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
This is a serious question, I'm actually curious about what you would answer:
Given that as of today, 10/13/20, there have been at least 214,000 COVID-19 deaths in America, and given that those numbers are expected to be nearly 400,000 by February of 2021 (that is, only 111 days from now): At what point would governmental (local, state, or federal) restrictions (shutdowns, crowd limits, mask mandates) be justified in your mind?
1% of the current US population (331 million) would be over 3 million deaths. Thankfully, we have avoided this nightmare scenario {thanks in part to mitigation efforts, both voluntary and imposed}. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of less than 1%? Is economic hardship justified for less than 1%? Are limitations on the freedom of a country's citizens justifiable for less than 1%?
For comparison: In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected with the Spanish Flu 1918-1920, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population in 1918, those % amount to 1.588 million to 2.681 million Americans with today's larger population)
As of today, we are approaching 1/10th of 1% of America's residents killed by COVID-19 (331,000), and should surpass that number before Christmas. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of 1/10th of 1%?
The final number killed by this pandemic will, Lord willing, remain significantly less than 1%. What then does the Christian worldview offer to guide us regarding our level of concern for harms that may come to a small minority among us?
1. Abraham's conversation with God about Sodom and Gomorrah
Genesis 18:20-32 (NIV)
20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[a] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[b] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”
“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”
He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”
He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”
He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
If there had been 10 righteous people in Sodom (sadly, there were not even 10), the city would have been spared. Without knowing the population of the city at that time, it is impossible to judge how small a minority this would have been, but it seems clear that it was less than 1% (i.e. that the city contained more than 1,000 people). While this example involves divine judgement, not governmental policy, it illuminates a principle that can be applied from the former to the latter.
2. Jesus' parable of the 99 and the 1 sheep.
Luke 15:3-7 (NIV)
3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
The numbers here are helpful, only 1% of the sheep are in danger in Jesus' parable, yet the shepherd leaves the 99 'in open country', not safe in a pen or with another shepherd, in order to rescue the lost 1. Once again, this is a spiritual example involving God's justice and mercy, but it too vindicates concern for the minority, even one as small as 1%.
3. Any is too many when Peter reflects on God's purposes.
2 Peter 3:9 (NIV)
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Governmental officials, not having the wisdom or power of God, have to make hard choices. They sometimes must make choices that will lead to the harm of some in order to protect others. From God's perspective, there are no 'throw away' people. All of humanity is created in the image of God. Every person has a soul, every person is one for whom Christ was willing to die.
Conclusion: From a Christian worldview perspective, whether one is a libertarian or a socialist, a Republican or a Democrat, or any other political view or allegiance, the biblical model remains clear: One is worth sacrificing for, tiny minorities have value in the sight of God.
What precautions should be taken, and who should be encouraging or ordering them is a political question. Christian men and women of good intentions can and do disagree about HOW to put our concern for those in need into action {and not just on this topic}. However, what we don't have the luxury of doing, as Christ followers, is making a cold calculation that 1/10th of 1% of Americans are not WORTH sacrificing for. That this pandemic primarily affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions is irrelevant from a moral point of view. As Christians, we remain beholden to the Law of Love:
Mark 12:28-31 (NIV)
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
In the well known parable, Jesus explains that the 'seed' of God's Word falls upon various 'soils' representing differing human beings. How do they differ? Some are hostile to God, some have other more pressing concerns, and some readily respond. Those who fully respond, the 'good soil' produce 'fruit', that is they work to reproduce in other people what God has done for them. Healthy churches need to make disciples, they need to cultivate open and dedicated hearts (good soil) that encourage service and self-sacrifice.
1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (NIV) 23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
A recent incident in Oil City, PA is indicative of the overall lack of civility and kindness that inhabits the political sphere in this generation. {Judge: Anti-Trump Signs Can Stay Up Through Election Day - by Aly Delp of Explore Venango October 8, 2020} An Oil City man decided to place an anti-Trump sign in his yard. That in and of itself is not uncommon in an election year, both homemade and signs furnished by the campaigns are common, including those against one candidate or the other. What made this sign stand out was the decision to place a vulgarity (the 4 letter one starting with F) in front of Trump's name. This is, a step removed from a sign that might say, for example, 'Dump Trump', or one that said, 'Say no to Joe'. Clever, witty, or sarcastic is one thing, crass, crude, and rude is another. This one sign is hardly an outlier given the current animosity, even rage, that is being expressed by politicians, pundits, partisans, and the people who gravitate toward them. A quick look at Youtube, Facebook, or the letters to the editor (if you're old school like me) will reveal a plethora of variations on this theme: 'They're trying to destroy America!" "If they win, you can forget about your freedom or prosperity!" Political mud flinging always crescendos when an election draws near, that was as true in Ancient Athens as it was during the Roman Republic, or the bitter election between Thomas Jefferson and President John Adams in 1800 {1800 United States presidential election}. In that election, the Federalists claimed that the Democratic-Republicans would ruin the country, and the Democratic-Republicans countered that the Federalists had subverted republican principles (The Alien and Sedition Acts were later partly invalidated by the Supreme Court). Sound familiar? In case you're wondering, neither the Federalists nor the Democratic-Republicans destroyed the country or its system of government.
Where then can we look for wisdom in this chaos? To what standard should Christians hold themselves? The words of the Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth at the start of this post point us in the right direction. As Americans, we have 1st Amendment rights to say far more than is beneficial or constructive. We can, legally, say things that are detrimental and destructive. When we do so, there will indeed be real-world consequences ranging from broken relationships, to divided churches, to civil unrest, to even domestic terrorism. What we can say/do and what we should say/do are NOT the same thing. As Christians, we are called to a higher standard than legality. We are called to seek the good of others, to choose righteousness.
What Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians is self-control. This is not a popular topic, but it is an essential aspect of Christian discipleship. As followers of Jesus Christ, we must choose to limit our own freedom for the sake of others. This perspective affects our personal relationships, our business endeavors, and also our civic and political engagements. Self-control is one of the Fruit of the Spirit. It is not an optional part of being a Christian, but an integral one.
It is past time that we, as Christians, choose to walk away from this toxic environment. The politics of mutual destruction can have neither our participation nor our support, for they are clearly not beneficial, constructive, or seeking the good of others.
Accused by his critics of being an agent of evil, Jesus responds by warning of the danger of 'a house divided'. The warning rings true to this day, whether it be a nation, a denomination, a local church, or a family, the danger of disunity and discord is real. How do we combat it? With the Fruit of the Spirit. By working at building up and holding together, consistently and with great effort, so that we can overcome the efforts of those who would divide and destroy. As Christian Americans, we must ask ourselves a question: Am I a part of the forces that restore, heal, seek justice, and build up, or a part of the forces that tear down and destroy? There is always hope, as long as those who are righteous and filled with the Spirit are willing to continue working for it, unity is possible: for America, for the global church, for our local churches, and for each of our families.
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.
