14 CHOKED WITH RICHES(1) Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience (Luke 8:11-15).
The theocentric principle is this: God owns the world. He delegates to mankind the responsibility of managing the earth. This places each man in the office of steward. Each man will be judged by God regarding his stewardship.
What has economic stewardship got to do with seeds? The parable speaks of a seed-sower -- God -- who distributes the same seeds, but the results are different. The varying fruitfulness of the soils determines the varying results of the sowing. This passage minimizes the effects of the sower. He merely distributes the seeds. The parable focus attention on the varying environments of the seeds, not on the sower's work. What makes the difference in output is the quality of the soils.
Verse 15 provides a clue: "choked with cares and riches." This is a different emphasis from Matthew 13:33, where Jesus spoke of the deceitfulness of riches. This passage deals with the cares of riches, i.e., management responsibilities.
Tangible Wealth and Autonomy Riches are here compared with cares. Why should a Christian desire more cares? The cares of this world and riches overwhelm the man's faith in the word of God. In Matthew 13:22, the comparison is with thorns. This points back to the curse on Adam: "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field" (Gen. 3:18). The thorns are hindrances that thwart a man's work. The work in question in the parable is the work of extending the kingdom of God in history. The common measure of earthly success is wealth, yet wealth is what threatens the gospel-hearer's work. The cares of the world undermine his kingdom efforts. One such care is the amassing and care of riches. Great wealth requires great care to maintain it.
Riches are said to deceive men. What is it about riches that deceives men? Moses identified this self-deception as the sin of autonomy. "And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth" (Deut. 8:17). The author of Proverbs wrote: "The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit" (Prov. 18:11). What is it about great wealth that persuades men that they are autonomous? One aspect is the great range of alternatives open to men with wealth. In fact, wealth is defined by some economists as a large range of alternatives. They say that a person's wealth has increased in direct proportion to the increase beyond his previous range of choices. So, the man of great wealth is tempted to trust in his wealth because it seems to endow him with him a Godlike power of decision-making.
This confidence in tangible wealth is a delusion. The range of choices open to any man is minuscule compared to what God can do for him or to him. God is infinite; He can do whatever He chooses. The rich man is blinded by his wealth because it is his preferred means of comparison with other men, not with God.
Another aspect is the seeming impersonalism of tangible wealth. This form of wealth extends a man's power and influence over others in a seemingly impersonal way. Money is a tool of dominion. Tools appear to be impersonal. They are not, but they appear to be. A tool is usually regarded as impersonal device that extends the personal decisions of its owner. Tangible wealth is seen as existing independently, or only as an extension of the owner. This is a delusion. The market value of a man's tangible wealth does not exist independent of the decisions of other men. Other men impute value to the rich man's capital or to the services that he sells that provide him with his wealth. If their opinions change, he can be reduced to poverty. The familiar example of the buggy whip industry is correct. When the automobile came, the buggy whip business was doomed, except among the Amish.
Men seek to own those forms of wealth that best insulate them from the changing opinions of other men. They accumulate money because money is more constant in value than the opinions of their immediate customers. Money is the most marketable commodity. We are now back to the issue of the wide range of choice. Nevertheless, when an invading army comes, or plague comes, or famine comes, or some other social disaster comes, money is of little or no value. "And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver" (II Kings 6:25). The environment that had made tangible wealth what it was had changed.
To attribute to any aspect of the creation a power associated with God is to move from theonomy to autonomy. Men are tempted to attribute to wealth or political power this kind of autonomy. But most men recognize the inherent danger of political power. It calls forth others who wish to claim such power by whatever means. Power is too personal to be shared easily; it must either be monopolized or surrendered.(2) But tangible wealth can be gained in many ways. Others can become wealthy without threatening the status of the wealthy man.(3) So, wealth is the more common means adopted in the quest for autonomy.
Cares and Responsibility The text speaks of cares. What cares are these? Cares of administration. Wealth creates responsibility. Great wealth creates great responsibilities. This is because ownership is a social function. To own something is to be responsible for its use. We are stewards of God, the cosmic Owner. Not everyone believes this, of course. God nevertheless reminds them of their stewardship by imposing costs on them.
A cost is defined by the economist as the value of the highest-value use foregone. If I use my money to invest in an investment that pays five percent per year, I cannot use it to invest in something that pays four percent. Someone else wants me to let him use my money, and he is willing to pay me four percent. It therefore costs me the forfeited four percent to earn five percent. I surely cannot get nine percent by lending the same capital to both of them. Or maybe I want to buy a new car with the money I can invest at five percent. The car will cost me five percent per year -- permanently. When the car wears out, I still could have been earning that forfeited five percent. I could have had any of the things that this forfeited income would have brought me, plus my money back at the end of the loan period. So, as I drive down the road, it is not costing me just the cost of the gasoline and the depreciation of the car's value. It is also costing me whatever five percent would have bought me for the day's driving. When I junk the car, it will still cost me five percent per year. The car is gone, but that forefeited investment opportunity stays with me.
Whatever we own that commands a market price is the object of continual bidding by potential buyers or renters. The reason why an item has a market price is because people are bidding to gain control over it. Moment by moment, the owner incurs a cost of ownership. He is turning down offer after offer: "Sell it to me!" The owner cannot escape from his decision not to sell.
The owner uses an item in a particular way. He cannot simultaneously use it in another way. All of the buyers or renters who want him to use it in another way are imposing a cost on him. Perhaps he owns some land. He can rent it to a local farmer. He can build a house on it. He can hold it out of production for speculation. Whatever he does with it, this decision costs him the highest-value use foregone.
This system of competitive bidding imposes cares on every owner. The more money that he possesses, the more the possible uses for his money. What should he do with it? What risks must he bear? All the time, the market price reminds him of the existence of the bidding process: the uses foregone, the investments foregone, the profits missed, the losses incurred. The more wealth that a person piles up, the more cares he has. His responsibility is greater because his opportunities are greater.
In the United States, extremely rich people, especially heirs of extremely rich dead people, hire administrators of their wealth. They seek to escape the day-by-day responsibilities of managing their wealth. They do this by delegating management. But this only hides their responsibility. What if they had hired wiser administrators? Wouldn't they be richer?
At some income level, the very rich cease to care about the size of their fortunes. They abandon concern over their money. They think they are too rich to suffer a major change in their lifestyles because of either a reduction or an increase in their wealth. Perhaps they may seek to live more simply. Or they may decide to spend it all in their lifetime. Whatever they decide, they attempt to avoid any responsibility for the care and handling of their wealth. But they do not thereby escape their stewardship function. They merely conceal this from themselves. They are still responsible, despite the delegation of management tasks.
God owns everything. He is in need of nothing. He can therefore delegate administrative control over His assets without suffering losses when the administrators fail. Men cannot. They lose when their administrators lose.(4) God is made no richer when his stewards make a profit, but estate owners are made richer.
Choked by Pleasures The two great motivators in life are pleasure and pain. We have already considered the pain imposed by wealth: cares. Now let us consider the pleasures.
The book of Ecclesiastes is the Bible's great testimony to the vanity of pleasures.
I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity. I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it? I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life. I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards: I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits: I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees: I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me: I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts. So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour. Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun (Eccl. 2:1-11).
The pursuit of pleasure, even when these pleasures are not illicit, cannot satisfy a wise man. This inherently futile quest may take many years before a rich man recognizes this. He may never become wise enough to recognize it. When he does, he cannot regain any of those lost years and lost opportunities. Memories fade, the capacity to enjoy pleasure fades, and the missed opportunities to do a better job of stewardship for God are gone forever. "But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many. All that cometh is vanity. Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity. Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them" (Eccl. 11:8-12:1). Jesus was not announcing a new doctrine of wealth. He was confirming the words of the Preacher, probably Solomon, a wise king who had become unwise about polygamy, a rich king whose wealth did not comfort him.
A man who is choked by pleasures is a man who is trying to swallow too much. He loses his ability to balance his intake. Like a diabetic who cannot stop eating sweets, so is a rich man choking on pleasures. His tangible wealth enables him to pursue many pleasures, to fill his life with what is pleasant. He is addicted to the pursuit of pleasure. He cannot become fruitful for God.
Riches vs. Fruitfulness Riches are a convenient means of assessing a person's economic productivity. Because of the dominion covenant (Gen. 1:26-28), men are inescapably confronted with the results of their own productivity in their task of subduing the earth. They seek to discover agreed-upon success indicators that will reveal their degree of success. In almost every economically developed society, money has been the most familiar success indicator, the one open to the widest audience. Unlike beauty or power or artistic creativity, the possibility of accumulating money is open to a wide range of individuals. In this sense, it is a more impersonal success indicator than beauty or power or fame.
Because so many people acknowledge tangible wealth as the primary measure of personal success, men are lured into pursuing it. Other men impute value to this wealth as the measure of a man's life. It is easy to listen to the crowd and evaluate one's own performance in relation to the economic success of others. Money and goods are a convenient way to keep score. They always have been. "And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold" (Gen. 13:2). The question is: How important is the game?
The active pursuit of wealth is a snare and a delusion, Jesus taught. The crowd is wrong. What constitutes riches is right standing with God. "And when Jesus saw that he [the rich young ruler] 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).(5)
Then what is true fruitfulness? "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law" (Gal. 5:22-23). Money does not buy these or empower these. The deceitfulness of tangible wealth wars against them. Tangible wealth is not inherently opposed to them, but the deceitfulness associated with it does undermine such fruitfulness.
Tangible wealth is quantifiable. The success indicators of spiritual maturity are not quantifiable. The lack of a quantifiable success indicator bothers most men. They want to keep score in life. They seek a numerical indicator. "He who dies with the most toys, wins" proclaims a popular American tee-shirt. Wins what? Not more toys. Not more time to play the game. Posthumous fame as a great game-player, perhaps. But a corpse cannot enjoy fame.
Did Jesus warn men not to use wealth as their success indicator, except perhaps as a lack-of-success indicator? If He taught this, then He broke with the Mosaic law's covenantal principle of inheritance. There is no doubt that wealth was a legitimate success indicator under the Mosaic law. "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" (Deut. 28:8). Wealth was a success indicator even before the Mosaic law. "And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold" (Gen. 13:2). The loss of wealth was seen as a curse under the Old Covenant. "Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes. Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways" (Hag. 1:6-7). Consider your ways, God told them. The disparity between their input (sown much) and their output (bring in little) was a lack-of-success indicator. It was to motivate them to spiritual introspection. There was a relationship between covenantal faithfulness and economic success. Did Jesus deny this relationship? If He did, then the New Covenant represents a sharp discontinuity with the Old Covenant, for the visible sanctions have changed.
The Exchange Rate: Temporal Wealth vs. Eternal Wealth The text does not say that riches lead men astray; their cares and pleasures do. Riches are temporal; so, they focus a rich man's attention on the temporal. The time-bound nature of riches is a snare and a delusion. Jesus kept teaching about the rate of exchange between earthly wealth and eternal wealth. He kept saying that the rate of exchange is low, but men -- especially rich men -- think it is high. Why lay up treasure on earth, Jesus asked, where thieves break in? Is this not foolish? But the rich man cannot see the foolishness. Why? Because he refuses to see that he is as temporal as his wealth. They both dissipate. If he is very rich, he will dissipate more certainly than his wealth. But he turns a blind eye to his own mortality. An old man thinks he has at least five years left to live, and a year later, he does not reduce this to four.
Decreasing Marginal Utility
Economics teaches that as a person accumulates units of a particular asset, each additional unit is worth less to him than the previous unit. This is the law of decreasing marginal utility. It leads to the statement, "enough is enough." So, a rich man should be progressively willing to surrender ownership of a unit of these accumulating temporal assets in order to gain a unit of a uniquely valuable asset that he does not yet possess: eternal wealth.
But there is an unstated assumption behind the law of diminishing marginal utility: a person's tastes do not change. If there is an addictive aspect of the item, then the law of diminishing marginal utility applies differently. The enjoyment produced by each unit declines, as economic theory says it must, but demand nevertheless increases. To get the same thrill as before, the user must consume more of the drug per dose. To avoid painful withdrawal symptoms, the addict must consume more doses per unit of time. More and more units of the drug are demanded by the addict. Jesus' description of the deceitfulness of riches and the inability of most rich men to enter heaven implies that tangible wealth is addictive to most rich men.
If tangible wealth were not addictive, then, in the eyes of a rich man, the exchange rate between earthly wealth and eternal wealth would shift in favor of eternal wealth. As a man accumulates temporal wealth, and as he gets older, he should find the value of each additional unit worth less to him than the previous unit. Eternal wealth would look more appealing to him, even though it is not tangible in this life. He would be willing to exchange some of his earthly wealth for a greater supply of eternal wealth. But this is rarely the case, Jesus taught. This points to tangible wealth as addictive.
Yet the same can be true of the accumulation of eternal wealth. It, too, can become addictive, though not for many people. Still, the idea has had a fascination for Americans. In 1932 and 1933, in the worst economic phase of the Great Depression, a 1929 novel by Rev. Lloyd C. Douglas became a best-seller, Magnificent Obsession. It was made into a popular movie in 1935 and again in 1954.(6) The title hinted at the book's theme: giving away wealth for God's kingdom becomes an obsession. The book promotes a non-ecclesiastical "science of mind" sort of religion. The protagonists do not attend church, nor are they interested in traditional religion. But the story does rest on Jesus' command to give with an open hand, with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Whenever men learn this lifelong discipline of giving, they prosper, the book said. Few men ever learn about this relationship, the book implies. They may want to believe something like this, but they cannot bring themselves to begin the experiment. They find the theory too difficult emotionally to implement systematically, especially rich men. Yet rich men should find it easier to begin the experiment, for if the theory proves unworkable, they will still have plenty of tangible wealth remaining. But Jesus' comment on the widow's gift of two small coins -- all the money she owned (Luke 21:4)(7) -- indicates that the poor, not the rich, are more likely to understand the principle of exchanging temporal wealth for eternal wealth.
Radical Change
There is another explanation for the rich man's resistance: the non-marginal nature of the exchange. Eternal life is not sold for temporal wealth, unit by unit. It is given away as a completed transfer of ownership through special grace: definitive sanctification. Definitive sanctification is the grace-based transfer of the complete moral perfection of Jesus Christ, which is imputed judicially to each redeemed person at the historical moment of his redemption. The believer is then supposed to mature in the faith by progressive sanctification: working out in fear and trembling the salvation that is already his (Phil. 2:12).
Marginal exchange is the meaning of this verse: "But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal" (Matt. 6:20). Laying up treasures is not a one-time event. It is a lifetime process of exchange, unit by unit, good work by good work. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). These exchanges can begin only after legal access to the eternal treasury is transferred to the recipient: justification by grace through faith.
Prior to receiving special, saving grace, a poor man is more likely than a rich man to think, "If this life is all there is, then I will consider eternal life." A rich man thinks, "This life is good for me. I cannot be sure about eternal life. If I must sacrifice part of this life for all of that life, then I shall stick with what I know and have come to depend on." Riches focus a rich man's attention and hope on the temporal, where he is demonstrably successful. He will not readily believe that portions of his temporal wealth can be exchanged for eternal wealth. If he does believe this prior to receiving special grace, he is deceived once again: works religion. He cannot open an account at heaven's treasury on his own signature. Regeneration is the radical change that must precede the exchange process.
The price of such a radical change is lower for a poor man. He is not giving up much. The price of radical change is higher for the rich man. He surrenders much: faith in his would-be autonomy. Radical decisions are rare, which is why they are called radical. Most decisions are made at the margin: surrendering a little of this to get a little of that. So, it is more difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus indicates here that the required change is radical: surrendering faith in this world's ability to offer eternal bliss. A man cannot buy his way into eternal life. So, it is not that the rich man is asked to give up his wealth that alienates him. He is asked only to tithe, just as the poor man is asked. But he is asked to surrender faith in his riches as a gateway to eternity. This is the great stumbling block of the gospel for the rich man: he cannot buy his way in. Salvation's price is too great for him; it can be obtained only as a gift from God. Surrendering faith in the treasures of this world is not quite so great a stumbling block to the poor man, who has little hope of gaining temporal treasures, unless he is poor because of some addictive sin.
The rich man is asked to see his riches as God's gift, which God may remove at any time, just as He removed Job's wealth. Job proclaimed, in the midst of his new-found poverty, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). The rich man is asked to proclaim this testimony in the midst of his treasure. Few ever do.
Successful men generally see their success as well-deserved.(8) They see life's set-backs as deviations from justice. The poor man who comes to grips emotionally with his poverty can look forward to a better world after death. He is told by God that his poverty is part of God's plan for him in this world. His poverty is no longer a curse or an injustice; it is merely an environment -- a predestined environment. He can mentally surrender faith in this world. But the rich man will not readily see his wealth as merely as a God-imposed environment. He sees his wealth as his legitimate reward for his meritorious behavior, or at least his shrewd behavior. He is asked by God to turn loose of his positive, autonomous self-image, which is the product of the deceitfulness of riches. He refuses. His tangible wealth reinforces -- validates -- his positive self-image. The gospel unquestionably removes this validation. He sees his wealth as a kingdom-building tool for his little kingdom. God says that his wealth is a kingdom-building tool for God's kingdom. The rich man sees his wealth as his tool. God says that both he and his wealth are God's tools. For a believer in his own autonomy, this is a bitter pill. It takes God's saving grace for him to swallow it.
Inheritance The issue of tangible wealth is the issue of inheritance.(9) Jesus told a parable of a rich man who dreamed of building new barns. "And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God" (Luke 12:16-21).(10) His dream of new barns was legitimate. Grain must be stored somewhere. Why not in his own barns? What was illegitimate was his thought that these future barns would be his. He did not recognize his own mortality. He did not think about inheritance. He did not ask himself the question: "Whose shall those assets be?"
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth" (Matt. 5:5). Those who are meek before God will inherit.(11) The rich man is deceived into believing that the might of his hand has gotten him his wealth. This was as true under the Mosaic Covenant as under the New Covenant. Jesus warned them that the success indicator of expanding wealth is not a legitimate substitute for being rich toward God.
But how can a person be rich toward God? Through worship. This was Haggai's warning to Israel. They had not built God's house of worship. "Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD. Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house. Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit. And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands" (Hag. 1:8-11).
The open purse will be filled by God. The closed purse will be emptied by God. The open purse is open at the top, where its owner can reach in and pull out money to give or buy at his discretion. The closed purse has a hole in the bottom. Its owner has no discretion as to what happens to the contents. The authority of a covenant-keeper over a full purse is based on his submission to God. This was as true in Haggai's day as in Christ's.
The inheritance that Christ spoke of is the whole earth. What greater accumulation of temporal treasure could there be than the whole earth? It is accumulated over time by His people. How? By their wisdom, faithfulness, and generosity. By their efficiency, too. Honest wealth is the result of serving others, namely, consumers. He who does not waste resources can serve consumers better. Over time, this wealth builds up as His people extend the kingdom of God in history. This is the fulfillment of the dominion covenant.
Christ was warning His followers not to make the same mistake that those of Haggai's generation made: the mistake of the closed purse. We are to be rich toward God. This is the basis of wealth accumulation under the New Covenant, just as it was under the Old. There is no discontinuity. The sanctions are the same. The law is the same. The sin is the same: autonomy.
Conclusion To accumulate temporal treasure is to risk becoming unfruitful for God. God is responsible for the world. He delegates to men the responsibility of allocating their wealth. He then sees how they handle this responsibility. The parable of the soils deals with how men handle this God-given responsibility.
The cares and pleasures of tangible wealth may choke a person. His life will be spent dealing with wealth-allocation decisions or else avoiding them in an vain attempt to avoid responsibility. Everything that commands a price imposes responsibility on its owner. The free market imposes costs on every owner. Bidders are constantly crying out, "Serve me! I'll pay!" The noise of these bids may deafen an owner. It may drive him to spiritual irresponsibility.
To accumulate riches is to accumulate cares. If you prefer to avoid cares, avoid riches. But doesn't the poor man also have cares? Yes. He is at severe risk from unforeseen disasters. He has no financial reserves to deal with these disasters. So, the book of Proverbs recommends 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).
Footnotes:
1. This is modified from Chapter 28 of Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew, electronic edition (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 2000), "The Deceitfulness of Riches."
2. In bureaucracy, power is divided up more finely and made less dependent on anyone's personal attributes. Bureaucratic power can be allocated widely. But it is circumscribed by rules. Bureaucracy is a common man's way to power, if he can pass examinations.
3. If many people become wealthy, this can threaten his status. Some goods are positional goods. They are valuable only because they are in short supply. If mass production makes them widely available, they lose their status-giving power. This is one reason why free market capitalism is hated by members of groups that have attained their social status in a pre-capitalistic economy, where wealth is not widely shared.
4. This also applies to Satan, who is a creature.
5. Chapter 41, below.
6. On Douglas' spectacular writing career, see Chapter 9, above.
7. Chapter 48, below.
8. Where they do not, they may be eaten up with guilt.
9. Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy, electronic edition (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1999); North, Inherit the Earth: Biblical Blueprints for Economics (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987).
10. Chapter 24, below.
11. Chapter 4, above.
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.