9
REVERSAL OF FORTUNE: BEATITUDES AND WOES And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep (Luke 6:20-25).
Luke's account of the beatitudes ("blessed are") is more economics-oriented than Matthew's account (Matt. 5:1). It is also much shorter. Therefore, a greater percentage of them are economics-oriented.
This passage's prophecies of reversals of fortune are consistent with Mary's account of God's covenantal dealings with Israel. Mary announced that God had in the past reversed the fortunes of hungry people and rich men: "He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away" (Luke 1:53).(1) Jesus here announced that this would happen again. In fact, such reversals are basic to God's covenant sanctions in history.
The reference to the poor is separated from the references to the rich by an account of looming ostracism. Men will hate Jesus' followers, He predicted. His followers will suffer reproach. By committing themselves to Jesus, His disciples will suffer negative sanctions.
Is this ostracism a universal phenomenon, a prophecy for all seasons? Will nations never be discipled? Will the people in power always be opposed to the gospel? If so, then the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) can never be accomplished in history. Does the Bible teach this view of the Great Commission? No.(2) Then are Jesus' words here always applicable? No. Where covenant-breakers are in authority, this kind of persecution can and does exist, but rulers are not always equally self-conscious and consistent in their opposition to Christ's kingdom. This prophecy applied to the period prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Jesus comforted the poor with a promise of better times to come, and He warned the rich of bad times to come. As in the case of the persecutions, the assumption here is that the political hierarchy is run by covenant-breakers. This is why He could say that His followers would be spurned. The powers that be will reject His message, He said. This is because they are evil. Evil men will refuse to accept His message. Jesus said this specifically about them: "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). But, in a society in which biblical righteousness is honored, the promise of a reversal of fortune for rich and poor would not apply. The deciding issue is covenantal faithfulness. Ethically speaking, how did the rich get rich and the poor become poor?
Jesus spoke to oppressed people. Rome's political rule was oppressive, and so was the rule of Israel's religious leaders. Jesus warned, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matt. 23:2-4). The political system rewarded corruption. So, those who were rich faced negative sanctions if they had achieved their success by milking the political system. Jesus assumed that in general this is how they had achieved their success. In His day, the political system that established the terms of trade was oppressive. But the end of the Old Covenant order was at hand. Those who had prospered from it would find themselves in dire straits.
He told His disciples that their persecution would be recompensed in heaven. There is no comparable heavenly reference for the other reversals. Mary's retrospective account of God's dealings had been earthly, not heavenly. We know this because it was Jesus who first taught authoritatively the twin doctrines of heaven and hell. Mary's covenantal affirmation had to do with God's actions in history. Thus, I see no reason to assume that all of the prophesied reversals are exclusively post-historical. Nevertheless, eternity is the model. Results in history will only incompletely reflect the results in eternity.
A Merciful Heart Jesus did not call for a political revolt. He called for charity and good will toward all. "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you" (Luke 6:27-28). This is not the normal response to oppression. This response takes courage: the courage to endure. It also takes a regenerate heart. "For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same" (vv. 32-33).
Then Jesus announced an ethical standard for a nation under bondage to a tyrannical State.(3) "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke [tunic -- undergarment] forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again" (vv. 29-30). His disciples were to give help to those in power who ask. They were also not to prosecute those in power who take.(4) The goal here was peace for the oppressed. The setting was political tyranny. This is not a universal standard of private ownership. If it were, this economic principle would subsidize thieves. It is a command for dealing with people with political power.
Jesus recommended that His followers lend even to their enemies. "And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful" (vv. 34-36).(5) Presumably, these were enemies who have fallen on hard times. This was not a call to subsidize men who will use the borrowed funds to commit evil. It was a call for peace. God is merciful to sinners; so should Jesus' followers be.
These words are among the most difficult for us to accept that Jesus ever uttered. They condemn us. They point to the radical nature of God's love for us, a love that could announce from the cross, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34a). How could anyone be this forgiving? This is beyond our comprehension. We are supposed to imitate Christ, lending even to our enemies. This is not easy. It takes great faith. There is nothing easy about the New Testament's ethical requirements. They are so rigorous that a careful listener who seeks to obey God must cry out for God's grace to enable him to obey. In this sense, the New Covenant is more rigorous than the Old Covenant.
Capital Accumulation The Old Covenant clearly recommended the accumulation of tangible wealth. It recommended lending to foreigners:
For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee (Deut. 15:6).The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways. And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee. And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee. The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them (Deut. 28:8-13).
Jesus said to lend, expecting nothing in return. This raises major questions. Did Jesus abandon the Old Covenant on the issue of tangible wealth accumulation? Was He recommending a life of one-way giving? Was He recommending actions that would impoverish His followers? If He was, then their participation as investors in capitalist production methods is called into question morally. This command would make them wage earners forever. Why would the God of the Old Covenant reverse Himself in the New Covenant on the issue of capital formation by His followers? Or did He?
First, Jesus' recommended lifestyle is not poverty. He recommended wealth accumulation in history. "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again" (Luke 6:38). This language rests on the analogy of a container filled with grain. By shaking it with the grain inside, and by pressing the grain, the container will hold more. The image is that of an overflowing container.(6) We should therefore give bountifully if we want to reap bountifully. Paul echoed the same idea: "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully" (II Cor. 9:6).
Second, God's system of covenantal sanctions in history favors personal generosity. We must accept on faith this standard of righteousness. This takes a great deal of faith, as Jesus knew. Furthermore, this system of economic sanctions is not merely corporate, i.e., applying statistically to members of large groups. It is clearly individual. Jesus told His listeners to be generous with whatever they owned. Helping others, seemingly selflessly, is based on earthly self-interest. Our reward will come from God. Jesus said elsewhere, "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly" (Matt. 6:3-4). Note that the reward is not merely internal; it is public. It is not just feeling good about being generous; it involves obtaining visible wealth, so that we can be generous again.
Charity as Investing
What Jesus said here is at odds with the standard theories of long-term wealth accumulation. Jesus taught that charity is a form of personal investing -- indeed, the most reliable form of investing, for God secures the giver's return in history. Modern free market economists teach that savings -- income over expenditures -- increase the amount of tangible capital available to businesses, and this in turn leads to increased productivity and therefore increased per capita wealth. Capital accumulation through thrift is seen by free market economists as the secret of the ages, the key that unlocks the economic cornucopia. Per capita output increases when there is an increase in per capita investment in a society, assuming that owners are allowed by the civil government to keep most of their profits. Or, in the familiar words, a rising tide raises all ships. Tools and education, not charity, are what raises large numbers of people out of poverty, according to modern economic theory. Charity is seen as individually ameliorative, not socially transformational.
Jesus' recommendation requires faith in the sovereign God of the Bible who intervenes in history to fulfill His promises. God tells us to be generous to the poor. He says that He will see to it that we will be rewarded in history. "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." When we give generously, we will receive generously. This is guaranteed by God. We do not live in an impersonal universe. We live in a God-sustained universe. One way to affirm our faith in such a universe is our willingness to give to the poor.
In the Proverbs, we read a similar message: "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty. The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself" (Prov. 11:24-25). This passage does not say that a generous man will receive charity, should he subsequently fall into poverty. On the contrary, it says that he will be prosperous. This indicates that economic cause and effect system in history is ethical. It implies that if charity were widespread, prosperity would be widespread. Economic growth would then have to become culture-wide. This says nothing about investment per capita. It was written almost three millennia before the Industrial Revolution, which launched the compound economic growth process. Jesus' words must be taken on faith. It is far easier to make a statistical case for high per capita investment as the basis of sustained economic growth than the case for high per capita charitable giving. People save their money more readily than they give it away.
The words of Jesus in this passage seem to be opposed to free market principles of wealth accumulation. How can giving away our wealth enable us to build up our wealth? The answer Jesus gave was this: God sees our commitment to faith in His providential care of us, and He rewards this faith. He sees that we are willing to step out in faith to help the poor in His name, even though this seems to reduce our reserves in case bad things happen to us in the future. When we give away money, we seem to be less prepared for unforeseen bad news, as well as for unforeseen opportunities. But our faith must be in God and His providence. He, not impersonal market forces, is the source of our comfort and success.
John Wesley offered a way to reconcile modern economics and Jesus' command to give. His Sermon 50, The Uses of Money (1743), on Luke 16:9,(7) is divided into three imperatives: gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can. Covenant-keepers are to allocate their funds wisely. Wesley was a great believer in thrift, as were the English Methodists generally in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. But this imperative to save money through the reduction of household expenses was always to be tempered by the command to give generously. Wesley's Methodist movement transformed the tangible wealth of hundreds of thousands of very poor people in England, 1740-1840, and as many in America, 1790-1860. They became middle class. Their increasing moral capital increased their tangible capital.
A Matter of Trust
Covenant-keepers are commanded repeatedly not to trust in riches. They are to trust in God. This is very hard for a rich person to accept. It forces him to transfer his faith in himself to God. A successful man wants to believe that his wisdom and power got him his wealth: "My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth (Deut. 8:17b). Jesus made it plain that the only wealth that is worth having is what men receive from God in terms of His sovereign grace and in obedience to His law. Anything else is a snare, a temptation to believe in ourselves.
There is no doubt that very few Christians have ever personally tested this theory of personal prosperity. Charitable giving must be in addition to the tithe, which goes to the institutional church.(8) Very few Christians tithe. Their charitable giving is stolen from the local church's required portion.
Then there is the question of anonymity. "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly" (Matt. 6:3-4). If such an open hand program of giving really works, how will this information ever get to the general public? How can the practice be investigated by others? Obviously, it cannot be investigated if no one supplies the data. So, the truth of it must be taken on faith.
A popular American novel on this system of concealed giving, Magnificent Obsession (1929), which was twice made into a motion picture (1935, 1954), was written by a theologically heretical Congregationalist pastor, Lloyd C. Douglas. At the time that he wrote it, in 1929, his church's officers were trying to find a way to fire him. He was the pastor of the largest Congregational church in the United States, First Congregational Church of Los Angeles. The book became a best-seller in 1932 and 1933, in the worst phase of the Great Depression. The protagonists in his novel's story of an experiment in secret giving that carefully avoided all publicity about their activities. Anonymity was part of the program. They believed that their giving would enable them to achieve anything in life that they wanted to. It would bring them unquestioned success. This idea has a great deal of appeal, as the book's success indicates, but mainly in theory. The author actually wrote this into the novel. Speaking of a notebook written in code that described the experiment, the book's hero says: "If it were done in a book, it would sell a hundred thousand! People would pronounce it utterly incredible, of course; but they would read it -- and heartily wish it were true."(9) This remarkably mediocre novel sold far more than a hundred thousand copies. More than this: it launched one of the most successful literary careers in modern American history.(10)
People want to believe that they can do well by doing good, but it takes great faith in the existence of a benign providential order. Such faith is lacking in today's Darwinian intellectual world. It was lacking in Jesus' day, too.
Woe to the Rich Jesus' language is hostile to those who own great wealth. There is no way around this. He offered what appears to be a universal condemnation. "But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep" (vv. 24-25). But why is there a condemnation of those who laugh? Is laughter a universal sin? The presence of this peculiar warning should alert us to the non-universal nature of Jesus' condemnation of the rich. As in the case of laughter, it depends on why men are rich, how they attained their wealth, and what they do with it.
A Merciless God: Mammon
What is sinful is the lust for wealth, the addictive pursuit of "more for me in history." Jesus referred to this addiction as mammon.(11) He referred to this addiction as a god that rivals the God of the Bible. It is the idol that represents man's simultaneous quest for power over his environment and autonomy from his environment. Only God possesses this two-fold attribute. Mammon therefore offers the serpent's temptation to Eve: to be as God (Gen. 3:5). The quest for great personal wealth is man's attempt to shield himself from the risks of life. "The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit" (Prov. 18:11).
The quest for more wealth is a substitute for faith in an infinite God. More wealth can never deliver the security offered by God. More wealth can always become less. Men can suffer reversals of fortune. A war, an illness, or a catastrophic accident can upset the plans of any man. Ultimately, death is the guaranteed reversal of fortune for all wealthy men. "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out" (I Tim. 6:7). To pursue more wealth is a fool's quest, for it is ultimately the pursuit of an autonomous immortality: a lie. It ends with the inescapable dead end: ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
The pursuit of more for me in history is addictive. It is comparable to feasting on food that makes me hungry. It cannot satisfy. Yet God in the Mosaic law offered more to His people (Deut. 28:1-14). Increasing tangible wealth was a legitimate reward for obedience. It was a national covenantal blessing. How can we reconcile Jesus' warnings with this aspect of the Old Covenant? This question has baffled commentators for centuries. My attempt to reconcile them may not satisfy anyone. The solution has to do with responsibility, both individual and corporate.
Tangible Wealth and Responsibility
Greater tangible wealth brings greater responsibility, including the crucial responsibility of thankfulness to God. Dominion in history requires increasing knowledge, wealth, and authority. God extends His earthly kingdom through the efforts of His redeemed people.(12) He increases their responsibility over an expanding range of choices. This is what tangible wealth offers: an increase in its owner's range of choices. God grants to covenant-keepers the gifts of competence and success as they learn to obey Him better. Tangible wealth is a tool of dominion. It is to be put at the service of God.
There is never an end in history to men's battle with sin and its comprehensive cultural effects. We always need more grace because we are not removed by God from the cultural battlefield until we die or are incapacitated with Alzheimer's disease. This means that we can always use additional assets. We are told by God to buy back the world -- redeem it -- as His stewards. Jesus' definitive repurchase of the world took place at Calvary. The visible proof of this redemptive purchase was Jesus' bodily resurrection and His bodily ascension, both of which took place in history. Progressively, the redemption of the world is accomplished representatively through the work of covenant-keepers. The final redemption will be at the end of time, when Jesus comes in final judgment.
Grace is a free gift of God. This free gift can include wealth, but it is not limited to wealth. As a person's tangible wealth increases, his opportunities to sin increase. Therefore, the more wealth that we receive, the more spiritual grace we need to deal with it successfully. The Christian's quest for more in history is therefore primarily the quest for more grace to deal with his own sin. Wealth without spiritual grace is a curse. Spiritual grace enables us to deal with wealth as a tool rather than as an idol. When men view their wealth as an extension of their own autonomous efforts (Deut. 8:17), they cut themselves off from spiritual grace. At that point, their wealth becomes their master, a merciless god that will give them no rest, a god that never announces "enough."
The grace of tangible wealth is sometimes removed by God as an act of mercy to a covenant-keeper who suffers from pride. In Paul's life, we see an example of God's deliberate imposition of physical restraints on a covenant-keeper. Paul suffered from a physical affliction. God would not relieve him. His affliction thwarted his pride. "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong" (II Cor. 12:7-10). This was grace, the grace of less. God sometimes announces, "My grace is sufficient for thee." Less is more: less wealth, more grace.
We are to define ourselves in terms of God and His grace. Those who define themselves in terms of any aspect of the creation have placed their self-image into the hands of an idol. When this idol grants less or takes away what a man has, the worshiper suffers greatly. He cannot safely trust in more, yet his personal solution to "not enough" is "more." He cannot rest in the kingdom of "more."
Luxury
Wealth-seeking can also manifest itself in the quest for luxury. Of course, one society's luxury may be another society's poverty. Luxury, like tangible wealth, is always comparative -- governed by time and place. But what is wrong with luxury? Why should hard living be preferable to soft living? For a warrior, soft living is a threat, but for a businessman or other civilian, what is wrong with luxury? The Bible's answer is ethical. The curse of luxury is the risk of autonomy. Moses told the Israelites that luxury in Canaan would lead to their rebellion: "For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant" (Deut. 31:20). Almost a thousand years later, Ezekiel told the king of Tyre: "By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas" (Ezek. 28:5-8). The Book of Proverbs provides a solution: the limited personal goal of middle-class wealth. "Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain" (Prov. 30:7-9).
To trust in anything other than God to provide us with our security, our meaning, and our power is to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Those who trust in anything finite are in rebellion against God. So, those who trust in their wealth are in rebellion against God. Wealth is an almost universal idol. It serves as a surrogate for so many other personal idols, most of which are for sale. Like money, which is the most marketable commodity, tangible wealth is the most widely honored alternate to trusting in God.
Jesus taught that those who trust in their wealth will suffer a reversal of fortune. "And when Jesus saw he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (Luke 18:24-27).(13) The grim model of misplaced trust is the rich man in hell in the parable of Lazarus: "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented" (Luke 16:25).(14) A reversal of fortune may come in history, as Mary said that it had come in the past, but the primary focus of Jesus' warning is eternity. The previous passage, on persecution, is explicit: the reversal of fortune will come in heaven. "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven." Heaven is the focal point for His warnings against wealth.
Conclusion There will be reversals of fortune in eternity. Covenant-breakers will lose whatever goods they possessed in history. Covenant-keepers will inherit the earth on a judicially final basis.(15) At that point, the earth will no longer suffer from the Adamic curses of God.
But what about history? Will the conditions of eternity ever be reflected in history? The answer divides postmillennialists from both amillennialists and premillennialists. The Mosaic covenant indicated that covenant-keeping will produce corporate success (Deut. 28:1-14), while covenant-breaking will produce corporate defeat (Deut. 28:15-68). Did Jesus annul the Mosaic Covenant's corporate historical sanctions? He did not say that He did. Then did He emphasize them? No. Did He assume the Mosaic Covenant's continuing judicial validity for society? Theologians rarely discuss this, but on the whole, they have been hesitant to affirm that Jesus did assume the continuing validity and applicability of the Mosaic Covenant's system of historical sanctions. In contrast, Christian Reconstructionists argue that Jesus did assume covenantal continuity with respect to God's corporate sanctions in history.
The historical reversal of fortune, Jews vs. Christians, came in rapid succession from A.D. 64, the year of the persecution of Christians by Nero, to A.D. 70, the year Jerusalem fell. The persecution of Christians had the effect of judicially separating the Church from Israel.(16) This pleased the Jews. Their pleasure did not last long. In A.D. 66, the Jewish revolt began, and in A.D. 70, it ended with the destruction of the temple. Jesus had prophesied to the Jews, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt. 21:43). The fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple ended the Old Covenant forever. The Mosaic law's sacrificial system ended forever. "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:11-12).
Jesus made it clear that the covenant's two-fold sanctions will be applied individually in eternity. The Mosaic covenant announced that these sanctions will also be applied corporately in history. There is nothing in this section of the Sermon on the Mount that indicates that the historical aspect of the Mosaic sanctions have been annulled. Jesus preached to people who would have known about these sanctions. What His listeners had been waiting for was a reversal of national fortune based on these sanctions: the restoration of greatness to Israel. Even His closest disciples awaited this event. "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Jesus told them to quit concerning themselves with this question. "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (v. 7). The issue was no longer the restoration of Old Covenant Israel's greatness; rather, it was the transfer of this kingdom to the church (Matt. 21:43). "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth (v. 8). Jesus did not deny corporate greatness to His kingdom. He did deny future kingdom status to Old Covenant Israel.
It is only on the assumption that the historical aspects of the economic sanctions have not been annulled that makes it possible to develop a uniquely biblical economic theory. There must always be economic sanctions. The question is: Who imposes them? If only the State and the free market impose them, then economic theory necessarily becomes humanistic, for historical cause and effect in such a world is exclusively immanent. Jesus taught that economic sanctions are imposed in history by God. God visibly rewards men in history for giving away their money to the poor and even to their enemies without hope of repayment. This is surely supernatural causation.
Most Christians find this message difficult to accept. Few Christians tithe, let alone give wealth to their enemies.(17) Christians do not obey these commands. They do not discover God's special blessings that are attached to obedience to these commands. This retards the expansion of Christ's kingdom.
Footnotes:
1. Chapter 1, above.
2. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990); Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997).
3. Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew, electronic edition (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 2000), ch. 9.
4. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: An Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 350.
5. See Chapter 10, below.
6. Hendriksen, Luke, p. 356.
7. "And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations" (Luke 16:9).
8. Gary North, Tithing and the Church (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994).
9. Lloyd C. Douglas, Magnificent Obsession (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1929), p. 182.
10. Three more Douglas novels reached the top ten best-selling titles in the 1930's. Then came the blockbuster: The Robe, a story about the effects of Jesus' robe on a Roman centurion. It sold over six million copies. According to one list of best- sellers, it was #7 in sales in 1942, #1 in 1943, #2 in 1944, and #2 in 1945. These sales came in the years of America's participation in World War II. In 1953, it became the basis of the first Cinemascope movie, and the book reached the #1 spot again. In 1949, The Big Fisherman was #1. In 1949, it was #2. Six of his novels were made into movies -- twice for Magnificent Obsession. He died in 1952.
11. Chapter 38, below.
12. Gentry, Greatness of the Great Commission.
13. Chapter 41, below.
14. Chapter 39, below.
15. Gary North, Inherit the Earth: Biblical Blueprints for Economics (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987).
16. Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 48-51.
17. Chapter 10, below.
If you are interested in receiving Dr. North's FREE monthly e-mail newsletter send an e-mail to:
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out.