Monday: God is the Owner of Everything
Read Psalm 50:10-12; Psalm 24:1; 1 Chronicles 29:13-14; and Haggai 2:8. What’s the message here, and what should this truth mean to us and how we relate to whatever we possess?
The book of First
Image © Jim Howard at Goodsalt.com
Chronicles, starting with chapter 17, records King David’s desire to build a house for God. He shared this desire with the prophet Nathan, who responded, “Do all that is in your heart, for God is with you” (1 Chronicles 17:2, NJKV). But that night the word of God came to Nathan and instructed him to tell the King that, because he was a man of war, he couldn’t build God’s house. His son would do the work instead. David asked if he could, at least, draw the plans and prepare the building materials. When David was granted this request, he spent the rest of his life amassing a tremendous amount of hewn stone, cedar, iron, gold, silver, and brass “without measure.” When all of the building materials had been prepared and assembled at the building site, David called all the leaders of Israel together for a ceremony of praise and thanksgiving.
In 1 Chronicles 29:13-14, , in King David’s public prayer, what did he say was the real source of all the building materials that he and the people had spent time and money preparing? Of course, in essence, he said, “We really can’t take any credit for all these special materials because we are just giving You back Your own stuff.”
The point is important for all of us, whether rich or poor (but especially the rich). Because God made everything in the beginning (see Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Psalm 33:6, Psalm 33:9), He is truly the rightful owner of all that exists, including whatever we possess — no matter how hard and diligently and honestly we have worked for it. If not for God and His grace, we would have nothing, we would be nothing; in fact, we wouldn’t even exist. Thus, we must always live with the realization that, ultimately, God owns all that is, and by praising and thanking Him for His goodness to us, we can keep this important truth before us.
| “But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly as this?” (1 Chronicles 29:14, NKJV). What beautiful principles are expressed in these words, and how do they reflect what our attitude toward God should be and our attitude toward what we possess? |
(24)
We used to sing this little chorus by John Peterson:
While the words acknowledge God's ownership of everything the implication that they are mine as well can be misconstrued if we fail to recognise that there is also an implication of care and responsibility on our part. I don't expect a full statement on environmental and social responsibility in a song that we can sing in a few seconds, but we do need to take the idea of God's ownership seriously and recognise the limitations of our ownership of things.
Ultimately, whatever we own, we have to hand back. And we should be able to hand those possessions back in a condition where God can pronounce, "Well done. You are a good and faithful servant!"
While I agree with your sentiment, Jesus also demonstrates by the parable of the distribution of the talents (Matt 25:14-30), that we are given the resources we have to use them wisely and not leave them buried in the ground.
I offer the following as a consideration for those who are interested...
Today's lesson appears to be aiming to get us to reconsider "what our attitude toward God should be and our attitude toward what we possess" via considering that God is actually the "owner" of everything. While the concept of ownership is central to the ways of our world - especially under capitalism, but also under socialism - what if 'ownership' is not actually part of God's 'higher ways'*?
One of God's names, Jehovah Jireh, conveys the idea of God as provider rather than owner. In Jeremiah 2:13 God metaphorically describes Himself as "the fountain of living water" - again conveying the notion that He is the source (not merely a source) of perpetual provision. And then there is Jesus' statement in Matthew 10:8: "... Freely you have received, freely give".
What if there is no 'ownership' in the Kingdom of God? Rather, what if everything is simply provided for the purpose of then being used to authentically benefit others - rather than amassed for ones own benefit to the exclusion of others (Luke 12:16-21)? Ownership outside of a Kingdom founded on beneficence doesn't work very well. But within a Kingdom of authentic beneficence, 'ownership' is supplanted by ongoing provision for ongoing distribution.
How might this awareness - that God is the provider from whom we freely receive in order to freely give - impact our attitude towards God and towards our 'possession' of that which we have been given?
--------
* For example, see Isaiah 55:1 as but one expression of God's 'higher ways' (Isaiah 55:8-9) principle.
Maybe the way to look at "ownership" is not in the capital sense but in the artistic/creator sense. If I create an artistic photo and then give that photo to someone, I retain artistic ownership over that photo. One thing that I don't want to happen is for the "possessor" of that photo to make an inferior copy of the photo to give to someone else.
I think the artistic/creator view of ownership makes more sense than the commercial ownership view in God's case.
Ok, I have had my sleep - probably should have waited till after breakfast - but here goes:
I think the commercial ownership idea carried with it a sense of obligation, while the artistic-creator model has an element of trust, particularly when the artist gives their creation to someone else. (Once you sell the artwork it becomes a commercial ownership thing.) The creator puts trust in the receiver, usually because the receiver is a friend, so that they will not produce derived works from the original.
Here is a bit of an example. I gave an institution an aerial photograph of its campus to hang on the wall of their reception area. A year or so later I learned that the organisation was making a brochure with the photograph on the front page. They took a photograph of my photograph to use on the cover - until I found out. I had to explain that they had broken the copyright and were making a derived work from it. The issue was that their copy was a poor reproduction. They only needed to ask and I would give them an original digital high-resolution version of the photo. They were in fact depriving themselves of quality by doing it themselves.
That element of relationship and trust is part of the artistic-creator model and that applies very much to our relationship with our own Creator.
I really like your analogy, Maurice!
Phil – your point regarding ‘ownership’ is well taken. I see man's ‘concept of ownership’ implying that we have ‘autonomy and authority through owning’, but since we are a created being, we do not have the right to that which we ‘own’ – all things, including our life, are gifts from our Creator who holds authority to set the standards for how we ‘use’ that which is given to us.
Yes, indeed, the notion of ‘owning’ something fosters the urge to ‘possess and control’ it. But since we are a ‘made by God’ being, we cannot truly say that we ‘own’ anything. Psalm 50 – v.23 ”Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me; and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the salvation of God.”
Understanding and accepting that we have no ‘ownership’ of anything, we actually live the life which God intended for us to live – we accept and are grateful for that we are ‘provided’ with.
We are the beneficiaries of His promised providence to meet all our needs, that He will never leave us or forsake us, that He is the bread and water of our life, and that He is our heavenly Father who loves His children and gives generously.
It seems to me that we do best to accept all of the concepts that are recorded in the Bible, such as the texts given at the beginning of our lesson. The Bible clearly demonstrates God as Creator, Owner, Redeemer, Healer, Provider, Saviour, Warrior (Captain of the Lord's hosts), King and much more, depending on context.
Rather than reducing God to fulfilling just one function in His "higher ways" (Isa 55:8-9), may we embrace all the Bible reveals about Him. (Consider that the "higher ways" concept in Isaiah is specifically used to show us that we can *not* understand all the ways of God. That should caution us not to seek to improve on a concept that appears in Scripture.)
I'm rather pleased that the lessons are off to such a good start, focusing on family relationship being central to a biblical concept of our relationship with God.
I acknowledge, Inge, the views you have put forward.
I find that the Bible uses many concepts metaphorically to try and help us grow in our understanding of God's Ways. These metaphors are merely the 'doorway' into the wider 'room' of God's conceptually-different, higher ways. As you will be aware, good educational practice utilises connecting initially with the known for the purpose of then fostering growth and development of/into the not yet known so that it may become progressively more known. That Jesus's used such methodology and that it was misunderstood at times is reflected in, for example, John 10:6; 19-20.
Thus, for clarification, I am neither attempting to reduce God to fulfilling just one function, nor to improve on a concept that appears in scripture. Rather, I am attempting to do what 2 Timothy 2:15 principle implies and to share what I find in that journey with others who may likewise be interested in their journey to do the same. That is why I preferenced my initial comment with "I offer the following as a consideration for those who are interested..."
Thanks for engaging conversation Maurice. In reflecting upon what you are proposing, I am wondering how would you see that proposition practically impacting "what our attitude toward God should be and our attitude toward what we possess"?
I am still thinking that one through Phil. I just wanted to inject the notion into the conversation as an alternative to the ubiquitous commercial view of ownership. The thing that comes to my mind is that the relationship between the "owner" and "possessor" (I'm using those terms simply to differentiate the two stakeholders) is more collaborative than in the commercial model. There should be an expression of mutual respect between the two. But I will sleep on the idea and give it some thought overnight.
For sure, this is the critical point in Human salvation
One thing I like about Christianity is the aspect of not worrying about if we have enough food to eat. Just recently I was looking into the life of Jesus. During His three years of ministry Jesus had no full-time job other than healing, teaching, and preaching. He had people around Him it seemed like all day long who didn't have full time jobs either and Jesus would make sure they had food when they were hungry like the 5 thousand and the 4 thousand, yet Jesus did not starve to death. He died of a broken heart (starting in the garden of Gethsemane).
In my childhood I was stressed when my family didn’t have enough money to cover the bills and buy adequate food. But I am more convinced now that truly the antidote to stress is truly putting our hearts, minds, and soul into the Word and loving God with everything we have.
One thing my family and I started playing recently is “The Glad Game.” When anything happens to you, especially bad things, find something to be glad about. It truly has changed our perspective on life. Happy New Years! May this year be filled with love for each of you.
Point well taken. We do ourselves good by trusting in God's power to provide.
When I start to think that everything that I am and have is all borrowed, this seems to make things less complicated, and possessions get out of the focus, but not without the responsibility. Possessions do not really satisfy, anyways. Thus, the fountain of peace and joy comes from other substantives! God can reset our mindsets to something that can last forever.
In Genesis mankind was given dominion over the earth. They were not given ownership over the earth.
Probably an interesting illustration is from the British Empire. Back about 300 years ago, the British Empire laid claim to many countries including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many others.
The USA fought the war of independence and became its own independent country. They had no interest in being a "Dominion" within the British empire.
But Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some others became Dominions. That is, they became self-governing nations of the British empire, responsible for governing their dominion, but still holding allegiance to the Crown. They were autonomous communities within the British empire.
Though that arrangement has changed some in recent years, yet it serves to help understand what it meant when Adam and Eve were given dominion of this earth (responsible for this earth), within the greater universal empire of the Creator God.
Without a degree of ownership, there is often no responsibility to maintain or value the property. This is clearly seen when housing etc. is given with no degree of investment. The result is often neglect, ruinous and derelict behavior. This is the evidence of a lack of value often placed due to lack of vested interest.
I think God gave humans a degree of ownership so we will take responsibility and take care of His creation and gifts. But not to horde.
I don't think God gave us no level of ownership. Because He let us know everything belongs to him, we are to manage.
I would not want ownership in a place that was nothing more than a warehouse to efficiently store the poor or the “socially disadvantaged”, which is what the public housing referred to can be. A home is more than a place to eat and sleep. It finds meaning in community, that is, functional relationships between families.
The failure of public housing "projects" was not due to ownership issues, but to its failure to understand the relationships of family in community. Its divorce from this principle of love led to its failure as a means of addressing social iniquities.