What is the Mission of the Church? –DeYoung and Gilbert. In recent, and immediately controversial, work was released only a few short months ago and has the evangelical interwebs abuzz. Kevin DeYoung (co-author of Why We Love the Church) and Greg Gilbert (author of What is the Gospel?) argues that the mission of the church is primarily that of verbal gospel proclamation and making disciples. In response to the increasing popular views of man like Christopher J. H. Wright (see his The Mission of God and The Mission of God’s People) that argues “if everything is mission, then everything is mission,” DeYoung and Gilbert argue, quoting Stephen Neill, “If everything is mission, nothing is mission.” The book makes many great and important points, and other times feels either to miss the point or oversimplified. But, that said, it’s a mixed bag that is most certainly worth reading.

The King Jesus Gospel-McKnight. Scot McKnight’s chief contention is that our evangelical culture has largely substituted a gospel culture for a salvation culture. This is especially ironic since the term evangelical is derived from the Greek word euangelion, or gospel. According to McKnight, based on where we tend to place our greatest emphases, we’re more soterist (from the Greek word soterea, salvation) than evangelicals. Not that salvation isn’t related, and intimately related to the gospel. It is….but. The problem is our presentations of the Plan of Salvation miss the very thing that makes the gospel the gospel. McKnight distinguishes between the story of Israel and the story of Jesus. In a nutshell, the gospel is the story of Jesus as the climax of the story of Jesus. To be sure, it is a story that saves, but the gospel, isn’t primarily about our response and how we can be forgiven. There is much food for thought in this book. I tend to think that McKnight over-corrects in his limiting the gospel to the proclamation of the messianic identity of Jesus (though in itself, it is a very important point). I think its best to say that the gospel includes the message of Jesus as Israel’s messiah, the world’s true Lord, and the message of how a rebel can be reconciled and included into his kingdom.

An Introduction to Christian Apologetics- Carnell. Considered by many a classic. Apologetics is my first love and I read this in order to familiarize myself with one of the most influential apologetics textbooks of the last century. it was surely worthy it. Sure, there were times were my Van Tillian hackles went up, but over all I can see the clear stamp of Van Tillian influence on Carnell’s thought. Generally speaking, I tend to think that apologetics as a distinct field of study was better 45-50 years ago. That is to say that (with notable recent exceptions) that your standard apologetics textbook 50 yrs ago who more creatively constructed and comprehensive that many of the cookie-cutter works released these days.

The Bible and the Future-Hoekema. Buy this book!! I read about half of BAF back in seminary and decided to reread it and finish it off this year. Honestly I can say that I agreed with nearly every sentence of the work (“nearly” being the operative word). Hoekema is so clear, so to the point, so balanced. He defended a covenantal amillenialism that sees our ultimate hope not in a disembodiment heavenly state, but one full of glory, reigning with Christ in the transformed New Heavens and New Earth.

New Testament and the People of God-Wright. NTPG in vol. 1 of Wright’s projected 6 volume Christian Origins and the Question of God series that will blend both New Testament history and theology. Essentially this volume lays the groundwork on which the following volumes will build. The book is divided into 3 main sections: first, Wright addresses methodological and epistemological issues, arguing in favor of a critical realist approach that denies purely objective historiography or a “neutral” epistemology, yet affirms the possibility of real historical knowledge. In the second unit of the book Wright sketches the worldview of Second Temple Judaism. This worldview is discovered both in terms of a common symbolic universe (focusing specifically on Torah, Temple, The Land, and Jewish Ethnic Identity) and theology (unpacked in terms of the doctrine of monotheism, creation, election, covenant, and eschatology). The bulk of the book is spent on this section. Lastly, the third and final section of the book addresses the worldview of early Christianity, again through an examination of its praxis, symbols, theology, and stories. Wright has filled this work with much insight and skillfully pokes holes in many of the sacred cows of higher biblical criticism. One need not agree with every statement or  argument put forward by Wright in order to greatly benefit from this stimulating book.

Here is a summary of the main themes of both direct and indirect typological fulfillment in Matthew and the rest of the New Testament; Jesus fulfilled the activities of the Lord himself as described and predicted in the Old Testament (Matthew 1:21; 3:3-4 par[i], 11:5 par, 13:41; 24:31 par, 27:9-10). Jesus was the foretold messianic king (Matthew 1:23; 2:6, 23; 3:17 par.; 4:15-16; 21:5; 22:44 par; 26:64 par), the Isaianic Servant of the Lord (Matthew 3:17 par.; 11:5 par.; 12:18-21; 1 Peter 2:22-25), and the Danielic Son of Man (Matthew 24:30 par.; 26:64 par.; 28:18). He brought to a climax the line of the prophets (Matthew 12:39-40 par.; 13:13-15 par., 35; 17:5 par.; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 2 Corinthians 3:7-18), the succession  of righteous sufferer since the Old Testament times (Matthew 21:42 par.; 27:34-35 par., 39 par., 43 par., 46 par., 48 par.), and the Davidic dynasty (Matthew 12:42 par.). He reversed the work of Adam, who pluged the human race into sin (Matthew 4:1-11 par.; Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-49; Hebrews 2:5-9; compare Luke 3:38). He fulfilled God’s promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:16). Since he was the ideal Israelite, his own personal history recapitulated the national history of Israel (Matthew 2:15, 18; 4:4, 7, 10 par.).

                Melchizedek prefigured the priesthood of Christ, as did also, in an inferior and sometimes contrasting way, the Aaronic priesthood (Hebrews 7-10). The paschal lamb and other sacrifices symbolized his redemptive death (John 1:29, 36; 19:36; Romans 3:25; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9-10; 1 Peter 1:19-21; Revelation 5:6-14), as well as Christian devotion and service (Romans 12:1; 15:16; Philippians 2:17). Jesus is life-giving bread like the manna God provided in the desert during Israel’s journey from Egypt to Canaan (John 6:35; 1 Corinthians 10:3), the source of living water like the rock in the desert (1 Corinthians 10:4; compare John  7:37), the serpent lifted up in the desert (John 3:14), and the tabernacle and temple of God’s abode among human beings (John 1:14; 2:18-22; compare Colossians 1:19).

                John the Baptist was the predicted forerunner of Jesus (Mark 1:2-3). Jesus inaugurated the foretold eschatological period of salvation (John 6:45) and established the new covenant (Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:16-17). Judas Iscariot fulfilled the role of the wicked opponents of the Old Testament righteous sufferers (Acts 1:20). The church is, or individual Christians are, the new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15; Colossians 3:10), the spiritual seed (=offspring, descendants) of Abraham by incorporation into Christ (Romans 4:1-25; 9:6-33; Galatians 3:29; 4:21-31; Philippians 3:3), the new Israel (Romans 9:6-33; 11:17-24; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9-10), and the new temple (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:20-22). The Mosaic law prefigured divine grace both positively and negatively (John 1:17; Colossians 2:17; Galatians). The deluge (Noah’s flood) stands for the Last Judgment (Matthew 24:37-39 par.) and for baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21). The passage through the Red Sea and the rite of circumcision foreshadowed baptism (1 Corinthians 10:2; Colossians 2:11-12). Jerusalem stands for the celestial city (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 21:1-22:5). Entrance into Canaan prefigures the entrance of Christians into heavenly rest (Hebrews 3:18-4:13). And proclamation of the gospel to all people fulfills God’s promises to Abraham and prophetic predictions of Gentile salvation (Acts 2:17-21, 3:25; 13:47; 15:16-18; Romans 15:9-12, 21).

Now that will preach!

A while back I noted that a couple of prominent Old Testament scholars have called into question whether or not Adam was a real person. Christianity Today has documented the controversy quite well here. In that post I raised the issue of whether rejecting the historicity of Adam allows the Bible to determine the beliefs of the church. This is still a concern of mine. But here I’d like to raise 2 more concerns.

My first objection is more “big picture”: They type of hermeneutic (i.e. the way the Bible is being interpreted) employed by these theologians and Biblical commentators, appears to violate everything we otherwise hold dear about the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. Would Moses, David, and Paul have believed that Adam was a historical figure? Yes, of course…and even Peter Enns, Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies at the Biologos Institute, has recognized this in relation to the apostle Paul (the relevant section begins at 0:29 here). The question of Adam’s historicity is raised only when a foreign standard of truth is imposed upon the Bible. In this case “scientific consensus” is that standard.

My second concern is more specific.  Once we call Genesis 1-3 non-historical where do we draw the line? What criterion renders Gen. 2-3 allegory that wouldn’t also rule out Genesis 4? The narrative style doesn’t change…

Enns has argued that the commonalities between the creation/fall narrative and the conquest/exile narrative of the Old Testament can reasonably be marshaled to argue that the author’s intention was not to teach history per se, but to present models for Israel to understand her own experience in the Promised land. This I find is an interesting point, and it depends on biblical-theological connections that are often overlooked by those arguing for the traditional interpretation of the Adam narratives. In his article, “Adam is Israel,” Enns comments:

There are two ways of looking at th[ese] parallel[s]. You could say that the Adam story came first and then the Israelites just followed that pattern. But there is another way. Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins. [Emphasis in original]

Here I think Enns is completely right. The parallels between Adam and Israel both undeniable and obviously…and they should be. Both were placed in an ideal place, a “land flowing with milk and honey;” for both continued existence in that land depended upon their obedience to the word of God. When they failed, both experienced exile. In fact, William Dumbrell states the parallels better than I can:

Adam’s role in Eden raises the question of Israel’s relationship to Adam… Israel, like Adam – in Genesis 2:8, the force of the Hebrew tense is that of an English pluperfect (cf. “had planted” NIV) – is created outside the space to be occupied by the divine. Adam, like Israel, is put into sacred space to exercise a kingly/priestly role (cf. Exod. 19:4-6). Israel, like Adam is given along by which the divine space is to be retained; Israel, like Adam, transgresses the law; and Israel, like Adam is expelled from the divine space… The placement of Adam and Israel in divine space was conditional. Both parties had to obey the divine mandate to retain the sacred space. Adam possessed immortality that was limited, Israel possessed a covenant that could be revoked for national disobedience. The creation account further indicates to Israel the nature and purpose of her special status, of exercising dominion in her world that Adam at once occupied. It will not seem strange, therefore, that Exodus 19:5-6 presents the nation Israel in a corporate, royal priestly role. ~William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament

We should recognize these parallels and rejoice over the literary artistry in the composition of the Pentateuch. But these are no mere examples of literary foreshadowing.  There is a typological relationship between Adam and Israel because the former was designed to anticipate the latter. When you lose the historical grounding for the first event, the significance of the second event is diminished.

Enns continues by saying:

Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these readings of Genesis has more “explanatory power.” I (and other biblical scholars) come down on the second option for a number of reasons, some having to do with Genesis itself while others concern other issues in the Bible.

He then lists a few more reasons for believing that the Adam account is non-historical. For the purposes of our discussion here, I’ll stick to the link between Adam and Israel. Enns argues that Adam is an individualized Israel, whereas I’m arguing that Israel functioned as a corporate Adam.

More can be said that, I believe, demonstrates that I am not merely engaging in slippery slope thinking or special pleading. The typological relationship between Adam and Israel isn’t unique in the Old Testament. If we exclude imposing contemporary evolutionary biology onto Scripture, the theological and literary evidence against an historical Adam loses much of its steam. Was the Adam narrative of Genesis crafted in such a way so as to make clear parallels between his life and the life of national Israel? Yes, without a doubt. But then again, so was the life of Moses. Stephen Dempster, in his work Dominion and Dynasty, argues that Moses’ life is likewise crafted so as to tie it intimately with the experience of Israel:

Moses, who narrowly escaped disaster by being placed in a ark in the River Nile (Exod. 2:1-10). Moses’s salvation from the water echoes backward and forward in the text backward towards salvation of humanity from the judgment of the flood by Noah (Gen. 6-8), and forwards to the Israelites future escape from the waters of the Red Sea (Exod. 14)… The figure of Moses, this child born as a type of savior figure, not only saves Israel but also embodies Israel at times. His rescue from the water prefigures the nation’s salvation from the water; his escape after the death of an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11-15) is a prelude for the Israelites flight after the death of many Egyptians (Exod. 12:29-39); his experience of being in the desert for 40 years (Exod. 2:21-25) foreshadows the same for Israel (Num. 14:33); his divine in counter before the burning bush (Exod. 3) anticipates Israel before the fire at Sinai (Exod. 19-24). Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible, 94

In fact, Peter Leithart, in his Old Testament Survey A House for My Name, finds a number of other typological connections in the Old Testament (between Noah and Moses, Jeremiah and Moses, and  Jeremiah and the prophet Samuel). So, if we acknowledge that Moses himself was a historical figure (and I have no reason to believe that Enns questions that) we’re in a good place to see that a typological relationship is not mutually exclusive with real-life historicity.

The New Testament is unique in ancient literature interpreting the crucifixion in a positive way, as the greatest of God’s actions in history. Paul proclaims that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Both he and the other New Testament writers were entirely aware that their view of this event attracts scorn. To the Romans, the cross is utter foolishness: crucifixion is merely the worst of the punishments routinely meted out to Rome ‘s enemies. They are humiliated, defeated, tortured beyond human endurance, exposed in their weakness – and then they die. Beyond that, the cross is a random act of cruelty.

Yet the early church makes the bold and fantastic claims that the cross is the central act of God in all human history! This boldness is the product of a radically different perspective because the church looks at the cross through the lens of the resurrection.

It is Jesus’ return from the dead that validates his claim to be God’s anointed Messiah. When one begins to look at the cross through the lens of the resurrection, what at first appears to be foolishness is really the wisdom of God . What seemed to be weakness is really the power of God, conquering human rebellion and Satanic evil. What appears to be humiliation is a revelation of the glory of God. God’s self-giving love, mercy, faithfulness, grace, justice, and righteousness are revealed in the event by which God accomplishes the salvation of his creation. What seems to the world to be Jesus’ defeat, the early church proclaims to be his surpassing victory over all the enemies he stand opposed to God’s good creation. This apparently meaningless act of violence and cruelty in fact reveals the full purpose of God: his judgment against sin, and his power and will to renew the creation. Seen in one way, the cross is a token of foolishness, weakness, humiliation, defeat, absurdity. Seen in another way, by those who know that Jesus is alive again from the dead, the cross is full of God’s wisdom, power, glory, victory, and the purpose.

The common perception of the capitalist is one of a greed miser who hordes his money, looking for ways to keep the poor in their lowly state.  Personally, I normally take no offense at this portrayal. I oppose greedy power-hungry misers myself! But this image doesn’t really address capitalism as I understand it. It sounds more like the Hollywood portrayal of Gordon Gekko in the Oliver Stone movie Wall Street, a poster boy for greed and the lust for power. This is far from what I think of when I endorse capitalism.

I’m convinced that what people think of capitalism is a straw man, especially when they attack the US as an example of a free market or capitalistic society. I say this because the world has never known a 100% capitalist society. Capitalism represents barometer for determining economic health. The more capitalist a country becomes, the more it flourishes (China is a great example of this).

First, capitalism does not, in and of itself, encourage greed. Plain ol’ sin does that just fine. The stereotypical picture of the socialist dictator sitting his is mansion doesn’t do well to support this criticize either. The problem is the human heart. In fact, there’s a sense in which one could argue that capitalism neutralizes greed. Why? Because a true capitalist desires to increase her profits, and this means that she cannot jerk around her clients for too long. As long as the market is free there will always be competition, and if you want to do well for your business you need to work in favor of your customers and give them things that they want-or they’ll go elsewhere. So, subjectively the business owner may be a greedy miser, but a free market forces him to work in the best interest of his clientele.  Free markets can’t change the heart, but they can create an environment that redirects actions.

This leads me to the second point. Capitalism presupposes the rule of law and fair dealings in trade. So examples of greedy misers lying and cheating their customers do not fairly represent capitalism, but rather a corruption of it. Does this happen? Of course it does, but that’s a result of the heart and not the system, per se.

Third, capitalism encourages boldness and risk, rather than the greedy hording of wealth. Capitalism flourishes when an entrepreneur comes up with an idea and is willing to risk his own personal capital to see it through. Many, many people who do this fail and lose tons of money. A true capitalist invests for the purpose of development rather than horde for the purpose of mere personal gain.

Last, many anti-capitalist Christians have argued that Scripture supports socialism. After all, doesn’t Acts 2:44 and 4:32 say that the early Christians “had everything in common”? Here’s the sticking point: How are we defining socialism? If we define socialism to mean people of different backgrounds and socio-economic levels freely pooling their resources together for the common good, that’s great. But that’s not socialism, that’s sharing.  The peaceful means of exchange says “If you do this for me, and I’ll do that for you.” Socialism fosters the violent means of exchange which says “Do this for me, or else!” What I mean by this is that socialism doesn’t promote sharing (which is a biblical value, to be sure), but instead promotes government coercion. It doesn’t give incentive with a carrot, but threatens with a stick. It takes money from people whether they want to give it or not, whether they want to be philanthropic in other ways (to support other causes) or not.

As Max Weber noted in his famous book, capitalism is the “Protestant work ethic.” Biblical values such as hard work, honest labor, supporting oneself and their family, and working for the common good all underlie authentic capitalism.

American is far from that…

For an excellent defense of a proper understanding of capitalism, see Jay Richards’ work:

What the Christian thinks of God controls what he thinks of the true, the good, and the beautiful, for God gives being to truth, content to the good, and permanence to the beautiful. The Law of God is truth; keeping the law is good; and meditation upon, and enjoyment of, the law is the beautiful. The good is what God rewards and the bad what He punishes.  Hence, only the true can be good, and only the good can be beautiful.

I take issue with the way he defends free-will (he defends a libertarian understanding of the will), but otherwise this is a viewer-friendly and informative presentation of why the very idea of objective morality demands Christian theism.

It is incorrect of the writer of this posting to say Glen Beck and Mr. Liliback are the irresponsible ones.  Although the term “Social Justice” was first coined by a conservative priest in the 1800′s, all that needs understanding is who is using the term today.  There are primarily two groups of supporters of the term.  The first, knowingly believes in the control of the individual by the government in all things. The other, i.e many in the Catholic Church, innocently believe that this government control is Christ like which ultimately, it is not.  The writter of this postingis making an excuse for semantics to avoid the obvious.

First I’d like to thank the commenter for taking the time to share their thoughts. As the author, I thought that perhaps a response to his thoughts would clarify where I’m coming from.

I believe that the issue is, as was stated, not merely to look at how the term was coined, but rather to see how the term is employed today. There we agree. I also agree with the categorization of the 2 groups who use “social justice” language, 1) statists, and 2) religious statists. Again, the commenter is correct on both counts.

My contention with the comments listed above lies in the fact that they overlook another crucial group that finds itself comfortable with “social justice” language, yet in the strongest terms eschews “social gospel” language. (There’s also another group that hasn’t been taken into consideration: Protestant statists such as Jim Wallis. Not all religious statists are Roman Catholic) As noted in my blog entry, the latter is the agenda of a Christ-less form of Christianity, while the former is seen (by the group under discussion) as a foretaste of God’s coming kingdom on earth, a demonstration of the power of God to transform hearts through the gospel of the cross-work of Christ. A good example of this group would be Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC. Keller is not a statist and promotes free-market enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit. He does not promote the idea that the church as an institution should start soup kitchens, etc. yet he does encourage Christians as individuals and as non-profit organizations to work not only for the benefit of their local church but also for the flourishing of their community. This third category is a fast-expanding group and should not be left out of this discussion.

In conclusion, my point is that we should be wary of superimposing one definition of “social justice” (statism) on all those who use the term. Instead we should listen carefully to how the term is employed, lest we denounce people on the basis of another group’s error.

The consequence of a general ignorance about the Old Testament among the people of God is a pervasive reduction of the full message of the New Testament to a basic gospel of atonement and individual ethics. I suspect many Christians feel spiritually undernourished because they live out their lives on the basis of about ten biblical texts.

Ouch.

In the exodus God responded to all the dimensions of Israel’s need. God’s momentous act of redemption did not merely rescued Israel from political, economic and social oppression and then leave them to their own devices to worship whom they pleased. Nor did God merely offer them spiritual comfort of hope for some brighter future in a home beyond the sky while leaving their historical condition unchanged. No, the exodus affected real change in the people’s real historical situation and at the same time called them into a real new relationship with the living God. This was God’s total response to Israel’s total need…

• It is historical and also ecclesial; that is it includes facts of history about Christ and the reality of a new humanity in Christ.
• It is faith and obedience.
• It is a message that must be heard and a life that must be seen.
• It is personal and cosmic.
• It is above all “the Gospel of God” – the grace of God, the promise of God, the faithfulness of God, the salvation of God, the son of God, the people of God, and the glory of God.

Good news can also be bad news for those who’s vested interests are threatened by it. There is, therefore, a battle to be fought to make sure that the truth of the gospel is preserved, clarified and defended against denials, distortions and betrayals.

• The fact of the gospel of Christ is for all people, and not just the privilege of one ethnic community, threatens those who stake their claim on belonging to the “right people”.
• The fact that the gospel is utterly the gift of God’s grace offends those who take pride in their own achievements.
• The fact that the gospel locates the glorious salvation of the living God in the person of one who’s lived in up security and died in excruciating shame is a laughingstock to those who want their salvation to come from a more reputable religious emporium.
• The fact that the gospel summons people to repentance and they radically changed personal and social ethic riles those who want the benefits of the gospel but resist its demands.

So there is a polemical dimension to the gospel. The gospel confronts things that contradict it or people who deny or reject it. It exists in explicit contrast and conflict with other worldviews and ultimate commitments that people have. So to be a servant of the gospel necessarily involves costly struggle and spiritual battle (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

For more see:

As Jesus grew as a man, his human capacities developed, and with them the pressure of temptation (Lk. 2:52) In that context he developed in obedience, not from imperfect to perfect, but from infancy to maturity. When he cried on the cross “it is finished” (Jn. 19:30, see also 17:4) and with royal dignity committed his spirit into the hands of his Father, he was the first person to have lived a life of perfect obedience and sanctification. In his resurrection his sanctified human life was divinely transformed into what New Testament calls “the power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16). Because this has taken place first in Christ our representative, it is possible for it to take place also in us through the Spirit. Christ himself is the only adequate resource we have for the development of sanctification in our own lives. (Sinclair Ferguson, Christian Spirituality)

1. There are extremes of wealth and poverty that provide unique temptations to those who live in them (Prov. 30:7-9).
2. Don’t worry about keeping up with the Jones’ (Prov. 12:9; 13:7).
3. The rich and poor are more alike than they think (Prov. 22:2; 29:13).
4. You can’t out give God (Prov. 3:9-10; 11:24; 22:9).
5. Poverty is not pretty (Prov. 10:15; 14:20; 19:4).
6. Money cannot give you ultimate security (Prov. 11:7; 11:28; 13:8).
7. The Lord hates those who get rich by injustice (Prov. 21:6; 22:16, 22-23).
8. The Lord loves those who are generous to the poor (Prov. 14:21, 31; 19:7; 28:21)
9. Hard work and good decision-making usually lead to increased prosperity (Prov. 6:6-11;10:4; 13:11; 14:24;  21:17, 20; 22:4, 13; 27:23-27; 28:20
10. Money isn’t everything. It does not satisfy (Prov. 23:4-5). It is inferior to wisdom (Prov. 8:10-11, 18-19; 24:3-4). It is inferior to righteousness (10:2; 11:4; 13:25; 16:8; 19:22; 20:17; 28:6). It is inferior to the fear of the Lord (Prov. 15:16). It is inferior to humility (Prov. 16:19). It is inferior to good relationships (Prov. 15:17; 17:1).

His conclusions are balanced and biblical:

You can’t understand the biblical view of money unless you are prepared to accept a number of truths held in tension.

• You’ll probably acquire more money if you work hard and are full of wisdom. But if all you care about is getting more money, you are the biggest fool.
• Money is a blessing from God, but you’ll be more blessed if you give it away.
• God gives you money because he is generous, but he is generous with you so that you can be generous with others. And if you are generous with your money, God will likely be more generous with you.
• It is wise to save money, but don’t ever think money gives you real security.
• Wealth is more desirable than poverty, but wealth is not as good as righteousness, humility, wisdom, good relationships, and the fear of the Lord.