Is idolatry of the family possible?

[Deleted member 13126]

My wife and I were discussing Luke 9:58-60 this morning and she came across Matthew Henry's commentary:

Verses 57–62



We have here an account of three several persons that offered themselves to follow Christ, and the answers that Christ gave to each of them. The two former we had an account of in Mt. 19:21.

I. Here is one that is extremely forward to follow Christ immediately, but seems to have been too rash, hasty, and inconsiderate, and not to have set down and counted the cost.

1. He makes Christ a very large promise (v. 57): As they went in the way, going up to Jerusalem, where it was expected Christ would first appear in his glory, one said to him, Lord, I will follow thee withersoever thou goest. This must be the resolution of all that will be found Christ’s disciples indeed; they follow the Lamb whithersoever he goes (Rev. 14:4), though it be through fire and water, to prisons and deaths.

2. Christ gives him a necessary caution, not to promise himself great things in the world, in following him, but, on the contrary, to count upon poverty and meanness; for the Son of man has not where to lay his head.

We may look upon this, (1.) As setting forth the very low condition that our Lord Jesus was in, in this world. He not only wanted the delights and ornaments that great princes usually have, but even such accommodations for mere necessity as the foxes have, and the birds of the air. See what a depth of poverty our Lord Jesus submitted to for us, to increase the worth and merit of his satisfaction, and to purchase for us a larger allowance of grace, that we through his poverty might be rich, 2 Co. 8:9. He that made all did not make a dwelling-place for himself, not a house of his own to put his head in, but what he was beholden to others for. He here calls himself the Son of man, a Son of Adam, partaker of flesh and blood. He glories in his condescension towards us, not only to the meanness of our nature, but to the meanest condition in that nature, to testify his love to us, and to teach us a holy contempt of the world and of great things in it, and a continual regard to another world. Christ was thus poor, to sanctify and sweeten poverty to his people; the apostles had not certain dwelling-place (1 Co. 4:11), which they might the better bear when they knew their Master had not; see 2 Sa. 11:11. We may well be content to fare as Christ did. (2.) As proposing this to the consideration of those who intend to be his disciples. If we mean to follow Christ, we must lay aside the thoughts of great things in the world, and not reckon upon making any thing more than heaven of our religion, as we must resolve not to take up with any thing less. Let us not go about to compound the profession of Christianity with secular advantages; Christ has put them asunder, let us not think of joining them together; on the contrary, we must expect to enter into the kingdom of heaven through many tribulations, must deny ourselves, and take up our cross. Christ tells this man what he must count upon if he followed him, to lie cold and uneasy, to fare hard, and live in contempt; if he could not submit to this, let him not pretend to follow Christ. This word sent him back, for aught that appears; but it will be no discouragement to any that know what there is in Christ and heaven to set in the scale against this.

II. Here is another, that seems resolved to follow Christ, but he begs a day, v. 59. To this man Christ first gave the call; he said to him, Follow me. He that proposed the thing of himself fled off when he heard of the difficulties that attended it; but this man to whom Christ gave a call, though he hesitated at first, yet, as it should seem, afterwards yielded; so true was that of Christ, You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, Jn. 15:16. It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth (as that forward spark in the foregoing verses), but of God that showeth mercy, that gives the call, and makes it effectual, as to this man here. Observe,

1. The excuse he made: “Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. I have an aged father at home, who cannot live long, and will need me while he does live; let me go and attend on him until he is dead, and I have performed my last office of love to him, and then I will do any thing.” We may here see three temptations, by which we are in danger of being drawn and kept from following Christ, which therefore we should guard against:—(1.) We are tempted to rest in a discipleship at large, in which we may be at a loose end, and not to come close, and give up ourselves to be strict and constant. (2.) We are tempted to defer the doing of that which we know to be our duty, and to put if off to some other time. When we have got clear of such a care and difficulty, when we have despatched such a business, raised an estate to such a pitch, then we will begin to think of being religious; and so we are cozened out of all our time, by being cozened out of the present time. (3.) We are tempted to think that our duty to our relations will excuse us from our duty to Christ. It is a plausible excuse indeed: “Let me go and bury my father,—let me take care of my family, and provide for my children, and then I will think of serving Christ;” whereas the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof must be sought and minded in the first place.

2. Christ’s answer to it (v. 60): “Let the dead bury their dead. Suppose (which is not likely) that there are none but the dead to bury their dead, or none but those who are themselves aged and dying, who are as good as dead, and fit for no other service, yet thou hast other work to do; go thou, and preach the kingdom of God.” Not that Christ would have his followers or his ministers to be unnatural; our religion teaches us to be kind and good in every relation, to show piety at home, and to requite our parents. But we must not make these offices an excuse from our duty to God. If the nearest and dearest relation we have in the world stand in our way to keep us from Christ, it is necessary that we have a zeal that will make us forget father and mother, as Levi did, Deu. 33:9. This disciple was called to be a minister, and therefore must not entangle himself with the affairs of this world, 2 Tim. 2:4. And it is a rule that, whenever Christ calls to any duty, we must not consult with flesh and blood, Gal. 1:15, 16. No excuses must be admitted against a present obedience to the call of Christ.

III. Here is another that is willing to follow Christ, but he must have a little time to talk with his friends about it.

Observe, 1. His request for a dispensation, v. 61. He said, “Lord, I will follow thee; I design no other, I am determined to do it: but let me first go bid them farewell that are at home.” This seemed reasonable; it was what Elisha desired when Elijah called him, Let me kiss my father and my mother; and it was allowed him: but the ministry of the gospel is preferable, and the service of it more urgent than that of the prophets; and therefore here it would not be allowed. Suffer me apotaxasthai tois eis ton oikon mou—Let me go and set in order my household affairs, and give direction concerning them; so some understand it. Now that which was amiss in this is, (1.) That he looked upon his following Christ as a melancholy, troublesome, dangerous thing; it was to him as if he were going to die and therefore he must take leave of all his friends, never to see them again, or never with any comfort; whereas, in following Christ, he might be more a comfort and blessing to them than if he had continued with them. (2.) That he seemed to have his worldly concerns more upon his heart than he ought to have, and than would consist with a close attendance to his duty as a follower of Christ. He seemed to hanker after his relations and family concerns, and he could not part easily and suitably from them, but they stuck to him. It may be he had bidden them farewell once, but Loth to depart bids oft farewell, and therefore he must bid them farewell once more, for they are at home at his house. (3.) That he was willing to enter into a temptation from his purpose of following Christ. To go and bid them farewell that were at home at his house would be to expose himself to the strongest solicitations imaginable to alter his resolution; for they would all be against it, and would beg and pray that he would not leave them. Now it was presumption in him to thrust himself into such a temptation. Those that resolve to walk with their Maker, and follow their Redeemer, must resolve that they will not so much as parley with their tempter.

2. The rebuke which Christ gave him for this request (v. 62): “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and designing to make good work of his ploughing, will look back, or look behind him, for then he makes balks with his plough, and the ground he ploughs is not fit to be sown; so thou, if thou hast a design to follow me and to reap the advantages of those that do so, yet if thou lookest back to a worldly life again and hankerest after that, if thou lookest back as Lot’s wife did to Sodom, which seems to be alluded to here, thou art not fit for the kingdom of God.” (1.) “Thou art not soil fit to receive the good seed of the kingdom of God if thou art thus ploughed by the halves, and not gone through with.” (2.) “Thou art not a sower fit to scatter the good seed of the kingdom if thou canst hold the plough no better.” Ploughing is in order to sowing. As those are not fit to be sown with divine comforts whose fallow ground is not first broken up, so those are not fit to be employed in sowing who know not how to break up the fallow ground, but, when they have laid their hand to the plough, upon every occasion look back and think of quitting it. Note, Those who begin with the work of God must resolve to go on with it, or they will make nothing of it. Looking back inclines to drawing back, and drawing back is to perdition. Those are not fit for heaven who, having set their faces heavenward, face about. But he, and he only, that endures to the end, shall be saved.





Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 1855). Hendrickson.

The emphasis above was mine and my question is related to that. Is it possible for us to make an idol of our families? When I think of Mark 10:8 (two becoming one flesh) and Ephesians 5:29 (no one ever hated his own flesh) in the context of Romans 12:1 (presenting our bodies as living sacrifices), I start to wonder in light of other verses such as Genesis 19:1-11 (Lot's daughters being offered), Mark 10:29-30 (promises of reward for those who lose loved ones for the sake of the Gospel), Luke 14:26 (hating everything else in comparison to our love for the Lord), if it isn't possible for us to prioritize our family and our ease and comfort over Christian service?

What do you all think? Was Matthew Henry off on this point, or does anyone have some other perspectives to share?

 

[Polanus1561]

Christian service includes a large chunk of serving your family no?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Christian service includes a large chunk of serving your family no?

This is indeed the party line I'm questioning, and Luke 9:60 seems to be calling into question.. When I consider Abraham and Isaac, or God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, I don't see service to family being prioritized above service to God. Likewise for Lot, the examples set before us in the gospels and the words of our Lord, etc.

No man is without sin, but is it possible the Whitefield's and Carey's got more right than we credit them for? I'm genuinely beginning to wonder if my priorities have been out of order.

 

[ZackF]

Idolatry of any created thing is possible by man.

 

[iainduguid]

If one of the qualification of a man being an elder is that he shepherds his family well (1 Tim. 3), then all men should aspire to that and no elder should neglect it, even for supposedly "kingdom work". Your family is your first flock: if you are not shepherding them well, what makes you think you are being a good shepherd? On the other hand, it is certainly possible to idolize family, as with anything else. God has to be your chief priority, not your family. It will take wisdom to find a proper balance.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

If one of the qualification of a man being an elder is that he shepherds his family well (1 Tim. 3), then all men should aspire to that and no elder should neglect it, even for supposedly "kingdom work". Your family is your first flock: if you are not shepherding them well, what makes you think you are being a good shepherd? On the other hand, it is certainly possible to idolize family, as with anything else. God has to be your chief priority, not your family. It will take wisdom to find a proper balance.

I have a question about the first sentence in your reply. Given that you know a great deal more than I possibly ever will about the Old Testament, how does this comport with, say, Levi in Deuteronomy 33:9, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac or Lot's willingness to effectively sacrifice his daughters? Would we say these men shepherded their family well in these instances? Do any of these help us to find that proper balance, or offer any wisdom on this topic?

 

[davejonescue]

This is where we are left wanting regarding the Biblical text. Were the disciples already married when Christ called them? And if so, what type of precedent does it set that they cast their nets aside, potentially leaving family at home, to follow the Messiah for three years, even putting their lives in peril at a seemingly disregard for familial consequence? This isnt to promote a total disregard for family; only that, if the disciples were married prior to being called, it may show that some forms of ministry are to be placed above that of the home; in certain circumstances.

 

[RamistThomist]

It is very, very possible. The old and blessedly now defunct Vision Forum could be guilty of this. Other writes, those prizing the family covenant over the church covenant, are also liable to this idolatry.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

This is where we are left wanting regarding the Biblical text. Were the disciples already married when Christ called them? And if so, what type of precedent does it set that they cast their nets aside, potentially leaving family at home, to follow the Messiah for three years, even putting their lives in peril at a seemingly disregard for familial consequence? This isnt to promote a total disregard for family; only that, if the disciples were married prior to being called, it may show that some forms of ministry are to be placed above that of the home.

Are we left wanting, though? Surely the Lord could have left 'wives' and 'children' out of the lists in Mark 10:29-30 and Matthew 19:29-30 or other texts such as Matthew 10:37? I've tried to trace my line of reasoning in the OP, but may have done a poor job.

EDIT: I found Henry's commentary for Deuteronomy 33:9, which also seems to echo this sentiment.

Matthew Henry on Deuteronomy 33:9, "He commends the zeal of this tribe for God when they sided with Moses (and so with God) against the worshippers of the golden calf (Ex. 32:26 etc.), and, being employed in cutting off the ring-leaders in that wickedness, they did it impartially: the best friends they had in the world, though as dear to them as their next relations, they did not spare if they were idolaters.

Note, Our regard to God and to his glory ought always to prevail above our regard to any creature whatsoever. And those who not only keep themselves pure from the common iniquities of the times and places in which they live, but, as they are capable, bear testimony against them, and stand up for God against the evil-doers, shall have special marks of honour put upon them.

Perhaps Moses may have an eye to the sons of Korah, who refused to join with their father in his gain-saying, Num. 26:11. Also to Phinebas, who executed judgment, and stayed the plague. And indeed the office of the priests and Levites, which engaged their constant attendance, at least in their turns, at God’s altar, laid them under a necessity of being frequently absent from their families, which they could not take such care of, nor make such provision for, as other Israelites might. This was the constant self-denial they submitted to, that they might observe God’s word, and keep the covenant of priesthood.

Note, Those that are called to minister in holy things must sit loose to the relations and interests that are dearest to them in this world, and prefer the gratifying of the best friend they have, Acts 21:13; 20:24. Our Lord Jesus knew not his mother and his brethren when they would have taken him off from his work, Mt. 12:48.

Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 284). Hendrickson."

This is really a thread I'm interesting in pulling on, so to speak, because I don't think I've come across other commentators who emphasize this as Henry does. I'm honestly wondering if he's an outlier or if I'm just really not well read.

 

[davejonescue]

Are we left wanting, though? Surely the Lord could have left 'wives' and 'children' out of the lists in Mark 10:29-30 and Matthew 19:29-30 or other texts such as Matthew 10:37? I've tried to trace my line of reasoning in the OP, but may have done a poor job.

EDIT: I found Henry's commentary for Deuteronomy 33:9, which also seems to echo this sentiment.



This is really a thread I'm interesting in pulling on, so to speak, because I don't think I've come across other commentators who emphasize this as Henry does. I'm honestly wondering if he's an outlier or if I'm just really not well read.

Good catch. I forgot about those verses, and you are correct; they specifically deal with the issue at hand.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It is possible and does happen a lot, but in our day and age, the other extreme is the main problem.

 

[TheInquirer]

Jesus' point is that no thing can stand in the way of being His disciple and His Lordship over them. I am assuming the cases Jesus mentions are all issues of idolatry and not what Dr. Duguid is speaking about.

As a Christian, shepherding one's family IS part of kingdom work and living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In His Word, Jesus calls us to love them, provide for their needs, and faithfully teach our families about Him.

There are Christian ministers, even great names in church history, who have neglected their God-given family responsibilities for the sake of ministry. I do not see how they were justified in doing so when God has already spoken on the subject. Dr. Duguid's citing of 1 Timothy 3 should constantly be in the minds of ministers in such a situation. Failure to shepherd one's one family is disqualification from shepherding the church.

Conversely, we are also commanded by the Lord Jesus to minister our gifts in the church and not neglect the gathering. Some use family reasons for disobeying those commands. That is sin in the opposite direction. Wisdom and the principles of Scripture guide to maintain the proper order.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Jesus' point is that no thing can stand in the way of being His disciple and His Lordship over them. I am assuming the cases Jesus mentions are all issues of idolatry and not what Dr. Duguid is speaking about.

As a Christian, shepherding one's family IS part of kingdom work and living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In His Word, Jesus calls us to love them, provide for their needs, and faithfully teach our families about Him.

There are Christian ministers, even great names in church history, who have neglected their God-given family responsibilities for the sake of ministry. I do not see how they were justified in doing so when God has already spoken on the subject. Dr. Duguid's citing of 1 Timothy 3 should constantly be in the minds of ministers in such a situation. Failure to shepherd one's one family is disqualification from shepherding the church.

Conversely, we are also commanded by the Lord Jesus to minister our gifts in the church and not neglect the gathering. Some use family reasons for disobeying those commands. That is sin in the opposite direction. Wisdom and the principles of Scripture guide to maintain the proper order.

How do you balance these:

1. Loyalty to Christ above family - Matthew 10:37 - "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

2. Choosing to follow Christ over family - Luke 9:59-62 - "And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

3. Spiritual family takes precedence - Mark 3:33-35 - "And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

4. Forsaking family for Christ's sake - Luke 14:26 - "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

5. Family relationships may be strained due to faith - Luke 12:51-53 - "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

6. Leaving family for the sake of the gospel - Mark 10:29-30 - "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."

7. Loving God above all else - Deuteronomy 6:5 - "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

With these?

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 in the King James Version provides what many would consider a counterpoint:

"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

1 Timothy 3:4-5 (KJV) also:

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"

The way I'm reading these, 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 is a statement of fact as opposed to a concession that now as husbands we're correct to subordinate serving the Lord with serving our spouse. That just seems super backwards and I'm not sure how we can get there from the Scriptures, but if you can make it make sense I am open to changing my view. In fact, you'd be doing me a big favor!

As for 1 Timothy 3:4-5 which the Professor was presumably referring to, I'm struggling to square that with Luke 9:60 and some of these other verses. I agree that we're called to do both, but where I'm having trouble is why the earthly, family matters should ever supersede heavenly, spiritual matters.

Do any verses or passages come to mind that you can share which reflect this priority (assuming that's what you're proposing)?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My wife and I were discussing Luke 9:58-60 this morning and she came across Matthew Henry's commentary:


The emphasis above was mine and my question is related to that. Is it possible for us to make an idol of our families? When I think of Mark 10:8 (two becoming one flesh) and Ephesians 5:29 (no one ever hated his own flesh) in the context of Romans 12:1 (presenting our bodies as living sacrifices), I start to wonder in light of other verses such as Genesis 19:1-11 (Lot's daughters being offered), Mark 10:29-30 (promises of reward for those who lose loved ones for the sake of the Gospel), Luke 14:26 (hating everything else in comparison to our love for the Lord), if it isn't possible for us to prioritize our family and our ease and comfort over Christian service?

What do you all think? Was Matthew Henry off on this point, or does anyone have some other perspectives to share?

In the thread already are at least a couple fine, balanced replies. I'm not going to supersede those, only try to reiterate what's been written. Because it just seems to me like maybe there's an incipient mistake being made reading both Scripture and Matthew Henry, the end of which is a wooden interpretation of the words, untrue to life--life in the past as well as life today.

In simple, yes, "family" can be idolatrized. Anything that has value can have that value elevated beyond its proper limit, in order to make it rival to God. The more good an earthly matter has committed to it, the greater the danger in making too much of it. The corruption of a holy thing is worse than the corruption of a common thing, because the former is intentionally consecrated to God; and the abuse of it against its purpose is vile.

A new issue is then brought up in the post: something called "Christian service." This is terminology I heard for the first time above 35yrs ago, in my HS period. It was not vernacular in my Christian church and congregational life, but as I learned it was common in other traditions. It is probably important to this thread to define the term. A working definition: labors undertaken as a matter of Christian devotion, where for a period of time (open or close ended) a person is wholly dedicated to religiously-oriented, mission-idealized service. I don't think that defintion is controversial.

Immediately, we should discern from that definition how "loose" it is. This looseness can be exploited to include an imaginative host of services within the concept. It can also be "tightened up," and its meaning become fixed, so that one man's more definite explication can bind others down to his conception. In other words people who fancied themselves in general agreement on a nebulous concept discover that, in order to maintain their adherence to a "good-idea," i.e. to stay in their club they must give up their original notion of what it meant for them to embrace the idea. It isn't actually unusual for leaders to influence followers to adopt their vision, but there's spiritual danger nearby when the conscience is activated in support.

Next, we may analyze the concept of Christian service (CS) from the standpoint of comparison to what (in my experience) is then regarded as mundane service by those committed to the CS ideal. Here is where we begin to see clear deviation from Reformation principles. Luther, and after him also the Reformed, by broadening the concept of vocation (calling) elevated most lawful, mundane work in the world to a near equality with explicitly spiritual labor. They also abolished most of the spiritual hierarchy of callings within the ecclesiastical sphere. The result was a flattened picture of human endeavor, which also contributed socially to a "democratic" culture. Not absolutely, though there is a radical "Levelers" impulse that persists in opposition to every vestige of rank or superiority.

One problem with the idea of CS, as it is often conceived and presented, is that by it has been reintroduced a spiritual hierarchy. As if it was more noble to forego a mundane, "domestic" calling, in favor of a lifetime of service on the mission field. Even two people who decide they can marry because they are both devoted to the mission field have within their perception of marriage that it is a kind of side-benefit to their mutual idealism. When I was in middle school I lived in a foreign country, and generations prior this school was built and staffed to house and educate missionary children. Those parents did not keep their children with them, but left them (in another country) to free them both up for their missionary service. They outsourced their child-rearing. This is a pattern of elites, of nobility, whose jobs and rank and time were too important to spend on their children (and they could afford nannys, pedagogues and other servant minders).

My purpose is not to attack missionary boarding schools per se. I'm sure there were also health concerns, war, and other reasons parents chose to send their children away. But I suspect there was damage done to many bewildered children, too, separated from mother who thought her "higher calling" was for translation work, or whatever. No, that's not a higher calling because it was CS, and rearing children is just domestic and mundane. By creating a spiritual caste system, CS puts "church work" and parachurch activity (which expands the realm of religious enterprise) on a plane above the ordinary. CS invites young idealists the same way Rome encourages its adherents into its monasteries and nunneries. It tells people: we know a better way for you to serve God.

Now let's return to Matthew Henry (MH), and consideration of his comments. First, let's acknowledge that some people, men or women, may be called to CS broadly conceived. They may be called by the church into ministry, or to some administrative support for the church's main effort. They may sense their talent or gift would be useful to religion, and believe they should enter the work determined not to be sidetracked by anything, keeping their eyes on Jesus. MH's counsel would be appropriate encouragement to a man tempted to turn aside from a call to the ministry, for the sake of money or power or even possibly a woman, or the wrong woman. It might be appropriate for people who lack any sense, or sufficient sense, that they have ordinary duty to "seek first the kingdom of God," in the midst of their regular calling.

That is not the same thing as abandoning one's wife or children for a CS cause; as if God was honored when we do not care for family or provide for children as a responsibility already on one's shoulders. The excuse found in the biblical text, "Let me go bury my father," comes from someone who intends to put off Christ's call to regular discipleship for however long until he has no more filial duty--perhaps years--only then, does he contemplate following Christ. The man isn't really worried about dear old dad, but has of him an excuse for not working out some means for fulfilling the filial duty while being Christ's disciple. If the concern to bury one's father flowed as it should out of discipleship to Christ, Jesus would never have rebuked the man. But he knew the man's heart.

MH seems more than a little aware that his counsel (and the Lord's) could be mistaken for indifference to natural responsibility. "Our religion teaches us to be kind and good in every relation, to show piety at home, and to requite our parents." But in the second bolded portion, he raises the fact of special ordination. In the days of his flesh, Christ was busy setting up his kingdom; and if he gave a man an order, "Come follow me," that summons had a uniquely direct aspect to it. The King was taking of the sons and daughters of his servants to make them his houseboys and maids, or his soldiers and cooks, or his prime ministers and retinue. Such language is gross and earthly, but what kings of Israel did as a matter of earthly course was symbolic of the spiritual kingdom to come.

MH points out that Jesus' summons was to overcome every external resistance to becoming a Christian. More than that, to overcome even dear-kinship resistance to a formal calling. The kind of resistance in view was rejection of this King, a forced choice between discipleship and the family who would reject such a devoted man. It would be akin to an Israelite family rejecting a member who took a Nazirite vow. "You love Jehovah more than me!" What should happen would be: everyone throws in with the King, the family signs on with the minister.

In this day and time, we must recognize that Jesus isn't going to walk up to any of us and commandeer our service as he did when he walked among us. The circumstances have changed, and our discernment of his call incorporates factors of the new circumstances. At the basic level, whether we're going to be a Christian or not could require of us the willingness to forsake the world's attractions, and its threats. Howsoever God calls us to live as believers--if it is working with hands, corporate leadership, farming, motherhood, education, desk work, religiously oriented work, or ordained work in church--we must determine to do what we do to the glory of God, or else find another line of work. If we are called to CS, we know it can't be at the expense of essential duties. It's a fundamental mistake to read Christ's call as permissive of negligence. As if a "higher calling" allowed reduction of "lesser" responsibility.

Multiplication of "CS" services beyond that which is centered in the church and its congregations has led numerous idealists to lower the value of mundane service, and excuse themselves for negligence. They persuade themselves that dismissing their inferior obligation is excused by their superior obligation. That is not what the Bible teaches. I don't really think that's what MH teaches either, though it could be he overstates his case.

I think one more observation is in order. Gen.19:1-11 is one text that is utterly irrelevant to this topic. Not every incident recorded in Scripture is there for approval or emulation. Often it is there to shock and appall, to show us how much damage and failure has come into the world on account of sin and selfishness. Lot's drastic and desperate sacrifice of his daughters (which the angels of God noticeably did not allow) is symbolic of his nearly complete absorption into the culture of Canaan. He wanted to be different from the city dwellers around him, but also accepted by them, and this led him to murdering his own natural affection. In the story of the Bible, Lot keeps his faith, but just barely. This story is not an example of putting CS before family, unless it shows us what never ought to be done.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

In the thread already are at least a couple fine, balanced replies. I'm not going to supersede those, only try to reiterate what's been written. Because it just seems to me like maybe there's an incipient mistake being made reading both Scripture and Matthew Henry, the end of which is a wooden interpretation of the words, untrue to life--life in the past as well as life today.

In simple, yes, "family" can be idolatrized. Anything that has value can have that value elevated beyond its proper limit, in order to make it rival to God. The more good an earthly matter has committed to it, the greater the danger in making too much of it. The corruption of a holy thing is worse than the corruption of a common thing, because the former is intentionally consecrated to God; and the abuse of it against its purpose is vile.

A new issue is then brought up in the post: something called "Christian service." This is terminology I heard for the first time above 35yrs ago, in my HS period. It was not vernacular in my Christian church and congregational life, but as I learned it was common in other traditions. It is probably important to this thread to define the term. A working definition: labors undertaken as a matter of Christian devotion, where for a period of time (open or close ended) a person is wholly dedicated to religiously-oriented, mission-idealized service. I don't think that defintion is controversial.

Immediately, we should discern from that definition how "loose" it is. This looseness can be exploited to include an imaginative host of services within the concept. It can also be "tightened up," and its meaning become fixed, so that one man's more definite explication can bind others down to his conception. In other words people who fancied themselves in general agreement on a nebulous concept discover that, in order to maintain their adherence to a "good-idea," i.e. to stay in their club they must give up their original notion of what it meant for them to embrace the idea. It isn't actually unusual for leaders to influence followers to adopt their vision, but there's spiritual danger nearby when the conscience is activated in support.

Next, we may analyze the concept of Christian service (CS) from the standpoint of comparison to what (in my experience) is then regarded as mundane service by those committed to the CS ideal. Here is where we begin to see clear deviation from Reformation principles. Luther, and after him also the Reformed, by broadening the concept of vocation (calling) elevated most lawful, mundane work in the world to a near equality with explicitly spiritual labor. They also abolished most of the spiritual hierarchy of callings within the ecclesiastical sphere. The result was a flattened picture of human endeavor, which also contributed socially to a "democratic" culture. Not absolutely, though there is a radical "Levelers" impulse that persists in opposition to every vestige of rank or superiority.

One problem with the idea of CS, as it is often conceived and presented, is that by it has been reintroduced a spiritual hierarchy. As if it was more noble to forego a mundane, "domestic" calling, in favor of a lifetime of service on the mission field. Even two people who decide they can marry because they are both devoted to the mission field have within their perception of marriage that it is a kind of side-benefit to their mutual idealism. When I was in middle school I lived in a foreign country, and generations prior this school was built and staffed to house and educate missionary children. Those parents did not keep their children with them, but left them (in another country) to free them both up for their missionary service. They outsourced their child-rearing. This is a pattern of elites, of nobility, whose jobs and rank and time were too important to spend on their children (and they could afford nannys, pedagogues and other servant minders).

My purpose is not to attack missionary boarding schools per se. I'm sure there were also health concerns, war, and other reasons parents chose to send their children away. But I suspect there was damage done to many bewildered children, too, separated from mother who thought her "higher calling" was for translation work, or whatever. No, that's not a higher calling because it was CS, and rearing children is just domestic and mundane. By creating a spiritual caste system, CS puts "church work" and parachurch activity (which expands the realm of religious enterprise) on a plane above the ordinary. CS invites young idealists the same way Rome encourages its adherents into its monasteries and nunneries. It tells people: we know a better way for you to serve God.

Now let's return to Matthew Henry (MH), and consideration of his comments. First, let's acknowledge that some people, men or women, may be called to CS broadly conceived. They may be called by the church into ministry, or to some administrative support for the church's main effort. They may sense their talent or gift would be useful to religion, and believe they should enter the work determined not to be sidetracked by anything, keeping their eyes on Jesus. MH's counsel would be appropriate encouragement to a man tempted to turn aside from a call to the ministry, for the sake of money or power or even possibly a woman, or the wrong woman. It might be appropriate for people who lack any sense, or sufficient sense, that they have ordinary duty to "seek first the kingdom of God," in the midst of their regular calling.

That is not the same thing as abandoning one's wife or children for a CS cause; as if God was honored when we do not care for family or provide for children as a responsibility already on one's shoulders. The excuse found in the biblical text, "Let me go bury my father," comes from someone who intends to put off Christ's call to regular discipleship for however long until he has no more filial duty--perhaps years--only then, does he contemplate following Christ. The man isn't really worried about dear old dad, but has of him an excuse for not working out some means for fulfilling the filial duty while being Christ's disciple. If the concern to bury one's father flowed as it should out of discipleship to Christ, Jesus would never have rebuked the man. But he knew the man's heart.

MH seems more than a little aware that his counsel (and the Lord's) could be mistaken for indifference to natural responsibility. "Our religion teaches us to be kind and good in every relation, to show piety at home, and to requite our parents." But in the second bolded portion, he raises the fact of special ordination. In the days of his flesh, Christ was busy setting up his kingdom; and if he gave a man an order, "Come follow me," that summons had a uniquely direct aspect to it. The King was taking of the sons and daughters of his servants to make them his houseboys and maids, or his soldiers and cooks, or his prime ministers and retinue. Such language is gross and earthly, but what kings of Israel did as a matter of earthly course was symbolic of the spiritual kingdom to come.

MH points out that Jesus' summons was to overcome every external resistance to becoming a Christian. More than that, to overcome even dear-kinship resistance to a formal calling. The kind of resistance in view was rejection of this King, a forced choice between discipleship and the family who would reject such a devoted man. It would be akin to an Israelite family rejecting a member who took a Nazirite vow. "You love Jehovah more than me!" What should happen would be: everyone throws in with the King, the family signs on with the minister.

In this day and time, we must recognize that Jesus isn't going to walk up to any of us and commandeer our service as he did when he walked among us. The circumstances have changed, and our discernment of his call incorporates factors of the new circumstances. At the basic level, whether we're going to be a Christian or not could require of us the willingness to forsake the world's attractions, and its threats. Howsoever God calls us to live as believers--if it is working with hands, corporate leadership, farming, motherhood, education, desk work, religiously oriented work, or ordained work in church--we must determine to do what we do to the glory of God, or else find another line of work. If we are called to CS, we know it can't be at the expense of essential duties. It's a fundamental mistake to read Christ's call as permissive of negligence. As if a "higher calling" allowed reduction of "lesser" responsibility.

Multiplication of "CS" services beyond that which is centered in the church and its congregations has led numerous idealists to lower the value of mundane service, and excuse themselves for negligence. They persuade themselves that dismissing their inferior obligation is excused by their superior obligation. That is not what the Bible teaches. I don't really think that's what MH teaches either, though it could be he overstates his case.

I think one more observation is in order. Gen.19:1-11 is one text that is utterly irrelevant to this topic. Not every incident recorded in Scripture is there for approval or emulation. Often it is there to shock and appall, to show us how much damage and failure has come into the world on account of sin and selfishness. Lot's drastic and desperate sacrifice of his daughters (which the angels of God noticeably did not allow) is symbolic of his nearly complete absorption into the culture of Canaan. He wanted to be different from the city dwellers around him, but also accepted by them, and this led him to murdering his own natural affection. In the story of the Bible, Lot keeps his faith, but just barely. This story is not an example of putting CS before family, unless it shows us what never ought to be done.

Thank you for this thoughtful reply, Sir. I was edified.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I think one important context to note is the fact that many of Jesus' initial followers would have faced rejection from their families because they believed. Thus the main import of Jesus' words would seem to be that one must be willing to sever ties with family to identify with Christ. If one's family is willing to trust in the Lord and follow him faithfully, it is hardly a comparable scenario.

Of course even a Christian family can be idolized in the sense that worldly aspects of family life can be placed above faithfulness to God, but that seems to be a separate issue from what Jesus is addressing in the verses you've been referencing.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

How do you balance these:

1. Loyalty to Christ above family - Matthew 10:37 - "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

2. Choosing to follow Christ over family - Luke 9:59-62 - "And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

3. Spiritual family takes precedence - Mark 3:33-35 - "And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

4. Forsaking family for Christ's sake - Luke 14:26 - "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

5. Family relationships may be strained due to faith - Luke 12:51-53 - "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

6. Leaving family for the sake of the gospel - Mark 10:29-30 - "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."

7. Loving God above all else - Deuteronomy 6:5 - "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

With these?

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 in the King James Version provides what many would consider a counterpoint:

"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

1 Timothy 3:4-5 (KJV) also:

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"

The way I'm reading these, 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 is a statement of fact as opposed to a concession that now as husbands we're correct to subordinate serving the Lord with serving our spouse. That just seems super backwards and I'm not sure how we can get there from the Scriptures, but if you can make it make sense I am open to changing my view. In fact, you'd be doing me a big favor!

As for 1 Timothy 3:4-5 which the Professor was presumably referring to, I'm struggling to square that with Luke 9:60 and some of these other verses. I agree that we're called to do both, but where I'm having trouble is why the earthly, family matters should ever supersede heavenly, spiritual matters.

Do any verses or passages come to mind that you can share which reflect this priority (assuming that's what you're proposing)?

You need to distinguish between a call to be a Christian away from prior/former allegiance; and a call to "Christian service," however you might define it.

You need to understand any difference there may be between an absolute/universal statement; and the rhetorical use of hyperbole.

Priority is not exclusive of ordered relations. #1 priority hardly ever removes every other priority.

Sometimes wisdom is necessary to know when to put (for example) worship ahead of caring for a sick family member. The same answer won't apply every time.

Sometimes one's family are active opposers of Christ and his kingdom; one could be forced into choosing the greater value. Jesus faced the fact his own human family demanded he leave off his messianic priorities to put them first. Can you imagine if the President always put his wife's/children's/mother's demands ahead of his work as head of state?

There will be costs associated with citizenry in the forever kingdom. Jesus said they are worth it, and will be more than made up. Do we believe him?

1Cor.7:32-34 is a good passage, one I thought of between starting my earlier post and posting it (and this post of yours). It says to a man who contemplates a course of action: you are not your own man, if you are united to a wife in marriage; she matters, and you must take her desires into consideration. You are not free to assume you know the will of God for your "CS" apart from what she thinks is the will of God for you, and her, and the kids. Jesus doesn't speak to atomized individuals with every utterance. Jesus valued families as building blocks of his kingdom, Mk.10. It doesn't mean there will never be conflict, or we won't be faced with tough decisions, or that doing the right or best thing is always a simple choice.

If you read 1Cor.7:32-34 as if it is merely descriptive, and may even describe a condition that is contrary to a kingdom-ideal, I hope your relationship to your wife is not marked by you consistently correcting your impulse to listen to her concerns, who was given to you as a much needed help.

God (through Paul) obliges us to live peaceably with an unbelieving spouse--there's a worldly concern--and not to say that for the sake of purity of religion I may divorce or abandon a proper and natural husband-and-wife relationship. We are to live, as far as possible within our own limits, at peace with all men. We owe our unbelieving neighbors a cordial, respectful, and hospitable connection. We are not free to make them miserable by a self-justifying confrontational and overbearing "witness," being a bad neighbor because we want to score spiritual points. Christ doesn't thrust himself on men like that. He said not to cast your pearls before swine. His confrontations were with people who came to him to oppose him, and with the public sins of those who put themselves out front as moral judges, doctrinal arbiters, and church leaders.

1Ths.4:11, "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we instructed you."

 

[Deleted member 13126]

If you read 1Cor.7:32-34 as if it is merely descriptive, and may even describe a condition that is contrary to a kingdom-ideal, I hope your relationship to your wife is not marked by you consistently correcting your impulse to listen to her concerns, who was given to you as a much needed help.

Amen. Thank you for sharing this concern. Thankfully, my wife and I are aligned on what CS looks like to us now. We'd actually like to do a lot more than we are doing now. My wife in particular is looking to explore the possibility of publishing some children's books without 2CV as she doodles (and she's pretty good at it).

Thank you again for taking the time to reply to this. It has been very helpful. I hope between your responses and those of the other PBers here, and this book I found which leans in a bit to the concept of a church family, I'll come away from this soul searching with a bit of clarity, God willing.

P.S. Love the signature. Even thought about putting it on a double-sided tract (Jesus, the Creator; Jesus, the Destroyer).