What’s the most misused verse of the Bible? The field of candidates is as crowded as the field of GOP presidential aspirants will be next year, but my choice is Matthew 25:40, “As you did to one of the least of these my brothers, you did to me.” Many people use that verse to vindicate everything from giving an alcoholic a dollar to adding to the US budget billions more for what passes as welfare – even though such spending does not help the poor to fare well.
In the 1960s, the Protestant debates concerning welfare essentially pitted theological liberals against evangelicals. In one corner stood the liberal National Council of Churches, which – in a great reversal from church positions of the 19th century—favored fighting poverty through forced redistribution by government. One ditty summarized well the influence of church liberals: “Brown a liberal education, in television grease /And roll in economics, seasoned well with peace; / Garnish with compassion, just a touch will do /And serve in deep humility; your philanthropic stew.”
|
"“In striving for total economic security for all men as the supreme goal, the churches may get something like the desired results through the help of friends, agencies, and the patronage of the state, only to discover that one day they are more in debt to them than to Christ.”" |
In the other corner stood those who saw poverty as not only material but spiritual, and thus argued that church-based anti-poverty programs were likely to be much more effective than those emanating from Washington. The National Association of Evangelicals’ magazine, United Evangelical Action, saw dire consequences if worship of government increased: “In striving for total economic security for all men as the supreme goal, the churches may get something like the desired results through the help of friends, agencies, and the patronage of the state, only to discover that one day they are more in debt to them than to Christ.”
Christianity Today, then the major evangelical news magazine, argued against expanding welfare and for “faith in God [that] puts courage, compassion, and determination into the hearts of men. These are the qualities that conquer poverty and solve other social problems.” Today, though, evangelicals are not united on the need to fight poverty primarily through Christ’s grace rather than Caesar’s gifts. Some quote Jesus’ statement earlier in the chapter 25 of Matthew’s gospel -- “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink…” -- to argue that godly government means expanding welfare.|
" If we use Matthew 25 to baptize the welfare state, even though its result has been two generations that never learned about the importance of work, what do we do with dozens of verses from Proverbs?" |
Liberal use of the Matthew 25 quotation (and many others) raises severe questions of biblical interpretation. To start with: Is the Bible divided against itself? The Old Testament emphasizes not alms but opportunities to glean, and not subsidies for sitting but exhortations to be industrious. If we use Matthew 25 to baptize the welfare state, even though its result has been two generations that never learned about the importance of work, what do we do with dozens of verses from Proverbs? Some example: "Lazy hands make a man poor... Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor.... The sluggard's craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work.”
Second, if we liberally play with Matthew 25, are we placing in opposition the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul? The apostle provided to the Thessalonians and us not a suggestion but a rule: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle… We gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.’ We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat."
Third, the liberal reading of Matthew 25 even pits Jesus against Jesus. He could have turned stones into bread to feed all the hungry people in Israel, but instead he fed only those who came to hear him. And he didn’t feed them that quickly either: In Matthew 15, Jesus fed 4,000 men, along with women and children, only after they were with him, gaining spiritual nourishment, for three days.
One essential part of evangelical understanding is that the Bible, although written by many inspired authors over more than a millennium, has an essential unity. It’s wrong to pit Scripture against Scripture, so when one verse seems out of keeping with many others, we need to look at the whole of the Bible and then reexamine what seems off. So if Matthew 25:40 exhorts us to be compassionate, as it does, we need to understand what biblical compassion means.|
"Helping widows, orphans, the sick, and others who temporarily cannot help themselves, is fine, but anything more than that is an anti-biblical trap into which some evangelicals are falling." |
Here’s what’s clear from studying 80+ biblical verses that explain God’s definition of compassion: It’s connected to repentance and deliverance. Note Nehemiah 9: “When they were oppressed they cried out to you. From heaven you heard them, and in your great compassion you gave them deliverers.” Crying out is essential: as Psalm 103 notes, “the Lord has compassion on those who fear him.” The New Testament tells us repeatedly that Jesus is the bread of life and the living water. We should not spiritualize away real material needs, but we should also not deny Christ by giving needy people only physical sustenance. We should challenge able-bodied, able-minded people to leave poverty, instead of enabling them to remain in poverty.
Helping widows, orphans, the sick, and others who temporarily cannot help themselves, is fine, but anything more than that is an anti-biblical trap into which some evangelicals are falling. Even Christianity Today no longer blows clear trumpet sounds, which is one reason why World magazine (with its doctrine of “biblical objectivity”) and CT are now nose-to-nose for the circulation leadership among evangelicals.Here is how Jesus’ words, in light of his own teaching and the whole counsel of God, could be modernized for application to welfare statists: “I despaired and you gave me stew, when what I truly needed was my birthright. I was an alcoholic and you gave me money that I used to buy another bottle, while you walked away applauding yourself. I lived for immediate gratification and needed the discipline of work and family, but you gave me shelter without responsibility so that I did not have to look back or ahead. Now depart from me into the eternal fire.”
Those who profess Christ need to be careful to avoid the same pit.
Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief of World, which is now the most-read news magazine from an evangelical perspective
