This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Ok, so I'm behind the times a bit. Manifest aired on NBC in the fall of 2018, but I had never heard of it until it appreared in my Netflix suggestions a couple weeks ago. Given my affinity for shows with a mysterious premise, like Lost in the early seasons, Stranger Things, or The Man in the High Castle, I started watching. A few episodes in it became clear that the foundational premise of the show is built upon Romans 8:28, a fact the creators make clear with repeated referances to the number 828 and one episode where a character opens a Bible to Romans and reads the verse in question (but no more). As the series unfolds, God (presumably) sends a 'calling', that's the term the characters use, to various people who were on flight 828 through voices, visions, and general intuitive insights that enable them to solve crimes, protect the innocent, and battle against a sinister secret plot. While it makes for good drama, none of these manifestations of the hand of God have much of anything to do with what Romans 8:28 is talking about as both characters in the show, and viewers watching, are left asking, "What exactly is God's purpose in all this? Why is this happening?"
As a pastor, I've run into non-contextual interpretations of Scripture many times, Philippians 4:13 probably leads the pack on that score, but Romans 8:28 is right there alongside it. What is the common mis-interpretation of Romans 8:28, and what is the proper contextual interpretation?
Context free interpretation: On its own, without the verses that precede or follow it, one might assume that Romans 8:28 is promising that God is a generic force for good in the world. That he molds and shapes people and events to make things work out for the better, resulting in a world that is less evil and more beneficial to us than it would be otherwise. In this interpretation, God isn't much different than Superman. He has power that he uses to help people, here and there, saving the day unexpectedly, but not fixing the root problems that cause there to be people in need of saving in the first place. While this view of God is fairly common, and fits fairly well with ideas of an impersonal Force that controls the universe (like in Star Wars), in the end it leaves much to be desired. Why, if God has power, is he using it in such a limited way? Why helps some and not others, why prevent a tragedy here and there but let the others happen? Superman can only be in one place at a time, we know why he's more likely to save Louis than anyone else, but God can do more than this can't he? Without context, 'the good', and 'his purpose' are left nebulous, can we identify them, help them along, or is this just some mystery?
A contextual interpretation: First, let us broaden the view a bit.
Romans 8:18-39 New International Version
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
This isn't bumper sticker theology. You can't fit the deep wisdom of this passage (and Paul's overall themes in Romans) on a poster. That may be while people prefer pithy but fruitless sayings like, "God helps those who help themselves" to what Scripture actually says, but non-contextual interpretation, and non-biblical aphorisms, are a dangerous game, we're much better off with the full medicine, kep the spoonful of sugar.
So, what is the larger point that Paul is making here that Romans 8:28 is integral to? God has a master plan, a plan for all of creation and humanity, a plan that involves calling individuals by the Spirit to accept his Son by faith, and then leading those individuals forward toward Christ-likeness in a process that cannot be derailed by any power because it is emeshed in the Love of God, and a process that he helps along by weaving 'all things' toward that very specific purpose. Something to that effect. I could make that run-on sentence into a paragraph, page, or chapter while still trying to convey the essence of Paul's words, but the original that he wrote will remain the most profound way to say it.
God isn't in the business of making this world a better place.
Thought I'd leave that sentence by itself to let it sink in. His redemptive actions in history will certainly have that effect, but that isn't the goal, but its treating the symptoms of the disease, not eradicating it. The goal is fellowship with humanity under his rule as Lord. God is working "all things together" in order to redeem out from humanity his chosen people, mold and shape them through discipleship toward Christ-likeness, and eventually present them before his throne holy and righteouss in his sight. God's purpose is far higher, far nobler, and far more difficult than simply making this world a better place. Jesus would not have taken upon himself humanity for such a lowly purpose, and certainly would not have needed to die upon the Cross, if making the world a better place was the goal. If that was all God had in mind he could have used people like the prophets of old to accomplish it. Moses, Elijah, Esther, even Jonah once he got straightened out, could 'make things better' with God's power. No, Jesus came to this earth for a much bigger project, a project he alone as the God/Man could accomplish. When Satan offered him rule over the kingdoms of this world, Jesus refused. Jesus as King of the World would have resulted in a massive improvement in the lives of everyone on this planet. Can you imagine a more wise and benevolent ruler? But Jesus isn't tempted, he isn't here to work through the systems of this world, but to overcome them, and destroy Sin and Death in the process. Jesus' sights are set much, much higher.
God's business is the making of a holy and righteous people
So, in the end, while Manifest has an interesting premise, and I'll finish watching the series, the God that it is portraying thus far isn't God enough, whatever the end game the series has for its characters, thus far none of them are actually living lives that reflect Romans 8:28, for none of them are being called to repentance, faith, and worship of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father. Romans 8:28 is part of a powerful and profound promise to those whom God calls that whatever happens in this life, the hand of God will continue to work in us, and through us, to transform us to Christ-likeness. Manifest, like so many non-contextual interpretations, falls short of this glorious promise.
Eisegesis: is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.
Why start with the definition of eisegesis? Because PragerU's video is a blatant example of this error, and one that contains thick irony. The premise that they are attempting to refute, that Jesus would have been a socialist, is a liberal example of eisegesis, but PragerU's response that Jesus was in fact a free-market capitalist is simply a conservative example of eisegesis. Either way, the text of Scripture is being abused for political gain, a dangerous game, and one that will have to be answered for when standing before God's throne. This is not the only example of PragerU trying to stuff Scripture into a particular political box and use it as a weapon, unfortunately. {See: Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"}
The transcript of the PragerU video (link below) appears below (in this font) my response to it will appear in bold.
Was Jesus a socialist?
From the beginning, the premise of this video is flawed unless the answer to this question is simply, "No, Jesus wasn't a socialist or a capitalist, he wasn't a believer in democracy or communism, he wasn't a Republican or a Democrat. These modern terms and labels are not a part of the Ancient Near East, to use them in that context is by default an anachronism." That would be an honest answer, one that takes an ancient text seriously and doesn't try to use it as a cudgel to fight today's fights. That, however, is not the direction in which this video is heading.
Well, if socialism is nothing more than being kind to other people, then you might think the answer is yes. But you can be kind to other people and be a capitalist. John D. Rockefeller probably gave away more money than anyone in human history, and he was certainly a capitalist. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given away millions, too.
Jesus certainly did command his followers to be kind, specifically, "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:31) The bar set by Jesus is higher than kindness, is steeper than 'being a good person'. {Dennis Prager believes in works-based salvation, he claimed in a forum with Ravi Zacharias that the Torah doesn't demand perfection (evidently "be holy as I am holy" doesn't count). The Bible doesn't exist to make good people, but a redeemed people who do what is good; the difference is important, and that misunderstanding on Prager's part helps explain his emphasis on Law and neglect of Grace}. There's a purpose behind wedging a quick mention of Rockefeller into this video, it points to the larger effort that Dennis Prager is pursuing about the beauty of capitalism and the evil of regulation. John D. Rockefeller was certainly a religious man (a Baptist even), and he gave away much of the money he made in life, but what has this example to do with the question, "Is Jesus a socialist?" We can find examples of capitalists that were kind, and capitalists that were horrible people. The work that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are doing with The Giving Pledge is absolutely commendable (they've actually given away billions, not millions), but from a Biblical perspective, they are doing no more than what is required of them, for none of our possessions belong to us, we but hold them in trust for our Maker, the same requirement to be generous applies to those living in poverty, for whom the sharing of what they possess comes at a greater cost.
To get an accurate answer to our question, we need to define socialism.
Socialism is the concentration of power into the hands of government elites to achieve the following purposes: central planning of the economy and the radical redistribution of wealth.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole...The definition in the video is close to the dictionary definition, it just adds the charged words 'elites' and 'radical'. Why do this? If you can make a strong moral case against socialism, why not simply do so?
Jesus never called for any of that.
Nowhere in the New Testament does he advocate for the government to punish the rich – or even to use tax money to help the poor. Nor does he promote the ideas of state ownership of businesses or central planning of the economy.
PragerU used this line of argument in its video about Social Justice. Claiming that because the words "social justice" weren't in the Bible that the idea must not be there either. This is similar. Of course Jesus didn't advocate for specific governmental policies in 1st century Judea. Judea was a Roman province (becoming one in 6 AD), it was being ruled by a combination of local collaborators (the Sanhedrin), client kings (the Herod family), and Roman governors. Jesus didn't advocate working with (or rebelling against) any of these levels of government. He wasn't an economic savior, he wasn't a political savior, he was the Messiah, the Son of God here to save humanity from spiritual death. Were you expecting Jesus to lay out policy papers like a presidential candidate? If you recall, Jesus made it quite clear that "my kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)
The policies that PragerU is denouncing (by pointing out that Jesus didn't advocate for them) are not a complete list. Jesus didn't advocate for ANY specific economic policies, thus making this entire point moot. One could just as easily say, "Jesus didn't advocate for capital gains tax reductions." Or, "Jesus didn't promote itemized tax deductions". That sentence carries no weight, as both an argument from silence, and an a-historical bit of nonsense given that capital gains taxes or itemized tax deductions were far in the future when the Gospels were written. If your chosen weapon is: 'What the Bible DOESN'T say', be careful, that sword cuts both ways. The Bible does not have to specifically mention an idea or concept by name in order for the principles upon which it stands (i.e. the character of God) to be applied to a modern question.
In Luke 12, Jesus is confronted by a man who wants him to redistribute wealth. "Master," the man says to Jesus, "tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replies, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?" and then he rebukes the man for being envious of his sibling.
The use of specific Biblical texts is where PragerU's video goes from misguided (by not simply dismissing the idea that Jesus supported or condemned any specific modern economic idea out of hand) to dangerous. The Church cannot allow itself to take Scripture, stuff it into predetermined boxes, and pretend we're honoring God's Word. Because this is the Word OF GOD, such behavior is both arrogant and rebellious. That it happens to the best of us (myself included), often inadvertently, is why we must take this danger so seriously, but also why we must speak up when others blatantly walk down this dangerous path.
Here is the full text of the example from Luke 12:13-21
13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
14 Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
Is the purpose of this passage to support the capitalist idea of the ownership of goods vs. the socialist idea of shared ownership? Nope, it isn't about economics at all, or even about inheritance laws or customs, but rather about the very real danger of greed. Jesus purposefully refuses to address the specific issue at hand, choosing instead to focus upon the underlying question. Greed is an equal opportunity sin, it affects people in every economic system, whether mercantilist, socialist, or capitalist, and thus a warning about greed applies equally to all. This passage thus has no bearing on the question of which economic system Jesus supported (and the question behind it of which economic system the followers of Jesus today should support).
How about Jesus's Parable of the Talents (talents were a form of money in Jesus's day)? A man entrusted three of his workers with his wealth. The two who invested the money and made a profit were praised and the one who buried his share so he wouldn't lose any of it was reprimanded. Sounds a lot more like an endorsement for capitalism than socialism, doesn't it?
Context matters, as does the whole story of the citation. The way in which this video casually makes reference to Scripture is part of the problem, none of these passages are being examined seriously, all of them are being taken out of context and twisted to fit a pro-capitalist stance (when none of them are about capitalism).
Here's the text in question: Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)
14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
The text before this one, the Parable of the Ten Virgins warns that we must be ready to face the judgement of God, as it will come unexpectedly, leaving those unprepared in the lurch. The text after this one, the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, warns that on the Day of Judgment there will be many who believed themselves to be sheep (i.e. on the way to Heaven) who were in reality goats (i.e. headed the other direction) for one simple reason: They didn't show kindness to 'the least of these'. Now, given those two bookends do you REALLY think that the Parable of the Talents has ANYTHING to do with the wisdom of investing money?? PragerU's sole commentary on this parable: "Sounds a lot more like an endorsement for capitalism than socialism, doesn't it?" NO, no, no it doesn't. It doesn't sound anything like anything to do with capitalism or socialism. It is a warning to be prepared to face God's judgement by making the most of the time we have here on earth. Jesus' words are aimed much HIGHER than an economics debate, he's talking about the fate of men's souls.
This is a brutal example of an interpreter not understanding the parable genre at all. The details of the story in a parable don't have significance in and of themselves {Some Early Church leaders, notably Origen, made this mistake by allegorizing the parables and assigning various meanings to each bit of the story}. That the story happens to be about a shepherd or a fisherman, about a wedding or a vineyard, doesn't actually matter. The story involves everyday occurrences so that the audience can understand and relate. Jesus' parables makes a deep point (and typically a biting one) using ordinary life, often with a twist at the end. The Parable of the Virgins was NOT told to warn people about how to act while waiting for a wedding, and neither was the Parable of the Talents about what to do if given a sum of money to invest. I don't know if the author of this video (it is reported that Dennis Prager personally authorizes the script for each video) has such poor skills at Biblical interpretation that he/she is entirely missing the point of the text, or if the author knows that this isn't the point of the text but chooses to use it anyway hoping nobody will notice. The first is ignorance, the second is unscrupulous, both are false teaching. When watching for the first time, I guffawed at this use of the parable, unfortunately, this isn't the only example of twisted Scripture, more to follow.
Yes, Jesus spoke of the difficulty for a rich man to enter Heaven, but not because having money is evil. It's not money; rather, it is the love of money, the New Testament tells us, that leads to evil. Jesus was warning us not to put acquisition of money and material possessions above our spiritual and moral lives.
Money being one of the most prominent topics in the entire Bible, a full discussion is not going to fit in this space. Two texts are referenced in this paragraph, let's briefly look at both:
The Rich Young Ruler's story is found in all three synoptics (Matthew 19:16–23, Mark 10:17–22, and Luke 18:18–23. The context is different in each Gospel.) In Luke the chapter begins with the Persistent Widow who badgers a Judge until he gives in, then the self-righteous Pharisee is contrasted with the repentant Tax Collector, and finally the Little Children are welcomed by Jesus (after the Rich Young Ruler, the text shifts to a new topic). In this context, the Ruler's question fits nicely into a larger discussion about what it takes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The widow showed persistence, the tax collector demonstrated a humble and repentant heart (the Pharisee a prideful stubborn one), the children an attitude of trust, and then the Rich Young Ruler showed both enthusiasm (he wanted to know about the path to eternal life) and righteousness (taking his claim of having followed the Law at face value, the text doesn't question it).
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”
28 Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”
29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”
The common theme of the difficulty of entering the Kingdom of Heaven (and the type of attitude required: persistent, humble, child-like) is given its conclusion in vs. 24-27 as the disciples are shocked that the Rich Young Ruler FAILED to 'enter the Kingdom of God' Jesus hits them with two bombshells: (1) "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God." The PragerU video mentions this warning, but then passes it off by as simply a 'difficulty', followed by 'not because having money is evil." This conclusion not only downplays the warning of Jesus, as if riches are merely a small handicap and not a HUGE problem (the metaphor Jesus uses proves how serious he is), it also neglects the 2nd point (2) "What is impossible with man is possible with God." Entering the Kingdom of Heaven is impossible for all of us. The answer is God's grace for everyone who believes. The issue of the Rich Young Ruler's money is secondary to the universal need for grace, but the text is highlighting it as an ADDED hurdle, not downplaying it.
The second text referenced is 1 Timothy 6:10, its context also paints a more damning picture than the one portrayed in PragerU's video:
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Dennis Prager, and PragerU are heavily pro-capitalism, specifically free-market, limited government capitalism. As such, they have chosen in this video to relegate the Bible's warnings about Greed with these words, "Jesus was warning us not to put acquisition of money and material possessions above our spiritual and moral lives." While true, this description falls far short of the warning contained in God's Word. The 'ruin and destruction' of 1 Timothy 6:9, the abandonment of faith to pursue money portrayed in 1 Timothy 6:10, are not small bumps in the road, they're major warnings.
The literal translation of the Greek in 1 Timothy 6:10 is telling: "For the love of money is a root of all the evils". Because this construction doesn't work well in English, our translations soften the impact somewhat. The context does not. We cannot afford to undersell the danger of the Love of Money.
Materialism is one of the biggest threats to the Church in America. The pursuit of worldly goods has destroyed the faith of many, and left millions of others with a weak testimony more centered on what God can do for us and what we can do for God. The Prosperity Gospel is a consistent and existential threat to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jesus (and Paul in 1 Timothy) were not simply warning us of the danger of putting the Love of Money ABOVE spiritual and moral things, they were warning us of the danger of the Love of Money, period. Don't sugarcoat God's Word, we don't need a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, we need to full truth.
Was Jesus promoting a socialist model when he kicked the "moneychangers" out of the Temple in Jerusalem? Again, the answer is no. Note the location where the incident occurred: it was in the holiest of places – God's house. Jesus was not angry at buying and selling in and of themselves; he was angry that these things happened in a house of prayer. He never drove a "moneychanger" from a marketplace or from a bank.
This example doesn't help the argument as much as they think it does. For once, the Scripture is cited properly, Jesus was indeed upset that the buying and selling of goods for use at the Temple (and the changing of foreign money so the Temple tax could be paid) was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, rather than at a marketplace (convenience for the majority of the people outweighing the need for the small number of Gentile converts to have a place to worship; Gentiles were not allowed any closer to the temple than this outer court). This text is about a form of racism, treating the Gentile believers as 2nd class, not worthy of their own worship space. It doesn't really impact the question of capitalism vs. socialism at all. The Bible warns about greed and condemns the wealthy who abuse the poor in dozens of places throughout the Scriptures, the Word of God is consistent in its stance about money.
Jesus advises us to be of "generous spirit" – to show kindness, to assist the widow and the orphan. But he clearly means this to be our responsibility, not the government's.
No text is offered for this HUGE conclusion, it is simply given. The Law of Moses required that the people of Israel take concrete steps to help the widow, orphans, or foreigner. The Law of Moses WAS the government of Israel. To say that God wants all charity and poverty relief to be done by individuals and that God opposes the government being involved is ridiculous. Why did God require that the Israelites leave behind part of the harvest for poor gleaners? (See: Ruth) Why did God require that the Israelites forgive debts, release slaves, and return land to its original owners every 50 years during the Year of Jubilee? God's Word does NOT declare that charity is for individuals only. The Word of God actually commands BOTH individuals, AND governments to help those in need. That Jesus didn't specifically call for actions on the part of the Roman Empire does not in any way negate what the Law of Moses required. The Law of Moses was given by God, it reflects the character of God. While America is NOT Israel, we cannot interpret the New Testament in a way that invalidates the Hebrew Scriptures. As someone who has written a commentary on the Torah, Dennis Prager should know better than the nonsense of, "he clearly means this to be our responsibility, not the government's." Jesus didn't say any such thing, the Law of Moses says the opposite.
Consider Jesus's Good Samaritan story. A traveler comes upon a man at the side of a road. The man had been beaten and robbed and left half-dead. What did the traveler, the Good Samaritan, do? He helps the unfortunate man on the spot, with his own resources.
Ask yourself: To help the poor, would Jesus prefer that you give your money freely to the Salvation Army, for example, or have it taxed by politicians to fund a welfare bureaucracy?
This example just infuriated me. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is NOT about charity vs. government programs, at all, not even a little bit, not remotely.
Here is what the text actually says (Luke 10:25-37),
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Jesus tells this parable to condemn the self-righteous religious people who didn't think they owed any obligation those they chose not to define as neighbors. It is a powerful warning about the blindness of class, caste, and racism, while at the same time a powerful story about helping those in need. Where in the story does Jesus condemn the welfare state? Are you kidding me with this absurd twisting of God's Word for political purposes?? FYI, in Jesus day there was neither a Salvation Army to donate to, nor a welfare bureaucracy to pay taxes to, so he obviously didn't say which he preferred. To use the Parable of the Good Samaritan, one of the Bible's most powerful stories that has melted hard hearts through the millennia as an antigovernmental rant is crass and unworthy of any serious discussion of God's Word...If I was in a Church, listening to a preacher talk about this parable, and he/she used it in this way, I would stand up in the middle of the service, turn my back on that preacher, and walk out.
Progressives like to point out that Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." But that has absolutely nothing to do with high taxes or wealth redistribution. It was the seed for the idea of separating church and state. It certainly wasn't the same as saying that whatever Caesar says is his must then be so, no matter how much he demands or what he intends to use it for.
Jesus was indeed not speaking about the validity of Caesar's taxes when he said to pay them. Jesus did not say anything about high taxes or wealth redistribution. Once again, the "Jesus didn't say" argument holds little water. Jesus also did not endorse low taxes or deregulation. Correctly pointing out that Jesus' words don't support one form of taxation, does not excuse using those same words to pretend that Jesus endorsed a different form...Actually, the idea of obeying the government historically hasn't been a Progressive idea at all, but a Conservative one. When Martin Luther rebelled against the Papacy he inspired the peasants of Central Europe to follow suit and rebel against their feudal lords. Horrified, Luther supported the brutal crushing of the revolt (FYI, the peasants had far greater grievances than the American Revolutionaries).
So, there is no evidence that Jesus was a socialist. And there is lots of evidence that he supported free markets.
Nope. There is not evidence that Jesus was a socialist, there is no evidence that he supported free markets. Both ideas were foreign to the Ancient Near East, both went beyond anything that occurred in Israel (although as I've said, the Year of Jubilee was far closer to a socialist idea than a free market one). The 'lots of evidence', as the above commentary has indicated, are examples of the Scriptures taken out of context, twisted and warped, and abused. That's not actual evidence.
In addition to the Parable of the Talents, Jesus offers his Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. In it, a landowner hires some laborers to pick grapes. Near the end of the day, he realizes he needs more workers to get the job done.
To recruit them, he agrees to pay a full day's wage for just one hour of work. When one of the laborers who had worked an entire day complains, the landowner answers, "I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?" That's a testament to the principles of supply and demand, of private property, and of voluntary contracts, not socialism.
Please make it stop. This is brutal, the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard is NOT about supply and demand, not about private property, not about contracts or wages, at all. Not a little bit. It is a PARABLE about the grace of God {a topic that never seems to come up in PragerU videos. They're HEAVY on Law, grace is nowhere to be found}.
Here's the parable, Matthew 20:1-16
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
What is the point of this story? That the self-righteous had better shut up about what they deserve and see that everything that we receive from God is an act of grace. Additionally, the story offers hope to the 'thief on the cross' types who turn to God at the 'last hour' of their lives. In many ways this parable parallels the parable of the Prodigal Son, where the hard working son who stayed behind is envious of his father's generosity toward the son who left and squandered the inheritance. This parable is not about economics, to use it to try to bolster economic claims is once again ridiculous.
Why does this bother me so much? If Christians swallow this form of shallow (politically motivated) eisegesis without caring about the context, original intent, or purpose of Scripture, there will be no ANCHOR to keep the Church from believing any idea. A proper historical/grammatical interpretation of Scripture is absolutely crucial. If Scripture can mean anything to anyone, it means nothing to no one. The very socialist interpretation of Scripture that PragerU thinks that it is destroying is actually ENABLED by this form of argumentation. A socialist reading of Jesus is equally as valid as a capitalist reading of Jesus. They're equally valid as BOTH are false (i.e. 100% invalid). BOTH employ a-historical eisegesis, both abuse God's Word for our own purposes.
Jesus never endorsed the forced redistribution of wealth. That idea is rooted in envy, something that he, and the Tenth of the Ten Commandments, railed against. Most importantly, Jesus cared about helping the less fortunate. He never would have approved anything that undermines wealth creation. And the only thing that has ever created wealth and lifted masses of people out of poverty is free market capitalism. Read the New Testament. The plain meaning of the text is loud and clear: Jesus was not a socialist.
That the conclusion calls for the 'plain meaning of the text' is a frightening amount of hubris. The plain meaning has been missing from each and every example. No 1st century audience would understand any of PragerU's free market capitalism tinted interpretation of Scripture.
Jesus didn't endorse the forced distribution of wealth, Jesus didn't speak against it either. {The Year of Jubilee is a government enforced redistribution of wealth. These videos ignore that part of the Bible} That the redistribution of wealth CAN be caused by envy does not mean that it MUST be. It can also be caused by pity, love, justice, hope...Perhaps free market capitalism is the only wealth creator, perhaps it is the best way to help the poor (even with its inequities). That's an economic argument and a history argument. It is NOT a Biblical argument as the Bible takes neither a socialist nor a capitalist stance. Why? Neither concept existed in the 1st century (when the last book of the Bible was written).
I will always encourage people to read the Bible, the whole Bible. In its own context. Using tools that allow for an interpretation that will be consistent over time, and respecting both the author and the original audience. This is how the Bible deserves to be treated, it is how we show respect to God.
If you like the politics of PragerU, by all means enjoy their non-Bible themed videos. But the way in which they twist God's Word is unacceptable. So, if you value the Word of God, this type of argumentation cannot be normalized. Jesus is not a tool for my use, he is Lord. Jesus is not a club with which to win political debates, he is King of Kings. In preparing to respond to this video (and the one on social justice), I could find NO prominent Evangelical commentary refuting these absurd abuses of Scripture. My hope is that the likes of James White or John MacArthur are simply too busy or haven't noticed them, my fear is that too many prominent Evangelicals have decided that politics are too important to be bothered whether or not their allies are using the Bible honestly or accurately. I hope that isn't true.
He couldn't be. He loved people, not the state.
One more time for the folks at home. This conclusion isn't warranted from the texts cited. Jesus didn't love Rome, just as Daniel didn't love Babylon, but Jesus also didn't advocate rebellion against it. The Bible doesn't treat government like a cancer, the Bible doesn't elevate the individual above society. Remember, Israel had a government, Israel had laws, and Israel had taxes. If these things were intrinsically evil, God would not have mandated them for his people.
I'm Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, for Prager University.
I mentioned before the personal religious beliefs of Dennis Prager. When sticking to politics, these would not be strictly relevant for most of the topics that PragerU discusses. However, because they have decided to use the Bible as a tool, and have chosen to declare (wrongly) that the Bible is on their side and condemns their opponents, Prager's personal beliefs become worth examination. It does not benefit Christians (or the Church) to take theological advice from someone who does not believe in salvation by grace through faith. That is the heart of the Gospel, belief in Jesus' atonement to save us from our sins. The Gospel is not about making 'good people' or a 'better world'. That goal is far too low for the Lamb of God. The Gospel is about bringing everything on earth, everything in creation, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father.
In America, it is fitting and proper for Christians to make common cause with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. or atheists for the common good. It is not fitting and proper for Christians to accept their interpretation of God's Word, especially when that view ignores the 'plain meaning' of the text, and doubly when that view twists the Word of God into something that it is not.
James, like John and Paul, warns of the danger of "friendship with the world". The question, of course, is what does this mean? Instead of reading into the text our own beliefs about the subject (which would be the error of interpretation called eisegesis), we need to allow the text to speak for itself, seeking out the original meaning of the author and the original understanding of the audience/reader (the correct mode of interpretation, exegesis). Therefore, any definition of "the world" which relies upon modern concepts like an anti-technology explanation or one concerning democracy or capitalism, is certainly an anachronism that would have been unintelligible to both James and his readers. This same concept is important in all areas of Biblical interpretation. In order to honor God's word and show it respect, we need to seek the plain meaning of the text first. Once we have ascertained what the text meant then, we can seek to understand how we ought to apply the text now.
So, what is "the world"? In the context of James, the world is everything which is opposed to God, all that carry someone away from God. James gives plenty of example of the types of behavior that we need to avoid, beginning in chapter two, and when we combine that contextual understanding with an overall sense of what Scripture as a whole requires of us, it becomes clear that "loving the world" equals disobedience to the commands of God.
We, as followers of Jesus Christ, cannot afford to be dual-minded, we cannot serve to masters, the choice before us is simple: Love God or love the world.
Those of you who have listened to my sermons know I'm not one for alliteration (starting each point with the same letter), but that title just slipped out. Preaching is certainly a privilege, being able to stand before God's people and proclaim what his Word is telling them is a rare honor. At the same time, preaching is a path full of potential perils (yikes, 4 more "p" words, I can't stop it now!) There are numerous errors that a preacher can make, lots of mistakes that can creep in, some mostly harmless and some downright frightening. I recently re-read one of my college texts, D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies. Carson's book explains a whole host of fallacies (errors) that can be made when interpreting Scripture, among them: word-study, grammatical, logical, presuppositional and historical. The book is excellent, full of helpful reminders, but certainly a challenge to anyone not familiar with English grammar (as a former English teacher, I would say that would be 90% of Americans or more) and those who don't have a minimal knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
So, what is the person in the pew to do, how can they know that their minister is "rightly diving the word of truth"? (II Timothy 2:15, the AWANA key verse) At the heart of Carson's warnings is the notion that we need to let the Bible speak to us instead of seeking to find in the Bible that which we already think. One of the best ways for a preacher to keep the Word speaking through him instead of the other way around is to honor and respect the context of Scripture. Each and every message brought by a preacher of God's Word needs to be faithful to the text it was taken from, and it needs to be faithful to the message of the Bible as a whole. We have all seen the damage that can be done when politicians take the words of their opponent out of context, far be it from us to do the same damage with God's Word by not properly representing what the original intent of the Scripture was to it's first audience. When we understand what God's Word meant then (or at least have a reasonable inference about what it meant), we can begin to understand what God's Word means for us now.
To help keep myself from error is one of the reasons why I choose to preach through passages of Scripture rather than topically. If I wanted to preach a message about poverty (for example), I would have huge chunks of the Bible to choose from, but isn't the act of choosing itself going to influence my eventual conclusions, won't I be tempted to ignore the passages or verses that aren't on point in favor of ones that seem to be (especially out of context)? Instead, if I let the Scripture speak by working my way through the entire Sermon on the Mount (for example), I will have to explain everything that Jesus said and not just the things that fit the message I wanted to bring. Along those same lines, I don't typically write my sermon introduction until I'm finished with the message for the simple reason that I usually don't know exactly what I'm going to be saying about the next passage of Scripture until I actually write it.
I know that a lot of preachers out there always preach topically, citing verse after verse to support their point that are often scattered throughout Scripture; it isn't for me. The next time you listen to that type of message, jot down each of the references, look up the passages, and see if the verses were used properly based upon their context or not. There are plenty of Exegetical Fallacies that a preacher can make, that's one I'd rather avoid.
"I can do everything", it seems like such an awesome promise from God in Philippians 4:13, the kind of thing I could grab hold of for just about anything in life; it seems to imply also that "there isn't anything I can't do". As anyone who has lived for a while as a Christian knows, there are plenty of things we can't do. So, what do the words of Paul here mean, and why isn't this the all encompassing promise that it seems to be at first glance?
The passage of Philippians, from verses 10-19 of chapter 4, are a great example of the need to interpret Scripture contextually, that is, within its proper context. It may be that taking a phrase or verse all by itself will be harmless, but such a cookie cutter approach to Scripture has great potential for harm. As such, we must also strive to see the whole thought of the author, whether that is one sentence, one paragraph, or even a chapter or more of Scripture. When we put Scripture within its proper context, looking at what proceeds it and what follows it, we allow the Word of God to speak to us. There is always a danger that we will look to Scripture for what we want to hear, with blinders on to all else, allowing Scripture to speak to us is a safeguard against that error.
In the case of Philippians 4:13, Paul is talking about his ability to continue the ministry of the Gospel whether his needs are met or not. Paul had to endure times of scarcity, as well as times of plenty, while doing the work of the Lord, but through it all he learned the secret of contentment: God's power. The "everything" in question, when seen in context, is a reference to Paul's ability to be content, to continue God's work, even when times are tough. God's power thus is utilized by Paul to do God's work, and Paul was firmly convinced through his own experience that such power would never run dry.
The next time you see a Biblical quote out of context, take the time to read the entire passage, and then you will know whether or not the person utilizing that piece of Scripture is doing so as it was intended. As Christians, God's Word is our guide, our direction in this life, we owe it to ourselves and to God to listen to all of it.
To watch the video, click on the link below: Sermon Video
