair. According to Erik Erikson, senior citizens in this stage of life look back on their life choices and their life contributions. If they feel satisfied, they live the rest of their lives happy until they die happy. If they feel dissatisfied, they live the rest of their lives sad until they did sad. Solomon experience just that in Ecclesiastes, and he ends up dissatisfied, hence he pessimistically concludes that life is meaningless or vain. Solomon writes Proverbs in the middle of his adulthood, which means Proverbs is realistic. In the middle of his adulthood, between optimistic Song of Solomon and pessimistic Ecclesiastes, Proverbs has the best of both worlds, both optimistic and pessimistic when needed. Because of that, it has the most realistic expectations. Alongside realistic, the book is also serious. Solomon has a serious sit down with his son to pass on the wisdom he has learned from life, both optimistic and pessimistic, both idealistic and cynical.

Before diving into the text itself, the text also needs some analysis of its literary context. The book of Proverbs belongs in the genre of poetry, as opposed to law or history. Hebrew poets used the structure Hebrew poetry to get their message across to their audience, which differs how a narrative gets its points across to its audience. To ignore the structure of a Hebrew poem would be like saying there is no difference between a high school history textbook and one of Shakespeare’s plays. Hebrew poets formed their poetry around poetic parallelisms, or parallels of arrangement and idea, where one line parallels another line in thought. Poetic parallelism appear in a few forms, including synonymous parallelism, antithetical parallelism and synthetic parallelism. For a synonymous parallelism, the lines of poetry say the same thing using different words, typically synonyms (hence synonymous), to emphasize a thought or idea. In an antithetical parallelism, the lines of poetry say opposite thoughts to contrast ideas. Regarding a synthetic parallelism, the next lines add, expand or explain the previous lines. When reading Proverbs 3:5&6, keep an eye out of these parallelisms!

One last note about the literary context of Hebrew poetry. Remember that nouns can be concrete or abstract. Concrete nouns are people, places and things that can be experienced through the senses. Abstract nouns are events, ideas or emotions that cannot be experienced through the senses. Linguists believe that a language must establish its concrete nouns before its abstract nouns, so that it can base its abstract nouns off the concrete nouns. Hebrew poetry knows that and loves to engage in wordplay, using a single word with both its concrete meaning and its abstract meaning in mind. Keep an eye out for these wordplays!

בְּטַ֣ח  - b^eṭaḥ = “Trust”: A simple translation of בְּטַ֣ח  (b^eṭaḥ) does render “trust,” but this trust goes deeper than the simple translation. This trust means to rely heavily on somebody or something for safety and security, especially when confronting a threat. This trust suggests that some hazard or peril, unknown to humankind, always exists, and therefore, humanity always needs somebody higher looking out for humankind. For the reason, the book of Proverbs constantly contrast trust with fear because of their opposite nature (see Proverbs 14:16, 28:1 and 29:25 for example). Sadly, so many humans trust in something, like money, instead of someone, like Yahweh. Ironically, בְּטַ֣ח (b^eṭaḥ) appears more commonly in the Old Testament in a negative context, for those who use wealth to create a false sense of security (see Psalm 52:7 and Proverbs 11:28, for example). Now when somebody thinks of trust, that person may relegate trusting to intellectually thinking or emotionally feeling. The Hebrew language never understood בְּטַ֣ח (b^eṭaḥ)  to take such a passive role. The Hebrew term בְּטַ֣ח (b^eṭaḥ)  requires the person to act, believing that the Lord has commanded the right thing. If whatever happens has disastrous results, the person repents for misinterpreting God’s instructions and seeks to once again change his or her thinking, so he or she may better reflect the Lord’s ways.

אֶל־יְ֭הוָה – el-Yahweh = “toward Yahweh”: Saying “towards Yahweh” does not sound natural or smooth to modern English ears, hence why most English translations say “in the Lord.” Not only does the Hebrew text not use the traditional בּ prefix, the author Solomon purposely uses אֶל (el) to paint a picture in the mind of his son. He wants his son to actively turn and face toward Yahweh. This action will make more sense when seeing the parallel in the next line. More important than the action or the preposition is the recipient, which is Yahweh. The believer trusts towards the Lord for so many reasons. Believers trust toward Yahweh that his commands reflect truly ethical standards, that the Lord himself holds to these ethical standards, and that God will enforce these ethical standings, judging those who do not follow them. Therefore, this command to trust also invites the those who trust toward Yahweh to also follow these ethical standards, knowing that they join the Lord in following and stand in contrast to the fool and the wicked who do not follow them.

בְּכָל־לִבֶּ֑ךָ - bekol-liv beka = “with all your heart”: In modern-day America, we associate the heart with our emotions, or how we feel. The Hebrews associated lev, the Hebrew word for “heart,” not only with emotions and how a person felt, but also intellect and how a person thought. In short, the heart, in the Hebrew mindset, represented the internal human. Therefore, the trust toward Yahweh should involve both intellect and emotions, and it should include them to the fullest. Since God alone offers his people full safety, full security and full wisdom, the only fair response involves giving full trust in return. Thus, every belief, every choice, every conviction and every decision must first have the approval of the Lord. If believes really do trust in God alone, then investing it all in God only makes sense.

וְאֶל־בִּֽ֝ינָתְךָ֗ - v^eel-binotka = “and towards your understanding”: The root of בִּֽ֝ינָתְךָ֗ (binotka) is בִּינָה (bînāh). While בִּינָה (bînāh) sometimes simply means “wisdom,” בִּינָה (bînāh) usually takes it a step further. The Hebrew term בִּינָה (bînāh) might be a compound word, coming from two words translated as “between” and “to discern.” If so, בִּינָה (bînāh) would literally mean “to discern between.” This definition, in this context, would imply that understanding involves discerning between morally right and morally wrong. To discern morally right from morally wrong, someone cannot merely have wisdom. That person has to interpret wisdom. To do that, the person must have insight to the wisdom. Ultimately, the only way to have the insight to interpret wisdom would involve seeing the world as Yahweh sees. Once again, it draws back to turning full attention towards God. Speaking of which, the Hebrew preposition אֶל (el) appears yet again, making “toward your understanding” a clear parallel to “toward God.”

אַל־תִּשָּׁעֵֽן - ʾal-tiššāʿēn = “do not lean”: Literally, תִּשָּׁעֵֽן (tiššāʿēn) translates into “lean,” but it has a figurative meaning of trusting in someone. On the surface level, going from the concrete meaning to the abstract meaning should make sense. Anytime somebody leans on something or someone, that person relies in the person or the thing to support them. In the same way, human reliance and trust should not come from supporting the self, but instead, it looks toward Yahweh for support. The Ancient Near East cultural context, however, provides an even deeper meaning. In ancient times, kings would lean against their ministers, magistrates and governors in public to symbolize that the king trusted that person with the power the king gave the person, and so the public should trust the person in power as well. When a finite, limited human being stands before the omniscient God, it should be clear that the human should not consider his own thoughts and opinion as correct answer, but rather, the human should look towards God for absolute truth.

Put it all together, Solomon carefully chooses his grammar and his rhetoric. Solomon has crafted together a synonymous parallelism in Proverbs 3:5. Yahweh’s understanding and human understanding stand at two opposite poles. To turn towards one means to turn away from the other. Solomon teaches his son to trust and heavily rely on God’s way of thinking, not his own or anyone one else’s, especially in terms of morals. If not sure if trusting toward God, then do the opposite of trusting the self. Again, this does not mean that God rejects the human mind’s capabilities to think with logic and reasoning. The fact that humans can think with logic and reason traces back to the image of God, and God uses that to reveal himself in general. Here, Proverbs 3:5 warns humans against thinking that their logic and reasoning will provide for them a complete answer. A truly wise person knows that human wisdom has its limits, and all wisdom comes from God, but a fool thinks that he or she has all the wisdom that he or she will ever need.

בְּכָל־דְּרָכֶ֥יךָ - bekol-d^erākeykā = “in all your ways”: The Hebrew term דְּרָכֶ֥יךָ (d^erākeykā) comes from the Hebrew root דֶּרֶך (derek). Concretely, דֶּרֶך (derek) means “road,” but abstractly, it means “way.” This should not seem so foreign to the English speaker, as English uses “way” in the same manner. For example, as part of the Super Bowl game pregame show, the network might air a segment called “The Road to the Super Bowl.” This segment would not describes the two teams’ busses road trip to the Super Bowl location, but it would describe the games the teams won to qualify to play in the Super Bowl. The same works here. The phrase “in all your ways” parallels “with all your heart.” The Lord desires his people holistically. He wants their thoughts, their feelings, their speech and their actions, whether in public or private, whether in the sacred realm or the secular realm. God wants the whole of his people.

דָעֵ֑הוּ  - dāʿēhû = “know him”: Most English Bible translations renderדָעֵ֑הוּ  (dāʿēhû) in Proverbs 3:6 as “acknowledge,” but the Hebrew root ידע (yada) literally means “to know.” Most English Bibles lean away from translating דָעֵ֑הוּ  (dāʿēhû)  as “to know” because “to know” in the English has a broad span. Clearly, in the context of Proverbs 3:6, the author has a specific meaning in mind. This type of knowing is more intimate. It means getting to know someone or something better. It means knowing to improve your relationship with someone. This involves a constant awareness to God’s divine rule in life. Just like trust in the previous verse, the Hebrew term ידע (yada)  does not take a passive role. It is an all-encompassing knowledge that affects how you think and how you act. Solomon instructs his son to first get to know the Lord as much as possible in order to think like God and act like God. Both attitudes and behaviors should reflect God. Furthermore, getting to know God will teach that person that God has the authority to act out his sovereign will. Altogether, knowing God should evolve into trusting God.

וְ֝ה֗וּא  - v^ehu = “and he”: In Hebrew, Hebrew verbs have the pronouns built into the conjugated verb, so technically Hebrew does not need pronouns in the subject. Therefore, the when the pronoun appears in the subject, the author draws attention to the subject. Here, Solomon emphasizes that the subject, he, the Lord, is the only one who can do what the rest of the sentence says.

יְיַשֵּׁ֥ר  - yeyāššer = “will make smooth and straight”: As expected in Hebrew poetry, this verb has a literal and figurative meaning. The literal meaning many know of because of it pertains to the role John the Baptist fulfilled. When the king had to trek to a foreign land, he would send a messenger ahead to smooth out bumpy roads or straighten out crooked roads to make the trip as easy as possible. That action is ישׁר (yāšar), the Hebrew root ofיְיַשֵּׁ֥ר  (yeyāššer). Literal translators, who desire a one-to-one translation, debate whether “make straight” or “make smooth” makes the best translation. Dynamic equivalency translators, however, do not mind putting both. Both technically work, for both describe the Lord preparing life before you, and God does indeed prepare it wholly. If having to take a side, however, straight probably works best because most people native to English understand “going straight” as pursuing a righteous life instead of a sinful life, which the verse attempts to communicate.

אֹֽרְחֹתֶֽיךָ - ʾōr^ehōteykā = “your manners:” The Hebrew word אֹֽרְחֹתֶֽיךָ (ʾōr^ehōteykā) is meant to parallel the Hebrew term דְּרָכֶ֥יךָ (d^erākeykā). As discussed, דְּרָכֶ֥יךָ (d^erākeykā) has both a concrete meaning of “road” but an abstract meaning of “way.” Likewise, אֹֽרְחֹתֶֽיךָ (ʾōr^ehōteykā)  has a concrete meaning of “path” but an abstract meaning of “manners.” With that in mind, it looks off when most English Bible translations use the figurative meaning for דְּרָכֶ֥יךָ (d^erākeykā), but they use a literal meaning for אֹֽרְחֹתֶֽיךָ (ʾōr^ehōteykā). Therefore, this translation stays consistent, using the abstract idea for both Hebrew terms.

The bicolon in Proverbs 3:6 create a synthetic parallelism because it explains a cause-and-effect relationship between the two cola. When a person gets to know the Lord, God responds by preparing their manners to a godly format. No one should want it any other way. As the omniscient God, Yahweh has the best insight into ever person’s life, which makes the Lord the best one to prepare anybody’s life. If a person does his role by pursuing righteousness, God will intervene and help by removing the stumbling blocks of temptation.

If anyone in the Bible got this idea, the apostles in Acts got it down. In Acts chapter five, the high priest and the Sanhedrin council call the apostles in after an angel frees them from prison and they return to preaching in the temple. Previously, the Sanhedrin had charged the apostles to no longer preach about Jesus publicly, and in exchange, they wouldn’t get in big trouble. Sounds like a good compromise, right? Not for the apostles. They went right back to preaching in the temple courts. When asked for a defense, Peter and the apostles answer in Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men!” I’m not sure if Peter and the apostles had this Proverb in the back of their head, but they knew had to think like God, even if it meant disagreeing with the ruling council. In return, they got the blessing Proverbs 3:6b records. Acts 5:41 says that apostles left there rejoicing. Anyone else facing the hard pressing judgments of the Sanhedrin would walk away discouraged, but not the apostles. They rejoiced because they knew the suffering came about doing God’s will. They knew preaching the name of Jesus was God’s will because they trusted in God’s understanding and thought like God.

After exploring Proverbs 3:5&6 in its historical and literary context, three applications stand out as relevant to modern society.

First, Proverbs 3:5&6 ultimately teaches about morality, or more specifically, Proverbs 3:5&6 teaches to trust in the Lord for godly morals, instead of humans for human morals. Christians today constantly have to vie with outside worldviews trying to compete with a godly worldview. Therefore, Christians should constantly remind themselves that they need to trust with God’s understanding and not lean on man’s understanding. I encourage you that whenever a secular view challenges your godly worldview, just repeat Proverbs 3:5 to yourself as reminder that you stand behind God’s truth. When the world tells you that those group of cells in a woman’s uterus is just an extension of her body, which she can do as she pleases, you must trust in the Lord, and lean not on our own understanding. When the world tells you that some people will always be poor because they are lazy, and there is nothing you can do to help them, you must trust in the Lord, and lean not on your own understanding. When the world tells you that two men or two women marrying each other is love, you must trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. When the world tells you that these warm summers are just a phase this planet is going through, and there is no need to worry about pollution, you must trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. When the world teaches the world and life came about after billions of years of chance lining up, you must trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. When the world tells you that the only way to bring about peace is to engage in more war, you must trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.

Second, Proverbs 3:5&6 teaches to have a very strong faith in Yahweh, which could almost a blind faith. Now someone want to avoid the phrase “blind faith” because it has negative connotations of believing within thinking. This blind faith, however, means something different. This kind of faith recognizes that human thinking, next to the omniscient God, truly is blind. It can see so little when the Lord can see so much. This type of faith accepts God’s truth, even if human thought cannot comprehend it. Not only does this faith require acceptance, it requires trust. When a person obtains this faith, that person acts on the faith, almost blindly. Trusting that Yahweh knows better, they follow the Lord’s commands, even if they don’t know where it leads. God personally taught this to me one day. I had a doctor’s appointment in Lancaster, between Fruitville Pike and Lititz Pike. From work, I just needed to take I-83 southbound and then route 30 eastbound. As I went to merge onto I-83 southbound, I noticed a car exit on the entrance ramp! Looking down the ramp, it made sense why. A car crash right after the exit ramp had resulted in blocking off traffic. I needed to take a detour. I knew of a road that ran parallel to I-83 just to the east of I-83. I just needed to find the right turn to turn onto the road. After driving some distance, I made that right turn…or so I thought. After driving on that road for some distance, I found myself going northbound towards Harrisburg! With nowhere to turn around and nowhere to stop, using the voice commands on my iPhone, I asked Siri to give me directions to Lancaster. Siri took me through every windy road on no-man’s land York County. With nowhere to stop, I had to trust that my GPS took the right direction. Sure enough, I ended up at the Wrightsville exit of route 30. I still don’t know how I got there. I think Siri brought me through York Have and Mount Wolf. I may not know how I got back on track, but I know I trusted it to get me there. In the same way, a wis believer will trust in Yahweh’s instruction, even if he or she does not know where it leads.

Third, Proverbs 3:5&6 teaches that a wise believer can humble himself or herself to realize that he or she may not always get things right. Yes, Yahweh is the omniscient God, so he will always get things right, but humans are fallible, so they are prone error. Even the Christian, who has the Holy Spirit dwelling inside, has to make the choice to listen to the Holy Spirit, which also means they can choose not listening. When a person ends up making the wrong choice or wrong decision, instead of blaming God, that person needs to humbly confess and repent that he or she did not listen to God. Again, I can personally testify to you. Back in April, my wife and I received a fact sheet, which is how our adoption agency notifies us of a potential baby to adopt. We felt good about this fact sheet, so we said yes. I kept telling my wife, “This is it! We are finally going to become parents!” I was so sure of it. It just felt like the perfect timing. I had finished my Ph.D. classes and moved on to the dissertation stage, which I could do at home while parenting a child. My wife’s job had transitioned to working at home, so she could work at home while parenting a child. Even Bible Quizzing had wrapped up for the year, so I had this extra time to parent a child. All signs seemed to point to the perfect timing, so I felt certain the Lord had us wait all this time for a child until this perfect timing. Sadly, April passed, and we were passed up on parenting this child. I was so sure of the perfect timing! After thinking about it, I realized I thought the timing felt perfect, but clearly, the Lord did not. Therefore, I humbly confessed and repented, “How I dare claim I know the perfect timing. Truly, the Lord knows the perfect timing.” In the same manner, a wise believer will humbly confess and repent when that believer thinks he or she knows better than God.

Sometimes the Christian’s greatest obstacle to obtaining a godly weltanschauung can be himself or herself. Christians too often get tempted to think God’s will is their will, instead of making their will God’s will. Instead, if the Christian starts thinking like God thinks, the Christian can see clearly how God has blessed him or her and will continue him or her.

Bibliography

Buzzell, Sid S. “Proverbs.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 18A. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.

Garrett, Duane A. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Vol. 14. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993.

Garrett, Duane A. “The Poetic and Wisdom Books.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Goldingay, John E. “Proverbs.” Pages 584–608 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Murphy, Rowland E. Proverbs. Vol. 22. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. Proverbs. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909.

Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004.

Why Pastors Don't Preach Self-Care from the Pulpit

Introduction

The inspiration to talk about this subject comes from an e-mail I received from somebody at my church. This person asked if I could preach on boundaries. At first glance, I assumed this person did not want to know why the Arnon River served as a boundary between Edom and Moab. Sure enough, as I continued reading the e-mail, the person specified by asking more questions, such as “How do you say no to the church guilt free?” and “How do you get the church to gracefully accept your no answer?” As I began to formulate my answer in my head, I realized these thoughts sounded familiar. Someone else asked me a similar question before, but that person did not use the term “boundaries.” That person used another term: “self-care.” Then I remembered the exact question that person asked me: “Why don’t pastors preach self-care from the pulpit?” Since the questions of boundaries and self-care sounded similar, I gave a similar answer to both boundaries and self-care: Pastors do not preach self-care from the pulpit because they know it’s unbiblical. Let’s explore that idea in three parts. First, a survey of the Scriptures will uncover the top 3 Scriptures as proof against self-care. Second, possible objections will receive responses. The third part I call the “asterisk.” Ever notice that an asterisk next to a word, phrase or sentence has a footnote with disclaimers and exceptions, so the person doesn’t get sued or in trouble? That is the exact purpose of the third section: disclaimers, exceptions, objections that do not have a response, and other thoughts to take into consideration. Finally, it will all wrap up in a nice conclusion, which will bring together these 3 parts.

(Quick Excursus: Some may want to argue that boundaries and self-care are not the same or not even similar, but quite different. While I could see that they are different, they are definitely linked. If conducting a quick Google search of self-care, I can almost guarantee that one of the points, whether at the top, bottom or in between, will say that part of self-care is establishing boundaries with people. I believe the common denominator may be rest. Self-care involves rest. Setting up boundaries involves resting from people. Therefore, I treat the two subjects the same, however, I will link them together myself by talking about rest.)

Survey of the Scriptures

Topical research best suits the study of self-help in the Bible because, simply put, modern problems require modern solutions. All 66 books of the Bible were written by specific authors, who had a historical and cultural context, to a specific audience, who had a historical and cultural context, with the purpose of responding to an occasion, whether to answer a question or solve a problem, which within itself had its own historical and cultural context. No one can find a specific passage in the Bible that directly talks about self-help because no one in Biblical times would have spoken at self-help. They never had this issue. It would come across as a foreign topic to them. Therefore, for such a modern subject, the best available option involves looks for clues from surveying the Scriptures.

With that mind, modern Christians need to realize how blessed (I thought of using a p-word here, but I decided against it because the world of politics uses it, which may trigger some people) they live to need to have this conversation. Consider Old Testament Hebrew, Israelite or Jew. They had to work sunrise to sunset to just have enough food to feed their family. They could not afford to take time off to “self-care.” Think of the 1^st century apostle (and this extends into the 2^nd century apostle, too), who constantly had to run and hide from the governments, who declared their faith illegal, in order to avoid persecution. They could not afford the “me time” to “self-care.” Heck, this does not merely apply to those living in the time of Jesus or before him. Millions of people in the world live in a third world/developing country. The closest they can get to “self-care” most people would call “survival.” Indeed, modern-day American Christians should first recognize how blessed the lived before arguing for self-care. If that hasn’t derailed the subject, let’s look at the top 3 Scriptures against self-care.

Mark 6:30-33 (ESV)-
The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught. And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them.

Let's stop right there to put this into context. Jesus has been going village to village teaching (6:6), a tiring task. He has sent out his disciple to practice ministering (6:7-12), also tiring out the disciples. During this ministry time, Herod has John the Baptist put to death (6:14-29). From the Gospel of Matthew, we learn that Jesus heard of the news shortly after the event (cf. Matt 14:13), which must have put both a mental and emotional toll on Jesus. Between the tiring teaching and ministering, alongside the mental and emotion toll of John the Baptist's death, Jesus decides it would be best to retreat to a deserted place to find some rest and relaxation. The crowd of people, however, can anticipate where Jesus and the disciples plan to go, and they get there first. Thus, Jesus and the disciples hit land, only to the deserted place not so deserted.

And then Jesus said to the crowd, "Look, I have been traveling a lot and working hard. I am hungry, and I am tired. Besides, my second cousin just died, and I am kind of sad about that. I could really use some me-time right now, so I can give myself some self-care. If you could all just leave right now, that would be great. We will pick up again in a few days or a week."

No, just kidding. Not even close.

Mark 6:34 (ESV)-
When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things.

See what happened there? Jesus put aside feelings of hunger and tiredness to minister to the people. Because Jesus did so, he cured people of the disease those suffered from disability (cf. Matt 14:14, Luke 6:11), and he single-handedly fed over 5,000 hungry people with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread (6:35-44). The disciples followed their rabbi's cue. Instead of complaining about their hunger and their tiredness (they seem more to complain about the impossibility of the feat), they aid their teacher, making sure the people sat down in groups of 50 and 100 (Luke 9:15) and helping distribute (Matt 14:19, Luke 9:16) and collect (6:43) the food. All because they sacrificed their "me-time" and "self-care" to love on other people.

I purposely picked the Mark account (as you can see from my cross-references, it appears in Matthew and Luke, too) because Mark purposely portrays Jesus as a Suffering Servant. If you haven't guessed already, Mark draws that imagery from Isaiah 53. Now Christians today tend to think as Jesus as the Suffering Servant because he suffered on the cross for humanity's sins, but when Matthew quotes Isaiah 53 in Matthew 8:17, it has nothing to do with salvation at all! Instead, Matthew uses as a proof text on why Jesus is healing. Both Matthew and Mark have caught onto something, which Christians reading the New Testament need to catch on as well. Jesus is not only a suffering servant in his death on the cross, but also in his ministry! Matthew and Mark speak nothing new here, as a close look at Isaiah 53 also reveals that.

Isaiah 53:1-4 (ESV)-
Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.

These four verses are right before any mention of "pierced for our transgressions" or "crushed for our iniquities," so these verses cannot be talking about Christ’s salvific act of dying on the cross. These verses have to be talking about the ministering of the suffering servant. Even before the suffering servant experiences death that will bring about salvation, he will have to live a life full of sorrows and grief. As we see these verses fulfilled in the Gospels, this would also have to include a thankless job, meeting all the people's needs non-stop. Jesus is not only the suffering servant because he died a cruel death to save humanity from their sins. Jesus is also the suffering servant because he suffered in serving the people at the cost of his own "me-time" & "self-care"

If we are really calling ourselves Christians, which literally means "Little Christs," should we not also follow in the footsteps of Jesus in this way, too? Clearly, the disciples saw that, as mentioned above. Also as mentioned earlier, those disciples, who would become the apostles, all of them face persecution, and all but John faced martyrdom. That is the epitome of becoming suffering servants. Since we have such a great cloud of witnesses, is not sacrificing our "me-time" and "self-care" the least we could do? Any of the apostles would gladly switch places with any modern-day Christian complaining about the lack of “me-time” and “self-care”. Would you like to switch places with the apostles? Because let me tell you, when you're running from an oppressive government, there is no such thing as "me-time" or "self-care"

Matthew 11:28-30 (ESV)-
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

So many Christians quote Matthew 11:28, but they fail to read Matthew 11:28 in its context of Matthew 11:28-30. Christians take Matthew 11:28 out of its context because they can slap it on any earthly blessing (job raise, job promotion, new business, new house, new car, new baby, etc.) and then claim that Jesus will empower them to get the blessing they want to obtain. Reading Matthew 11:28-30 as a whole, however, teaches something contrary. Jesus does not say “Take off your yoke,” but rather, “Take my yoke upon you.” Most commentators agree that the yoke Jesus represents the teaching of a rabbi. In the 1^st century, not only did a rabbi expect his disciples to memorize everything that the Tanak (Hebrew Bible) said, but the rabbi would also expect his disciples to memorize his interpretations of the Tanak. Many, if not most, rabbis made these interpretations so complicated, much more complicated than the Tanak itself. This became so true that the 1^st century rabbis actually recognized the burden of their interpretations, even to the point of referring them as yokes (which, remember, is an enslaving device because it enslaves the animal or person using it). Jesus sets himself apart as a different rabbi because he had an easy and light yoke. Now clearly this does not mean Jesus expected less from his disciples. On the contrary, he expected more. Earlier in the same book of Matthew, Jesus announces, “Don’t just not murder, don’t even hate,” and Jesus declares, “Don’t just not commit adultery, don’t even lust.” In that way, Jesus does put a whole lot more on his disciples, but he also gives the strength to do it. The Christian’s rest comes from JESUS, not THEMSELVES. Christians are to depend on JESUS for care, not THEMSELVES.

Objections!

A good scholar not only thoroughly defends his thesis and its main points, a good scholar will also anticipate the objections that might arise to the thesis and/or its main points. Below contains three objections that might arise to contest the above points. Each objection has a response.

Objection #1: The Sabbath

Ah yes, the Sabbath. The Sabbath made Yahweh’s Top 10 Commandments. Take a closer look at that 4^th commandment in Exodus 20:8-11, though. Arguably, the first sentence (20:8) contains the actual command, the second sentence (20:9&10) consists of how to comply to that commandment, and the third sentence (20:11) explains the reason behind the commandment. With that in mind, the 4^th commandment simply states to keep the Sabbath holy. Now somebody could argue that the Hebrew verb for holy comes from the root “to set apart,” meaning that Sabbath is holy because it is set apart from the working days as a day of rest. The “set apart” could also mean, however, “set apart for Yahweh, not for yourself.” That is why the Lord commands no work on the day. God wants the Israelites to reserve that day for the Lord’s work, which would include worship, ministering and disciplining to become holy as Yahweh is holy, not for a person to work on his own business or hobbies. Yahweh did not intend the Sabbath to free people of work, but rather, the Lord intended it to free up the people of God to focus on him and his work. Someone might appeal to the historical and cultural context. When slaves in Egypt, the Hebrew people worked from sunrise to sunset every day of the week, every week of the year. Now as free Israelites, Yahweh never wanted his people to return to that lifestyle again, so he established a day of not working. Definitely worth acknowledging, but it still works against the self-care movement. Remember, in the Ancient Near East mindset, a farmer or hunter gatherer had to work every day of the year solely for survival purposes. By taking a day off, the Hebrew farmer or hunter gatherer put his or her faith in the Lord to provide for him or her. Again, it argues against self-care and for trusting in God for care.

A good hermeneutic for interpreting Old Testament law first starts with looking at what the New Testament has to say about it. The New Testament names the Sabbath 61 times in 56 verses. 50 of those instances (roughly 5/6) appear in the Gospels. As one can imagine, most, if not all come at times when Jesus debates with religious leaders about his disciples or him working on the Sabbath. To sum them all up, while Elton John says, “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting,” Jesus says, “Sabbath Day is Quite Alright for Nice Things” (thank you, ApologetiX). In other words, doing good on the Sabbath falls right in line with the intentions of the Sabbath. To throw a monkey wrench into the set expectations of the Sabbath, in John 5:16-18, when the Jewish leaders confront Jesus on why he works on the Sabbath, Jesus pretty much says, “I work on the Sabbath because God the Father works on the Sabbath.” Wait a minute. If Exodus 20:11 commands rest on the Sabbath because Yahweh rested on the Sabbath, but then Jesus says Yahweh works on the Sabbath, so Jesus works on the Sabbath, and Christians should become imitators of Christ, who imitates God the Father. Now Christians should work on the Sabbath. This may sound confusing, but again, the work done on the Sabbath focuses on the Lord, and the Christians depend on Jesus for the strength to do it.

Acts contains 9 occurrences of the term Sabbath, but they do not really help. The word Sabbath in Acts just serves as a marker, such as “They were a Sabbath’s walk away,” or “They read from the prophets, which is read every Sabbath” or “They arrived at a certain place on the Sabbath.” Interesting enough, the book with the 1^st century Christians modeling what church should look like have no input on the Sabbath. Some could argue that they simply kept the Sabbath as the 4^th commandment has it, while others could claim that their quietness on the topic means they really don’t care about it, but both are arguments from the silence.

That leaves the epistles, the closest the church has to explicit instructions, albeit in a historical and cultural context. The word Sabbath happens only twice, in two separate books. The first mention comes in Colossians 2:16, in which Paul declares that no one should pass judgment on who does and does not observe the Sabbath. Recall, that each epistle as a historical and cultural context, and remember Colossian’s historical and cultural context consists of Paul writing to the church in Colossae, a mix of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Probably, the Jewish Christians observed the Sabbath to letter of the law (even perhaps throwing in some rabbis’ interpretations), while the Gentile Christians just saw it as another day of the week. Possibly, some of the Jewish Christians did not consider the Gentile converts real Christians because a good Christian observes the Sabbath, which the Gentile Christian do not. Paul de-emphasizes the Sabbath in order to create unity within the Colossian church to avoid divisions.

The epistles talk about the Sabbath again in Hebrews 4:9. Hebrews 4:9 belongs in the context of Hebrews 4:8-10. Recall that the author of Hebrews (Paul or an understudy of Paul) believes Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfills the roles of all the Old Testament heroes of the faith, but Jesus does it better. Naturally, Joshua comes up as one of these Old Testament heroes of the faith. Hebrews 4 (and a little bit of Hebrews 3) that Joshua had given the Israelites “rest.” Here, the author of Hebrews uses “to rest” to mean “to be at peace.” One could say “rest assured.” The Israelites could rest assured be at peace because Joshua led the Israelites to conquer the Promised Land and establish sovereign borders, so the Israelites no longer had to worry about the Egyptian enslaving them or the Canaanites oppressing them. The author of Hebrews declares the Jesus did it better, and in order to so, he proclaims that Jesus did it spiritually. Christians today call this the doctrine of assurance. Rest assured Christians can be at peace because Jesus assures that all Christians are heaven bound with eternal life. Then in Hebrew 4:9, it says Sabbath, at least in the English Bible. See, the Greek New Testament mostly has σάββατον (sabaton), but here in Hebrews 4:9, the Greek text says σαββατισμός (sabbatismos). The ESV translates it as “Sabbath rest,” but other translators have interpreted as “Sabbath-keeping,” “Sabbath-celebration” or “Sabbath-observation.” Either way, it clues the reader into something different happening here. Then after Hebrews 4:9, Hebrews 4:10 speaks of “whoever has entered God’s rest.” While some have argued this refers to Christians, many believe this refers to Jesus. Put it all together, Hebrews 4:8-10 reveals that Christians in Jesus fulfill the Sabbath because they abide in Jesus, who has fulfilled the Sabbath. Therefore, debates about when to observe the Sabbath (looking at the Seventh Day Adventists, here) or what to consider working on the Sabbath renders null-and-void. It does not matter because Jesus fulfilled it all, and thus Christians in Christ fulfill it, too.

To concluding this response to that objection, the Sabbath does not support self-care. The Sabbath teaches setting apart a day to worship, minister, to spiritually discipline and do other good things. It also teaches to trust in God to take care of his people. It does not give permission to pursue bliss.

Objection #2: Jesus went off alone

Indeed, Jesus did go off by himself, which requires a survey of those instances. Below consists of 5 occurrences of Jesus alone. More specifically, these 5 times consist of Jesus solely by himself, leaving out any times where Jesus went off “alone” with his disciples, as in away from a crowd, like when Jesus went up Mount of Olives with just Peter, James and John for the transfiguration or when Luke 9:18 describes Jesus as “alone with the disciples” before Peter’s confession of the Christ (although I do cheat with the last one, which is Jesus going off “alone” with his disciples, Jesus just going a little further more “by himself” with Peter, James and John, and then Jesus goes a little further fully alone.)

Mark 1:35/Luke 4:42- Praying before preaching in the synagogues of Galilee
Matthew 14:23/Mark 6:46- Praying before walking on the sea
Luke 5:16- Praying after healing the sick
Luke 6:12- Praying before choosing the disciples
Matthew 26:39/Mark 14:35/Luke 22:41- Praying before his arrest, trials and crucifixion.

See a pattern here? All of them contain the spiritual discipline of prayer. All but 1 consist of Jesus praying before a daunting task. Anyone who has participated in a prayer vigil knows that how exhausting intense prayer can become. Jesus goes away alone neither to have a manicure and pedicure, nor to binge watch his favorite television show on his favorite streaming service, nor to play a video game marathon, nor to do a crossword or word search while listening to his favorite music. He has separated himself to intently focus on his Father in prayer. Some of these passages say he stayed up all night doing this, and in the morning, he continues ministry as normal. Most people who stayed up all night for a prayer vigil would go to bed right after the prayer vigil has ended, yet Jesus continued ministering. One could simply dismiss it as Christ’s divinity, but remember that Jesus modeled the way to his disciples, including the modern-day ones. Again, Jesus did spiritual work here alone, he depended on his Father for care.

Objection #3: Mary and Martha

Somebody might cite the story of Mary and Martha, as found in Luke 10:38-42. In Luke 10:38-42, Luke recalls a time when Jesus taught in the home of Mary and Martha. Martha becomes preoccupied with hosting, but Mary sits and the feet of Jesus and listens. When Martha tells Jesus to make Mary assist in hosting, Jesus replies by saying Mary chose the good thing, the better thing. Someone might interpret this to mean that the good thing, the better thing involve passively learning about Jesus through Bible study and prayer, whereas the more active things, like Martha, become the lesser things in life. Two problems arise from this interpretation.

The first comes from the near context. It requires a grander discussion on what one better thing means. At first glance, it would indeed seem like the one better thing is that passive, receiving role of just listening, and the lesser thing is the active serving. Most commentators, however, believe quite the opposite. Jesus is no ordinary guest. He is a rabbi guest. He has come to Mary and Martha’s home with the purpose of teaching. Therefore, the best way to serve the rabbi as the guest of honor involves listening to and receiving the rabbi’s teaching. Thus, Mary is not just passively sitting. Mary indeed serves Jesus, and she serves Jesus in the best way by participating in what Jesus came to do: teach.

The second comes from the far context, or this account’s relation to all the narratives in the Gospels. Mary, the sister of Martha, appears in another pericope. This story comes from both Mark 14:1-9 and John 12:1-8, although Mark simply calls her “a woman” (probably because of the lack of the Mary and Martha story in Mark). Again, Mary faces scolding from people (Marks generally names the disciples, John specifically calls out Judas Iscariot) for using expensive perfume of Jesus, which could have been sold for a good price and donated to the poor. Jesus shuts down this negativity by remarking that Mary has done a beautiful thing, and he also adds, “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.” While sadly some Christians use this line as a defense for their refusal to help the poor, most good Christians know this only applies for a certain context, when Jesus physically roamed the earth in his body. Likewise, even if the “one better thing” in Luke 10:42 refers to passively sitting and listen, only in this context it qualifies as the one better thing. Just because Jesus calls it the one good thing, it does not lessen service. The Bible clearly teaches the importance of service.

Astericks*

Just a friendly reminder, this section consists of disclaimers, exceptions, objections that do not have a response, and other thoughts worth taking into consideration.

*Perhaps you are serving in the wrong way?

When consider this thought, I thought about a certain brother in Christ who attends my church. He serves on the ministerial team (my church’s leadership team) as a trustee, which means he oversees building maintenance. He fits the role perfectly, for if anybody deserves the nickname Mr. Fix It, it belongs to him. He can fix most things, and if he can’t, he knows who can. Our church building runs so well because he oversees it. On the complete end of the spectrum falls me. I cannot fix anything in my own house, let alone another building, if the solution does not involve duct tape or WD-40. I can, however, teach Sunday School and preach a sermon, thanks to my God-given spiritual gifts and talents, as well as my education and experience. I imagine what would happen if I switched roles with this brother in Christ. I imagine we would both feel miserable after every day of serving. Why? Because his spiritual gifts do not including teaching and prophesy, and my talents do not render me a maintenance man. God has given his people, his beloved creation, the spiritual gifts to empower them to serve in that specific way.

I urge you - spiritual gifts are key to serving without tiring. I encourage everybody to discover their spiritual gifts, so they can know how to serve. As a Mennonite, I know some Mennonite church who discourage talk about spiritual gifts because they fear it emphasizes the individual and de-emphasizes the community. As a fellow Mennonite, I would like correct that false dichotomy with a very Mennonite illustration: 4-part harmony. (I feel like I need to add a disclaimer within a disclaimer. No church, Mennonite or non-Mennonite should focus on how they sound. True worship in unison always surpasses false worship in 4-part harmony.) When a church or choir sings in 4-part harmony, each individuals has their own part according to his or her singing range, yet all 4 parts combine together to a single beautiful sound. Likewise, when Christians come together, each bringing his or her own spiritual gifts, it creates a beautiful church. In high school, when a high school senior does not know what occupation to pursue after graduation, a high school teacher might advise, “Find out what you love doing, and find a way to get paid doing it.” Similarly, figure out what you love doing, and find a way to serve both your God and your church with it.

*Maybe you’re not working together a community of believers?

So many Bible verses talk about serving others above yourself. Philippians 2:1-5 comes to mind instantly as one, and 1 John 3:16-19 comes to mind as another. Well, if somebody gives that service, someone has to receive that service. Going back to Philippians 2:1-5, Paul speaks to believers within the church of Philippi serving one another. The church needs to look out for its own congregation. A congregant should never have to have to consider practicing self-care because the congregation should be on top of taking care of its own people. A healthy church should recognize when somebody does too much, and it considers what it could take off that’s person place. A healthy church has its members check up on one another to see how life treats them and what they can do to make things better if things seem the worse.

Maybe your church is like my church. Every October the church asks the congregation to nominate members to serve in a ministry role after praying about it. Of course, the decision needs bathing in prayer, but this bathing in prayer should have you thinking about certain questions. First, as stated above, who has the God-given spiritual gifts and talents that would fit perfectly in serving in this ministry? For example, it would not be wise to nominate for the church camping ministry that guy who like to surround himself with his laptop, tablet, smartphone, TV, 3 video game consoles and 3 video games handhelds. Second, who currently serves in a ministry and who does not serve in a ministry? Those not serving get first billing, and those serving get last billing. Third, who serves in a major role, like a leadership role, and who serves in a minor role? To edit our listing, those not serving get top listing, those who serve in minor roles get middle listing, those who serve major roles get bottom listing. Fourth, what does life look like outside this church? Now for this last one, do not think a busy life outside church excuses you from serving the church or a ministry. As a matter of fact, if you claim that your life has too much to actively participate in church life outside the Sunday morning worship service, I will tell you that you need to cut something out of your outside-the-church life. Those who do have both a busy life and a desire to actively serve the church, however, it should fit nicely and neatly with the rest of life. If you don’t know the answers to some of these questions, then you should ask the person. Get to know the person. This will better inform your nomination. Therefore, to answer the questions “How to say no to the church guilt free” and “How to get the church to gracefully accept your no answer” is simply “It should never get to that point!”

*Could it be gender differences?

A little while back, I found a news article with a headline along the lines of “Men prefer staycations, women prefer vacation.” If not up to date with the lingo, a staycation is when an employee uses paid time off to just stay at home, instead of going somewhere. Yes, men prefer to use their paid time off to just stay at home, whereas women prefer to go on vacation, the further away from home, the better the vacation. The article hypothesized that men prefer to stay at home because, as the bread winners of the home, they want to enjoy the number 1 expense their paycheck goes towards: the rent or mortgage on their home. Women like vacations, the article hypothesized, because they associate the home as work (cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.), and a true vacation has to get as far away from that home as possible, to a hotel or bed and breakfast that does the cooking and cleaning for them (as you can imagine, the comments of this article accused the article of sexism because of assigning traditional gender roles).

This article got me wondering if the same gender difference applied to self-care. Men do not talk about self-care because work stays at work and home stays at home. When they come home from work, they can rest because work stayed at work. For women, however, they feel differently. For the stay-at-home wife/mother, the home becomes the workplace, which they can never clock out. For the women who do work a job with a company, they can feel like they clock out at work to clock back in at home. Thus, as a man, I do feel a little guilty preaching to the women on self-care. Therefore, as a man, I will say to my brothers in Christ who are also husbands: remember your wife is also your sister in Christ. The Bible clearly teaches us to serve everyone, especially our fellow brother and sister in Christ. Take care of your spouse, your fellow brother and sister in Christ. Share the burden. Serve more, so she can serve less.

Conclusion

Jesus famously taught that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-39). This commandment has laid to equally famous acronym J.O.Y., which stands for “Jesus first, others second, yourself last.” That acronym provides the perfect outline for the biblical understanding of care and rest. First, Christians should concern themselves with Jesus-care. Seek Jesus for care. If Jesus wants you to rest, then Jesus will give you rest. If Jesus desires you to serve or to work, Jesus will give you the strength to do so. Second, seek the care of others. As a result, it will reciprocate back to you. Third, rid yourself of any notion of self-care. The heart of sin reverses the acronym and the two greatest commandments. It puts the self before Jesus and others. It says, “I cannot trust Jesus or the church to take care of me, so I have to take care of myself.” It leads to self-indulgence. Church, let us reject these sinful ideas of the godless society which seeps into the church, and instead, let us seek to mold ourselves after Jesus Christ, the suffering servant.