Birds, Lilies, & Starving to Death, Part 1: Thoughts on Matthew 6:25-34

Scripture and I do not always seem to exist in the same reality.  The height of this uneasy co-existence is Matthew 6:25-34.  Jesus tells listeners not worry about what they will eat or wear.  Instead, seek the Kingdom.  I get stuck at verses 32 and 33.  Jesus says that such worry is not characteristic for his followers.  The Father knows what we need and will provide it.  Is the Father watching?  People starved to death as I tried to craft a readable opening paragraph.  Even for those who do not die, basic needs being met seems to be an unreasonable dream for many. 

I should make a few pronouncements.  I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he is a human who stands guiltless before The Father.  He is not someone who speaks untruthfully or irresponsibly.  I also believe that The Father is good rather than evil.  Finally, I believe that the accounts in the Bible – particularly in the Gospels – should be taken seriously. 

I hope a series of short essays will help to make sense of this passage.  This introductory essay expresses my confusion with Matthew 6:25-34 to define a question.  The middle essays are data to answer my question; first by looking to writers who consider the problem of evil and second by turning to commentaries and articles about this passage.  I will conclude by proposing a dark answer to the question but also include a kick so the darkness will bleed daylight.[1]

 

 

There is a troubling clause at the beginning of verse 33: But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (ESV).  Does it eliminate my confusion?  Is it so simple as to say that if people are to seek God’s kingdom rather than something else that God will make sure they will not go hungry?  I doubt it.  Such an interpretation misses both a secular truth and a theological truth.[2]  

 

First is the secular truth.  Christians in history and today live without adequate access to the necessities of life.  Forget “health-and-wealth”.  To assume that being a Christian automatically leads to enough food is to mock the suffering faith of Christians today and before us.  

 

Second is the theological truth.  Christianity assumes that blessings are for undeserving people. While the primary undeserved blessing is forgiveness, we are told that God created a physical world with the tools for protection to anyone regardless of merit.  Earlier in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:45) Jesus explains that the sun rises and the rain falls on both the just and unjust (or, to paraphrase it in a troubling way – from Shad in Rose Garden – the rain “falls whether you’re Ghandi or you’re Adolf.”)

 

  

“Hunger” is a catchall for need of food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life.  I will not comment on illness or injury, but only the sorts of security associated with work.  The connection between health and work is not as obvious as work and food.  The sharp difference between modern medicine and 1^st Century medicine further complicates the question.  I’ll leave it to someone else.

 

Was Jesus wrong to promise that the Father will feed and clothe us?  I hope to show that he wasn’t.

---

[1] If you aren’t already, hopefully you will become acquainted with “Lovers in a Dangerous Time” by Bruce Cockburn (or its cover by the Barenaked Ladies).  Also, please forgive the occasional music reference.

[2] I follow Oliver O’Donovan’s use of the word secular in The Desire of the Nations.  It is a morally neutral term referring to things of Earth, rather than a term that claims that something that is sinful or separated from God.