Today CNN ran a story entitled Passions over 'prosperity gospel': Was Jesus wealthy?
In it, certain Christians who advocate the 'prosperity gospel' (also known as word-faith or health-and-wealth) claim that the traditional view of Jesus being poor are inaccurate. In the article, Rev. C. Thomas Anderson of Mesa Arizona makes the following claims:
"Anderson says Jesus couldn't have been poor because he received lucrative gifts -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- at birth. Jesus had to be wealthy because the Roman soldiers who crucified him gambled for his expensive undergarments. Even Jesus' parents, Mary and Joseph, lived and traveled in style, he says.
"Mary and Joseph took a Cadillac to get to Bethlehem because the finest transportation of their day was a donkey," says Anderson. "Poor people ate their donkey. Only the wealthy used it as transportation."
Anderson, like most 'prosperity gospel' preachers displays a thorough ignorance of Biblical context and historical reality. This is not surprising, as the only way to justify a "health and wealth" approach to the Gospel is to ignore historical and Biblical context...something prosperity preachers excel at. As hard as it is to imagine, such revisionist history makes the Jesus Seminar look like solid scholarship by comparison!
But what of the actual claims? The gifts of the Magi were gifts of wealth!
True...and they would've provided the means by which Joseph, a stone-worker from a tiny village with a wife and newborn baby could've relocated the family to Egypt for a few years while awaiting the death of Herod (Matt.2).
But what of the soldiers gambling for his robe at the foot of the cross?
Since the garment was a single piece, it couldn't be divided without destroying it. So someone had to get it. How do bored soldiers in a backwater province or the Roman Empire decide who gets a peasant's robe? Roll the dice. No need to suppose Jesus was sporting Versace at the crucifixion.
But the donkey they rode on! Only the rich rode donkeys; the poor ate them!
Says who?? Donkeys were common animals then and had not intrinsic wealth status attached to them. The significance of riding a donkey, however, was found precisely in its lowly status. A king riding into a city on a donkey, rather than a majestic steed or warhorse, was a sign of peace. Now the real reason for Jesus choosing that means of locomotion during the Passion week becomes a little clearer...
In the article, another prosperity preacher, Rev. Tom Brown of El Paso, TX, offers another "proof" of Jesus' wealth:
"The proof, he says, is scattered throughout the New Testament. One example: The 12th chapter of the Gospel of John says that Jesus had a treasurer, or a "keeper of the money bag."
"The last time I checked, poor people don't have treasurers to take care their money," says Brown."
They do if they're travelling with a band of 12 followers and living off of the gifts of those with whom they stay. The fact that all the disciples money could be contained in a single money bag held by a single one of them actually argues the exact opposite of Brown's claim!
In the article, Luke Timothy Johnson (an actual NT scholar of the first rank), does good job in showing the foolishness of such claims, as does Bruce Longenecker:
"The only way you can make Jesus into a rich man is by advocating torturous interpretations and by being wholly naive historically..."
Johnson and Longenecker are spot-on. However, the prosperity gospel continues to spread--due in large part to entertaining Christian media personalities on television and radio (often decked out in the finest garments themselves)--throughout conservative Christian circles, particularly among charismatic and Gospel churches.
Jesus warned his followers (and his Apostles repeated these same warnings in almost every one of their letters!) that false teachers would come from within the church who would deny the true message of the Gospel and twist Scripture in order to justify their luxurious lifestyles and ravenous appetites. The 'prosperity gospel' is a perfect example of such and those who continue spreading this doctrinal cancer are not to be envied on the day when God brings all things to light.
Comments
Finally, someone is saying with I've been saying for year: all of this 'name it-claim it' doctrine is a bunch of hog wash! God never said was a sin to be poor; these people have take the work of God and twisted them for their own purposes. I'm just sorry that they lead good people astray with their foolishness.
Las Vegas Civil Rights examiner.
So am I to understand that you are saying there is something called the Prosperity gospel and from that they are claiming that Jesus was rich to justify their luxurious lifestyles as preachers? Am I getting this right? Please email me on my page I am curious..I want to know more.
Yes, Regina. That's correct. Click on the link to "Prosperity Gospel" in my article for more info.
I can understand how interpretive boundaries can be a little skewered by what's understood to be the prosperity gospel, but by doing an exhaustive exegesis of the whole canon of scripture, I think it becomes very clear that prosperity (properly defined) is a part of the "good news," available to all Christians who follow the commandments, principles and qualifications as laid out in the Old and New Testament. The bible speaks explicitly and repeatedly about our wise stewardship over money and material things, how to cause assets to grow biblically and how the righteous are to use money for kingdom purposes. To dismiss this reality of prosperity, as biblically defined and found in multiple areas of the bible, (including what we call the gospel) on the basis of a few points of contention is akin to throwing a baby out with the bath water. What's the alternative to prosperity? Poverty taken to extreme leads to what? A fool's prosperity destroys. What about a wise person's prosperity?
Lance,
Prosperity is seen throughout Scripture as something God blesses SOME people with. However, in the N.T., the focus on material prosperity as a sign of God's favor is noticeably absent (if anything, the opposite is emphasized by Jesus!).
Wealth, like intelligence, beauty or good health, should be received with thanksgiving and used wisely and for the benefit of others above self. Anything beyond that is an unbiblical idea.
I think that Jesus may have started out rich, what with all the gold, frankincense and myrrh the 3 wise men gave him, but if his Jewish parents were anything like MY Jewish parents, then Joseph probably lost the gold on bad stock market investments and Mary burnt all the incense as offerings in hopes of getting Jesus into a good medical school.
"What!?" She might say in her own defense, "Is it a crime for a Jewish mother to want her son to be a doctor?"
:)
James-Michael,
I would encourage anyone to take a careful, exhaustive look at the NT and look at all the scriptures that speak of prosperity, material increase, abundance and determine if the principles and laws that govern the kingdom of God are limited to spiritual blessings or is it all inclusive to cover every area of life. It's so important that we don't place the primary emphasis of our salvation and Christian life on a level that disrespects the most important values in eternal life-salvation, but it's clearly presented that the blessing of God is upon the obedient believer. A person can make the decision to pass on the material benefits of being "in Christ" and that's their decision, and I fully respect that right. But Jesus died to give us life so that our whole spirit, soul and body would be preserved blameless and made whole. The prosperity that I speak of is inclusive of our relationships, vocations, destinies, purposes, and includes material and financial well-being.
Lance,
Tell that to Christians in Darfur.
Material blessings are NEVER promised in this life to the believer. When the Kingdom comes in fullness? Absolutely. Until then, we follow God and use whatever He's given us to the fullest in service to our Lord.
James-Michael,
I would tell that to the believers in Darfur, not to promise them a mansion, or a million dollars, but that God loves them to care for their lives, care for their needs, to give them the prosperity of protection in their lives, of their families, I would tell them that prosperity in the gospel of Jesus Christ promises peace in the midst of chaos, discernment and wisdom on how to negotiate the difficulties they face. I'm not looking for an argument about the matter, simply stating that most believers have boxed God into a certain type of diety that cares very little about our lives in the earth beyond someday in heaven having a better life. Jesus came to provide for every area of our lives in the earth and beyond. Man limits God to one facet of life when Jesus died on the cross for our spirit, soul and body. The key issue, without any doubt, is to be saved from our sins, redeemed from eternal death. But is God too small to care about, provide for all of our needs?
Lance,
If you are merely saying that God promises to provide for our needs in general (though allowing some to go through periods of want for whatever reason He may) then of course that is perfectly Biblical. Jesus said so in the sermon on the mount.
But that is a far cry from the "prosperity gospel" where faith becomes a transaction (believe and God owes you prosperity; if you're not prosperous it's because you don't have enough faith, etc.). Here's what I would say it breaks down to:
Ascetic piety<--------Biblical truth-------->Prosperity Gospel
As in all heresy extremes, truth is in the middle.
James-Michael,
Yes, I think we're in the same ballpark. I believe in a middle of the road understanding. I've been in areas and ministries that preach the "prosperity gospel" but it's defined, taught and lived much differently than the way it has been portrayed and even criticized and condemned by detractors. A lot of times, terms are misprespresented by fringe proponents, or terminology is misunderstood. There are those who teach a prosperity gospel that some of the original teachers of prosperity as a biblical truth never said or taught. The ones I've learned from focused on repentance from sin, salvation, helping the poor, world missions, consecration to God's will, obeying God's word, living holy and pure lives, walking in love with your neighbor, having a godly family and marriage, being men and women of our word, being faithful to God's calling and purpose in our lives. Financial prosperity is a part of the equation of being a godly person and impacted by sound stewardship.
I don't understand your reasoning, Lance. In some of your replies you seem to suggest that different people perceive "prosperity" in different ways, and that God will somehow offer prosperity in different ways to all believers. That I agree with. But then in your last reply, your final statement says that "Financial prosperity is a part of the equation of being a godly person and impacted by sound stewardship." That's a very specific statement about financial prosperity being tied directly to godliness and stewardship. I don't see where the Gospel of the Bible teaches that.
Mark B.
The focus of what I was communicating is that our perspective of what's considered "prosperity" should be filtered through biblical definitions: "to advance, to progress, to move forward..." It seems biblical to move forward, advance, progress in every area of life: spiritually, the development of our souls, our character, the meaning, value, richness and fullness of our relationships, our families, our physcial well being, our contributions to society and financially. I'm concerned that sometimes we as Christians eliminate one of the most present aspects of our lives--financial stewardship and development. Is it acceptable to move forward and experience progress in wise usage of money but never experience the value and benefits of that wisdom. If a person doesn't waste his or her life on rioutous living and saves the money of drugs, alcohol, wasteful spending on unccesessary things, legal entanglements, is that progress to be enjoyed? To me, those seem to allow prosperity.
Are donkeys kosher or traif? I honestly don't know but I'd be interested to know.
Since Hugh Kramer is so knowledgeable about all things Semitic, maybe he could let us know after he's finished getting over himself and his schtick.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!