Smoodock's Blog

Many folks believe that the Bible is both inspired and without error, and I agree. However, though most folks who believe in the inspiration of Christian literature would say it is not on equal terms with the Bible (i.e. not without error), many of them would bend over backwards to keep from admitting error in Christian literature, as long as that literature says what they have always believed. In other words, the Christian literature that “I” consider inspired is without error. My question would be—is there any difference in saying this and elevating otherwise normal Christian literature to the status of the Biblical manuscripts?

Part of my pastor’s sermon one Sunday was to include a short video presentation of One Solitary Life.[1] Usually my Sunday school lesson would not be in conflict with anything in any of my pastor’s sermons, although, technically the One Solitary Life was not my pastor’s words. I really didn’t take issue with it either, but others in my Sunday school class saw a contradiction in something I said with this otherwise wonderful piece of inspired Christian literature.

In John 1:37 Andrew and probably the author of the Gospel of John began to follow Jesus, but when Jesus saw them, he asked, “What are you seeking?” They addressed him as Rabbi (Teacher) and asked where he dwelt (John 1:38). Jesus replied “Come and see!” and they spent the day and night at his house. The implication of the text is that it was Jesus’ own dwelling, which contradicts a line in One Solitary Life. My class wanted to believe this couldn’t be Jesus’ house, because he didn’t have a house—the essay said so. When I proposed that the essay was wrong, the class objected. Their objections ranged from “your argument is with the pastor” to “the scriptures say Jesus didn’t have a place to lay his head (Matthew 8:20);” therefore, this couldn’t be his own house.

What do you think about the obvious implication in John 1:38-39? Did Jesus have a house to dwell in or not? I could also point out that his particular home was probably in Capernaum, and he also owned the home in Nazareth in which his mother and siblings dwelt. If the implication of the Gospels is correct, and Joseph was dead by the time of Jesus’ public ministry, then all the family wealth would be Jesus’ to dispose of among his brethren, as he saw fit and, as they came of age. Whatever the size of the family wealth, two things are clear within the text. The first is that Jesus gave us an example to follow; and the second is, Jesus was a dynamic leader, loved and respected by his followers and hated and feared by his enemies.

With all due respect for those who happen to be experiencing the crunch of economic disaster, is the homeless life the life Jesus expects his followers to imitate? If Paul would claim later that one is worse than an unbeliever, if one didn’t provide for those who are in need, especially those of their own household, how could this be Jesus’ lot? Wasn’t he a good provider for his family? As the firstborn, this was his responsibility in the absence of Joseph. The fact that he left the care of Mary, his mother, to “the beloved disciple just before dying, shows that Jesus’ owned property. All the family wealth—all that Jesus had would have been confiscated by Rome, since he was crucified as a criminal. Mary would have been put out on the street, if John didn’t take care of her. If she had been dwelling in a rented house, Rome wouldn’t have confiscated her home.

The teaching that Jesus didn’t have a place of his own to dwell in isn’t logical and doesn’t fit the text. But, what of Matthew 8:20 you might say. My question is, does this scripture refer to Jesus not owning a home or the fact that he had no friendly place in this world in which to rest? God—Jesus—has nowhere in this world to rest in, unless he rests in us. We are his Temple. This world does not provide a suitable place for him to dwell in. We do!

If we would consider Jesus dynamic leadership, would we ever think of the homeless as leaders to emulate? Understand, I am not criticizing them for their condition; they need our help. The fact is, it is poor leadership that is responsible for their condition. Isn’t that so? Would the leaders of this world fear or have reason to hate the homeless? What kind of power do the homeless have that would cause world leaders to fear them? Don’t you see how ridiculous this argument is that Jesus had no home to dwell in—homeless in the 1^st century AD?

If Jesus was so poor, how is it that he wore a seamless garment, very expensive in that day? If his family was so poor, shouldn’t he have sold it to give them something to eat? Successful businessmen left their chosen vocations to follow Jesus. Would any successful businessmen today leave their professions to follow a homeless man in our society? Do our world leaders fear the power of those who have no homes today? Do our politicians even make any effort to get their votes? If this is not so in our society, why would any of us want to believe it about Jesus? The text doesn’t support it. Is it perhaps we would rather pity Jesus than respect him? Pity usually inspires some kind of help on our part, similar to a handout, but respect is different; it inspires emulation and honor. God help us.