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
A little bit of biblical interpretation can be a dangerous thing when placed in the service of an agenda. In this case, the Hebrew Roots Movement in the form of the First Fruits of Zion and their Torah Clubs, want to convince the Church that contrary to Christian orthodox understanding, the root that gentile believers in Jesus Christ have been grafted onto is Israel (the Mosaic Covenant in particular) and not the Abrahamic Covenant (God's redemptive plan for Jews and Gentiles from the beginning).
"What is not debatable is that all, believers already have citizenship in Israel through faith in Messiah. Non-Jews are grafted into Israel. Non-Jews are made part of the commonwealth of Israel." - Boaz Michael, Founder and President of FFOZ
Why does the difference between the promise to Abraham before he became the father of many nations, and the promise to the Israelites at Sinai when God called them to be a people set apart for his purpose, matter so much? The answer is simple: If Christians are grafted onto God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 {"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”}, the basis of that relationship with God, faith, predates both circumcision in the life of Abraham (by decades, see Romans 4:9-12) and the giving of the Law of Moses to Israel by 430 years (see Galatians 3:17). The only way, then, to insist that the New Covenant was designed to require gentile Christians to live like Jews (keeping the Law of Moses, or Torah), is to interpret passages like Romans 11 in a way contrary to not only the context itself (see Romans 4 where the FFOZ view of Romans 11 falls apart), but the tenor and tone of the New Testament in general (see Paul in Galatians, or Hebrews), and the way in which they have been understood throughout Church history.
The change, from viewing the root as the promise to Abraham to that made to his descendants at Sinai, may seem small enough to those who don't see the implications right away. To say that gentiles are grafted into Israel rather than into the faith demonstrated by Abraham, a faith in a promised Messiah rather than trust in a legal code, does in fact change the relationship between the Church and God in fundamental ways. Let us look at Romans 11.
Romans 11:17-24 New International Version
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
Looking at this passage, the first question when pondering the analogy as the FFOZ views it should be: How can Israel be the root that nourishes the plant AND the branch that was cut off for unbelief at the same time? Does the Apostle Paul normally make such sloppy illustrations? No, he does not.
The second question should be: Was Israel (the Mosaic Covenant) the beginning of God's redemptive plan, or a subsequent iteration? Aside from the promise to Eve in Genesis 3:15 (And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”), the first substantial movement toward God's redemption of humanity is the calling of Abraham, by faith, and the establishment of God's covenant with Abraham, one that promises blessings to all nations. This is the root of Romans 11, this is the foundation upon which God built both the Old Covenant at Sinai and the New Covenant established by Jesus. In the New Covenant, Christians join Abraham in sharing in God's promise by faith, they are NOT called to share in Israel's Law, which is a branch that grew out of the Abrahamic faith-based root. It makes no sense to claim that Israel (Mosaic Law/Torah) is the root of the New Covenant when both Galatians and Hebrews go to great lengths to demonstrate the superiority of the New Covenant and its connection not to Moses and Sinai but to Abraham.
So what we have here with the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) is the re-interpretation of a passage to arrive at a pre-determined outcome that twists the original purpose, and traditional view, back on itself to arrive at a nearly opposite conclusion. In our research as a ministerium, we saw this flawed hermeneutic being utilized again and again. The self-proclaimed goal of this movement is to put the yoke of the Mosaic Law upon the necks of gentile Christians, twisting scripture is the methodology used to promote it. This is both unacceptable and exceedingly dangerous, that other Christian and self-proclaimed 'Christian' individuals and groups make similar eisegetical (reading into the text) self-serving interpretations in other places relating to other issues {looking at you, Prosperity Gospel and 'Christian' Nationalism} is no defense for the FFOZ, it simply reminds us that abuse of God's Word is an equal opportunity error.
This is not a harmless Bible study, this is a movement that believes it was chosen by God to reform the Church, turning it into something it never was, and something it was never meant to be. We, as Christians, are the heirs of the promise to Abraham, not the Law of Moses.
The picture at the start of this article is the moment that Pastor James Frank, my mentor and the only pastor that I've ever had {he was at my family's church, Galilee Baptist of Saranac, when I was born, and was still there when I left to enter vocational ministry}, prayed for me while my first church, 1st Baptist of Palo's leadership placed their hands on me in a distinctly Baptist moment of ordination. In the Baptist tradition, ordination is a local church matter, it may be recognized later by an association or regional body, but whether or not a person is worthy of serving the church in a role of ordained pastoral leadership is a collective act of the local church membership. On the other end of the church polity spectrum, you have ordination's that take place under the authority of a bishop with a top-down ecclesiastical structure's approval. In the end, while I firmly believe in the Baptist model of structure and governance, I can readily see that our system has both pros and cons built into it (both reality to the reality of human sinful nature), and so does that of the more tightly knit Christian faith traditions. In our diversity, however, is woven a common thread: accountability.
A Baptist minister is accountable to his/her congregation, they can vote him/her out for reasons both good and bad. Additionally, if a Baptist minister lives in a way that is unworthy of being a pastoral leader, and/or teaches unorthodox and unbiblical doctrine, the church that ordained him/her can revoke that stamp of approval. Similar checks and balances exist in Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, and Orthodox (to name a few) traditions, they just flow more/less from the top-down instead of the Baptist's bottom-up. Either way, we have a system of accountability, something that in theory will adhere to the Apostle Paul's lengthy and detailed requirements to be a deacon or elder. Does the accountability of church authority work all the time? Of course not, human sin has hampered it time and time again, but that accountability does exist, and that matters.
Which brings us to the current controversy here in Venango County revolving around the Torah Clubs (and their parent organization, the First Fruits of Zion). As the Franklin Christian Ministerium's letter (link below) has pointed out, and backed-up with page after page of documentation, the teachings of this movement are clearly and repeatedly NOT apostolic, biblical, or orthodox.
The answer from the local leadership of these organizations to the ministerium's effort could have been, "My God, we had no notion that the ideas we were promoting were so dangerous." Or some such evidence of having heard the call to repentance, of heeding the collective wisdom of this town's pastoral leadership. Instead, thus far, it seems our effort has had little effect. We continue to pray that this will change, but the whole point of the theology of First Fruits of Zion is that orthodoxy, what the Church has taught and lived for the past two thousand years, is gravely wrong. If leaving orthodoxy behind has no stigma, but rather is seen as a sign of God's blessing, how can an appeal to it be effective? If Church History is supposedly one big mistake, why would anyone care that they're following a movement that mocks our ancestors in the faith?
Which is where education, training, experience, and accountability come into the picture.
James 3:1 New International Version
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
As someone who felt the call to ministry, and responded with years of formal training and then sought a position of accountable leadership, this verse has always spoken to me powerfully. What we, the men and women called to lead the Church, have done is take no small risk. By daring to be teachers of the Word of God, we invite the judgement of God upon ourselves should we fail to teach it aright. I typically teach at least 2 1/2 hours of new material each week between my sermon and bible studies, all of it opening myself up to rebuke from God should I lead people astray; that's a weight on my shoulders, one I need to bear with humility and perseverance.
We have a significant shortage of trained and willing clergy in America today. That's no secret, and it affects virtually every denomination, especially as Boomer pastors retire in droves with smaller succeeding generations behind them. As the GPS (Geographic Pastoral Servant) for the NW of the American Baptist Churches of Pennsylvania and Delaware, one of my obligations is to help churches conduct pastoral searches (in the Baptist tradition local churches bear this responsibility, nobody is 'sent' to the church by a higher ecclesiastical authority). Churches, especially small rural ones, are having significant difficulty finding someone willing to serve their congregations. The solutions, while they need to be varied and flexible, must NOT include placing people in positions of leadership who fail to meet the standards Paul set forth of character, experience, and knowledge. In other words, untrained clergy are not the answer to anybody's problem, they would only make it worse.
1 Timothy 1:6-7 New International Version
6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
The danger of teaching theology without church accountability has been made manifest in our midst as a Christian community. When an outside organization, in this case the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) promotes unorthodox beliefs, and presents it as simply a 'bible study', who checks to see if what they are teaching is in fact biblical? I am a firm believer in para-church ministry. I've founded one (Mustard Seed Missions), helped found another (Emmaus Haven), and our church has consistently supported numerous such efforts including Youth for Christ and Child Evangelism Fellowship. But, and this is key, these organizations are built upon orthodox teaching, they've never given us, as a ministerium, pause to have them operating in conjunction with our churches, they've never given us reason to worry about what is being taught.
When it comes to the Torah Club material, I have now read hundreds of pages of it. On the surface, it appears to be a well produced set of materials, kudos to their publishing house, I'd be happy for them if what they were producing wasn't so dangerous. It is possible to read a page or two of this material and get nothing more than what you would find in a typical biblical commentary on the text at hand, the kind of thing that I have on my shelf here in my office. And then there's that one sentence, the one that hints at Modalism, or that other sentence, the one that paraphrases a NT quote by putting Torah in the place of the Greek term for law or commandment leading to a novel interpretation, or that other one, the one that claims that the good works that God prepared in advance for us to do (Ephesians 2:10) is the keeping of Torah! A typical bible study this is not.
For an ordinary lay person, someone who has attended church for years but not undergone any rigorous theological training, the subtle distortions of theology coming from FFOZ in the Torah Club material might go unnoticed. No doubt most of those participating here locally think they're just reading a serious bible study and have no idea that this organization is attempting to recreate the Church into a Torah observant community, that what they're consuming is an indictment of not only their church pastor but the very teaching and preaching of the Gospel as we know it.
There's a reason why God chooses the sheep and shepherd analogy to talk about the church, not because those of us called to serve are any better than the laity, but because we've been given the tools and the authority to fight back against the wolves when they attack the flock.
There's a reason why the Church needs an educated and accountable clergy, what the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to do by confronting the Torah Clubs is exhibit A.
"Who do you think you are! What gives you the right to call this heresy!!" If that thought has been expressed of late the answer is simple. We are the men and women accountable to God for leading his church, and we've taken oaths to protect and defend not only the people of God, but the Gospel that showed them God's redemption in Christ Jesus.
Given the recent insanity of the "Empathy is Sin" movement {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism}, I've looked back a bit into recent history to try to understand the pieces of the pattern that led Pastor John Piper, who is well respected even by those who disagree with him, to put his weight behind the likes of Doug Wilson, Joe Rigney, and James White in this endeavor to pulverize empathy toward abuse victims. Which is where I came across a trend that I was previously unaware of: the use of Potiphar's Wife from Joseph's story in Genesis to insinuate that some (if not most) women (and others) who claim to have been sexually abused, secretly really wanted the sexual activity that was forced upon them.
It turns out this trend is fairly widespread. In a public letter to then SBC President J.D. Greer, Russel Moore, the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC, an SBC entity) wrote, "You and I both heard, in closed door meetings, sexual abuse survivors spoken of in terms of 'Potiphar’s wife' and other spurious biblical analogies. The conversations in these closed door meetings were far worse than anything Southern Baptists knew—or the outside world could report." In some circles, evidently, it is routine behind closed doors to treat the entire MeToo movement, and even the larger Clergy Sex Abuse scandal, as a nefarious plot. It should be little wonder then, if this is how those entrusted to lead portions of the Church are acting privately, that Rachael Denhollander was treated shamefully in public by many of these same people.
The use of Potiphar's Wife to defend those in power accused of sexual misconduct is both despicable, in that someone would use the Word of God for such an immoral purpose, and exegetically a very poor interpretation of the text itself. The balance of power in Joseph's story is the exact opposite of that when adult, males, in positions of power/authority, abuse others. Joseph has no power, he's a slave. The story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife is a cautionary tale on behalf of the powerless in society, not a defense of abusers. This analysis further examines the text: The Real Sin of Potiphar’s Wife:
The story of Potiphar’s wife and Joseph isn’t the story of an ordinary woman falsely accusing a man of assault and not suffering the consequences; it’s the story of a powerful person using her power to exploit someone weaker, and then bearing false witness against them to cause them to suffer even further in the midst of their vulnerability.
But most importantly, it’s the story of the good news that there is no human power so great that it can ultimately thwart the purposes of an all-powerful and all-loving God.
To be clear, it is true that Potiphar's wife made a false allegation. No one denies that false accusations happen but using this story to somehow discredit all women coming forward devalues holy text, turning it into a political bludgeon rather than a liberating truth. Doing so is a political error leading to dangerous eisegesis; the text isn't about the reliability of women, victims, or witnesses. Making that issue central misses the larger point of Joseph's story and the redeeming work of God.
That's not to say we can't apply the story to current events. What we primarily see is a person in power using that position to try to gain sexual access to a subordinate.
The Bible repeatedly speaks to this sort of abuse of power. The structural forces that landed Joseph in prison are largely the same forces that prevent modern assault victims from having a voice. Power oppresses individuals in multiple ways, and one of the most immediate is through enforcing silence. We have no knowledge of Joseph's response because he was likely allowed none.
I am reminded of the classic trope from The Princess Bride, revolving around the word Inconceivable. So it is here with the misuse of the story of Potiphar's wife, it doesn't mean what they think it means.
It isn't surprising that those who would attack victims to defend abusers would also twist the Word of God to that unholy purpose, but it is dangerous. In an attempt at satire, Pastor Doug Wilson in 2017 reimagined Potiphar's wife as a modern-day feminist, eager to destroy men: Potiphar’s Wife, Survivor
Then that fateful afternoon came when he tried to rape me. Yes, I am no longer afraid to use the word rape. If he been a little more patient, if he had groomed me for just another month, I might not have cried out. I had been almost completely absorbed into the rape culture that Joseph truly embodied. I was truly in a vulnerable place, which my therapist has really helped me to finally grasp. I still am in a vulnerable place, in so many ways. My therapist is so kind and gentle . . . not at all like Potiphar. He truly listens to me. He actually believes me when I dare to share my innermost thoughts. I am almost to the point where I can tell him what would really satisfy me.
What is the point of this sexually suggestive nonsense? Pastor Wilson uses the Word of God to suggest that (1) mental health professionals are part of the problem, (2) downplay real dangers from sexual abusers like grooming their victims, and (3) hint without much subtlety at the end that 'women really do want it'. This is, very much, a dark place, and one that fits fairly seamlessly with the more recent call to abandon empathy lest we identify with those claim to have been abused.
Dig further, and you find that Pastor Wilson views marital sex in terms of rape, in fact he believes that this is the God-ordained dynamic, as he wrote the following:
A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence. When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us.
In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed. -Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 86-87. - emphasis mine.
I don't have the proper words for how disgusting this attitude is, and how unbiblical. This is not two halves united as a whole, not a man treating his wife's body as his own for her betterment. Here is a similar response to the above quote from Rachel Held Evans: The Gospel Coalition, sex, and subordination
There is so much about this passage that I, as a woman, find inaccurate, degrading, and harmful that it’s hard to know where to begin. That Wilson blames egaliatarianism for the presence of rape and sexual violence in the world is ludicrous and unsubstantiated. His characterization of sex as an act of conquering and colonization is disturbing, and his notion that women are little more than the passive recipients of this colonization, who simply “accept” penetration, is as ignorant as it is degrading.
In addition, the Apostle Paul flat-out condemns marital sex that is one-sided in a passage full of mutual submission:
1 Corinthians 7:3-5 New International Version
3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Lastly, here is a examination of Wilson's view of marital sex from a fellow Complementarian, who also utilizes 1 Corinthians 7 to demonstrate how dangerous this viewpoint is: Does Doug Wilson endorse marital rape?
Pastor Doug Wilson is a central figure in the charge to abandon empathy (because it is helping the Libs). Even without the theological refutations of that argument, which are many, looking further at the overall worldview of the source is damning.
Mark arranges this two-part episode before and after Jesus' cleansing of the Temple in order to highlight its use as a symbolic representation. The fig tree in the story is 1st century Israel, specifically the Temple and what transpires there. From a distance it appears healthy, busy even, but up close there is no fruit. Like the fig tree, judgement is at hand for the Temple. This contrasts strongly with the Messianic expectations of many, coming only two days after the Triumphal Entry. Given this reversal, that judgement not a Golden Age is on the horizon, Jesus offers a timeless truth, "have faith in God". Faith is necessary for God's people, in good times or bad, and even when this world seems the darkest (like it was about to on Good Friday), hope remains because faith in God can move mountains. The Temple's day of judgment was at hand, but God had already provided a new and better way to approach him, through faith in Jesus Christ.
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.
Marriage being a fundamental building block of human society, questions about the purpose of marriage, and the morality/legality of divorce, touch upon nearly everyone. Given that, the perspective of God, as given by Jesus when asked to interpret the Law of Moses, has immense value. Jesus' answer is rooted in the Genesis account of Creation, as he emphasizes that God's ideal is that two halves would become a whole and remain united. Given that Moses offered a divorce exception, what should our response be as a Church to this issue? (Hint: It involves grace, but you should know that already.)
Some things in life are confusing, including the Word of God. There are passages and episodes in God's Word that, rightly, are head scratchers to us. Sometimes we simply need more study to find the author's intent and the original audience's understanding, sometimes we need to conform our hearts and minds to Christ-likeness, and sometimes we won't find the answers we're looking for (like Job). As long as it spurs us on toward wisdom, confusion is not our enemy, but a reminder of the humility God requires of us. So, why did Jesus do that?
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.
Every once in a while, you see something that reminds you of how far from the Truth Bible-believing, people of good intentions (giving them the benefit of the doubt on both counts) can be. An example of which is the recent video by When We Understand the Text, a popular Youtube ministry of Pastor Gabriel Hughes, whose website states that the scripts of all videos are approved by the elders of the First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City, Kansas. In addition to being incredibly dismissive and tone deaf about racism, the WWUTT team decided to make a video mocking the idea of systemic racism during the fall of 2020, after months of protests around the country (and even around the world) concerning this very subject. They, evidently, wanted to push back against the ongoing American reckoning with racism; hard. It isn't difficult to discern how Pastor Hughes and his church leadership feel about any attempts to rectify the racism that exists in America today after watching this video.
I've been aware of the WWUTT series for several years, and have often been bothered by the lack of actual biblical exegesis in these super short videos, especially since the very premise of the series is to consult the Bible for Truth, this latest one is probably the most egregious example to date.
1. To ask the question, "What does the Bible say about..."any modern topic, is both a waste of time, and a not-very-subtle attempt at dismissal.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Bible doesn't use the words rocket or scientist. Words for things which did not yet exist when a text was written (any text, not just the Bible) will not appear in that text! The Bible also doesn't mention the internet, does that mean the the moral principles contained in the Bible have no bearing on how people use the internet? Of course not, so why bring up this obvious lack of biblical anachronism as your first point if you're not trying to set the tone that the Bible is against whoever is using this 'new fangled' notion called systemic racism?
2. After defining systemic racism, the narrator stunningly concludes that the definition of systemic racism means that everything is racist!
This after the definition that is quoted specifically says that systemic racism is about benefits and disadvantages (thus eliminating anything that doesn't produce one or both of those) designed to help Whites and harm minorities. If you're going to 'win' a one-sided argument, one of the easiest things to do is to create a Straw Man, a fake version of what your opponent believes that you can then tear down, even though your opponent doesn't say or believe what you've pretended (by way of the Straw Man) that they do. This is what WWUTT is doing here, citing a definition of systemic racism and then with no proof simply stating that systemic racism means everything is racist, which of course it does not. This isn't argumentation worthy of a Christian apologist.
3. Follow up the Straw Man with Culture War red meat examples
Rushing past the "systemic racism = everything is racist" false assertion, the video next lists in quick succession four things that are designed to reassure White people that systemic racism isn't real but rather just a silly notion. These include two decisions by private companies to alter their products (Aunt Jemima syrup and Land 'O Lakes butter), the decision of some realtors to stop calling the main bedroom in a house the 'master bedroom' (a reference to Southern slave masters, or aristocratic masters and servants), and finally the mix-up involving Bubba Wallace and the noose found at the NASCAR track. None of these items has anything to do with real systemic racism, with real benefits to white and real harms to minorities, but by lumping these Culture War items in with the discussion, a Red Herring is created. This is, sadly, another form of argumentation not worthy of a Christian apologist. The next screen then shows a woman outraged at the seemingly never ending things that systematic racism will go after next, an appeal to hysteria, not actual real life. At no point in the video, are the actual issues of systemic racism (criminal justice, education, voting, housing, healthcare, etc) even mentioned.
4. "That's what happens when you give up the Gospel"
Wow. So anyone who believes that systemic racism is real has given up the Gospel? Has walked away from the true Church? Once again, no proof of this massive assertion is offered, simply another giant leap from talking about syrup bottles to the abandonment of the Gospel. My apologies to the millions of Black followers of Jesus Christ in this country who know all too painfully that systemic racism is real, you do NOT have to pretend otherwise for the sake of the Gospel; this is a shameful assertion.
5. The claim that the debate over systemic racism doesn't offer any solutions
This is simply laziness. Many different organizations and individuals have called for reform in the education system, the criminal justice system, and for the protection of voting rights, to name three massive issues that are plagued with ongoing racism, and regarding which, a variety of mitigating efforts are available. That there is not an immediate and total solution to a problem doesn't make it any less real. Was the Opioid Crisis in America only real once there were concrete plans offered to curb the devastation it was causing? Is that crisis any less real because those solutions haven't been 100% effective? Of course not, but WWUTT wants to dismiss systemic racism as a 'needless argument' on this basis. {Remember, they chose not to mention the real issues of real systemic racism}
6. The use of 1 Timothy's 6:4-5's warning against needless 'quarrels' is both selective and not exegetically sound.
On what basis is this text applied to this case? Paul was writing to Timothy about internal Church arguments, are we to believe that Paul wanted Timothy to avoid dealing with issues of immorality and evil that infected the Church? Is it not the function of Church leadership to be concerned with Justice and Peace in society? Are these really the things that Paul wanted Timothy to clamp down on? How does the discussion of racism in America in any way fit a definition of a waste of time?? None of these questions are addressed, but 1 Timothy 6:4-5 is offered as a proof text just the same.
7. "Our problem does not have to do with skin, it has to do with sin" makes no sense.
Sin is indeed at the heart of all immorality, this is basic Christian theology. But, that sin manifests itself in a variety of ways. What is the purpose behind trying to separate sin from its particular manifestation if not to minimize that particular type of sin? Would you also say, "Our problem does not have to do with pornography, it has to do with sin" and then go on to say that pornography isn't a real problem?? Racism is a manifestation of sin. It is the way in which sin is made real in the lives of human beings with darkened hearts. This is logic similar to that of Pastor Robert Jeffress, which was equally invalid {Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong}. We, human beings, have a problem with every kind of sin, and wherever that sin shows itself in our lives, and in our society, we must combat it.
8. Acknowledging that the System has faults does NOT eliminate personal responsibility.
I've heard this argument before, and it holds no water. The classic example is the Nazi Final Solution and individual German SS soldiers. Were they not responsible for murder because the system gave them orders to kill? Acknowledging that individual responsibility, would anyone then say, 'Don't blame the Nazi system, its the individuals who are the real culprits'? And yet, the WWUTT video puts forth the argument that if we acknowledge that the System (whether that be Educational, Criminal Justice, Housing, etc) has immoral structures or policies we are somehow removing personal responsibility. This is utter nonsense, and yet another Red Herring. Systems, created by sinful people, will contain within them immorality. It is inevitable because they're created by flawed human beings. Are we to never correct these errors, never to try to mitigate the effect of human sinfulness in society, or should we just ignore them when the system's flaws are related to racism?
I don't understand what Pastor Hughes is hoping to accomplish with this video, but it is flawed from beginning to end, will be used by those who wish to minimize racism, and will send a message to our Black brothers and sisters in Christ that White Christians in America really don't care about the racism they've experienced. Therefore, I categorically reject the message of this video, from beginning to end.
This post has nothing to do with who you should, or should not, vote for. It has nothing to do with whether I like or don't like Mike Pence. It has everything to do with the nature and future of the American Church and its proper relationship to its government. Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, a socialist or a libertarian, this issue is the same: The Church and America are not one in the same. They are not equal partners, they are not co-recipients of the New Covenant. What we owe the Church, as Christians, is NOT the same as what we owe America, as citizens. As Christians, our duty must always first be to our faith, to our calling as disciples of Jesus Christ. If following that calling happens to coincide with our civic duty, we follow our faith, if following that calling conflicts with our civic duty, we follow our faith.
During his RNC speech, Vice President Mike Pence said the following,
My fellow Americans, we are going through a time of testing. But if you look through the fog of these challenging times, you will see, our flag is still there today. That star-spangled banner still waves over the land of the free and the home of the brave. From these hallowed grounds, American patriots in generations gone by did their part to defend freedom. Now, it is our turn.
So let’s run the race marked out for us. Let’s fix our eyes on Old Glory and all she represents. Let’s fix our eyes on this land of heroes and let their courage inspire. And let’s fix our eyes on the author and perfecter of our faith and our freedom and never forget that where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. That means freedom always wins.
The text of Hebrews 12:1-2 and 2 Corinthians 3:17 is below for comparison.
Hebrews 12:1-2 (New International Version) 1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2 Corinthians 3:16-18 (New International Version) 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
So, what's the big deal? Aren't biblical allusions and quotes a good thing? Shakespeare is full of them, nobody's calling out Shakespeare for idolatry. American politicians have long interwoven biblical references into their speeches, famously with Abraham Lincoln's A House Divided Against itself speech. Biblical literacy is definitely a good thing, and great speeches can certainly utilize biblical quotations and allusions, great literature can utilize Christ typology (think Tolkien's Frodo or Rawling's Harry Potter) without stepping anywhere near idolatry or blasphemy. What makes what Mike Pence said different?
Rather than allude to Hebrews 12:1-2, and say something like, "Just as Christians are commanded to fix their eyes upon Jesus, all Americans can look to our Constitution and Bill of Rights to find common ground", Pence replaced Jesus as the object that Americans must affix their eyes upon with Old Glory. One is a perfect example to aspire to (by God's grace), the other is not; it can't be. Instead of using Jesus as the greater example of devotion to encourage the lesser devotion to our nation, the two were made out to be in some way equal. As Christians, we are commanded to have Jesus (God) as the head and goal of our lives, as the standard for holiness and the sole recipient of worship. To put anything else in the place of God, the place of devotion and worship, of inspiration and guidance, is idolatry. Perhaps this is just sloppy speech writing, but the way in which Pastor Robert Jeffress rushed to defend it seems to indicate that the choice was deliberate. If Jesus and Old Glory are interchangeable, if our devotion to them are in the same realm, we are lost as a Church. {Mike Pence faces backlash for replacing 'Jesus' with 'Old Glory' flag reference during RNC speech - Christian News}
Exodus 20:3-4 New International Version 3 “You shall have no other gods before me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
The Early Church was persecuted (sporadically but viciously) by the Roman Empire for (among other things) the refusal of Christians to say, "Caesar is Lord". They believed, rightly, that only God could lay claim to the title of Lord. That while they owed obedience to earthly authorities, they would only give worship to God, and God alone. While some recanted and make sacrifices to Caesar in the face of persecution, for those who refused, their loyalty was undivided, and they paid for it, often with their lives. {Christianity and the Roman Empire By Dr Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe, BBC} From the reign of Constantine onward, Christianity moved from persecuted outside influence, to empire dominating force in the span of a few generations. It became increasing difficult to separate being a good Roman citizen from being a good Christian. This tension, between citizenship on earth and citizenship in heaven was a consistent them throughout the period we generally refer to as Christendom, where kingdoms and empires were ruled, ostensibly, by Christian principles with favor and reward shown to Christian institutions. This marriage, however, of Church and State was not an equal one, nor healthy. As Lord Acton famously put it, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." The power of the State allowed Christians to persecute dissenters, (some heretics, some earnest reformers, many innocent) but in doing so, the purity of the Gospel was corrupted, the appeal of God's Love replaced (or at least obscured) by Law and Justice. The Church's response to heretics is excommunication, the State offered a tempting alternative, execution.
Christian Nationalism, has been, and continues to be, a significant danger to the Church. That nationalism fueled the dueling claims of God's blessing as Europeans slaughtered each other during WWI, and it was co-opted to horrific effect by the Third Reich, leading to the flight of Bonhoeffer, Barth, and others to the Confessing Church, and the eventual martyrdom of Bonhoeffer. The Nazis replaced the head of the German Lutheran Church with a Nazi party functionary, and sent the Gestapo to listen to ministers preach so that they could arrest any who spoke against the government, all while millions of 'good German Christians' cheered at Nazi parades. To invoke the Nazis is no small rhetorical device, and I do so NOT to call Mike Pence a fascist, but simply to illustrate the fallibility of the Church, of how far the Church can fall from its original intent and purpose. This is also the logical end of Nationalism, the merging of Church INTO State, and the bending of the Church to the will of the State. This is the dark side of Christendom. The Church may think that it has the tiger by the tail, but it will always learn that it can't let go. When being a good Christian is defined by what the government demands of its citizens, it is only a matter of time until those demands run contrary to the Word of God. Perhaps the Christian Nationalism that is ascendant in American Evangelicalism today will remain moored to Bible principles, but if it does it will be the first such example {Calvin's Geneva, for example, couldn't maintain the union either, as the city burned a Christian heretic at the stake}, and there is every indication that devotion to God has already been compromised by the needs of power, wealth, and politics. The Word of God says one thing, but the need to win the next election says something else.
A secondary fault of Mike Pence's position is its use of Replacement Theology. To make a long story short, this view sees America (and the British Empire before it, where the view was similarly popular) as the New Israel, the heir to the Abrahamic Covenant's promises, unique and special in the eyes of God. This common error is both an insult to the physical descendants of Abraham (a subtle form of Antisemitism), those to whom the promises were actually given; it also erroneously elevates America to a 'no-fault' position that obscures the real problems we face as a nation (like racism) behind veils like Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism. If America is God's chosen nation, our faults must be minor. This is, at the least, bad theology. Bad theology is not idolatry, but it contributes here to the worldview that gives birth to it.
In the closing allusion, to 2 Corinthians 3:17, the Apostle Paul is speaking of our freedom from Law that we have because of the Grace of God that is in Christ Jesus. Mike Pence swaps that out for American civic freedoms, a pale imitation of the true freedom that we enjoy because Christ has set us free. The accomplishments of America in the realm of political freedom, and they certainly are historic and considerable, are nothing in comparison to the spiritual freedom from sin and death accomplished by Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection. IF we turn from the greater freedom, in an effort to embrace the lesser, we will be great fools. The Church's offers to the world freedom from sin, for all peoples regardless of nationality, the Bill of Rights cannot compete. The last line, "That means freedom always wins." is certainly not what Paul was trying to say, not even remotely. Political freedom won't always win, human oppression will continue to ebb and flow until the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of His kingdom. The only kind of freedom that "always wins" is the freedom purchased by the Blood of the Lamb.
In the "fog of these challenging times" Old Glory is not our guiding light, nor is it our anchor. That may work for an appeal to American citizens, but coming from a professed Christian, using Scripture as a framework, it is heresy, a form of idolatry. Our guide is the Bible, the author and perfecter of our faith is Jesus, ONLY Jesus, the witnesses which inspire us to live righteously are the heroes of the faith from Hebrews chapter 11 and the rest of Church History, whether or not they are American heroes. The freedom that we cling to, that we have placed all of our hope and faith upon, is given to us by Jesus Christ, alone.
My message is not for Mike Pence, he's not an ordained minister, nor has he been chosen by the Church to a position of leadership. My cry is to those in leadership within the Church of Jesus Christ. Christ is our head, Christ is our hope, Christ is above all. This Word of hope has been placed in our care, if we do not make this clear, if we do not reject the siren's call of Nationalism, the blurring together of Christian moral with American civic duty, and the foolishness of replacing the Covenant of Abraham with American Exceptionalism, who will?
Love America for its blessings, appreciate the flag and honor our country's heroes, but don't for a moment place country before God.
