Answer to Raphael Warnock on Matthew 25: Do We Go to Hell for Not Feeding the Hungry?

Heard the Georgia Senate debate yesterday where Rev Warnock made the following statement:

Raphael Warnock: (35:05)
If you want to know who informs me and my sense of how we engage as people in the economic system you need look no further than Matthew 25, I’m a Matthew 25 Christian, that’s what I am. I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was sick and you visited me. Love your neighbor, and for me that means you don’t get rid of your neighbors healthcare particularly in the middle of a pandemic.

Matthew 25: Do We Go to Hell for Not Feeding the Hungry?

ATTENTION: Major social media outlets are finding ways to block the conservative/evangelical viewpoint. Click here for daily electronic delivery of The Stand’s Daily Digest – the day’s top blogs from AFA.

ED VITAGLIANOEXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENTMORE

If you are in favor of building a wall on America’s southern border, will you go to hell? It seems some within the evangelical community believe that.

There appears to be a growing movement among evangelicals to embrace a leftist interpretation of the Bible when it comes to “progressive” issues like immigration reform. This is clearly the case with a new video, titled “I was a stranger.” It features various Christian women reading Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus speaks of the separation of the sheep and the goats.

The video was produced by World Relief, in partnership with the National Immigration Forum, an organization funded by globalist George Soros. According to the Capital Research Center, World Relief is a “refugee contractor” that is paid taxpayer dollars to re-settle refugees and asylum-seekers inside the U.S. The CRC documents how foundations and other nonprofits often raise money for charitable causes but then use it to “get involved in politics and advocacy, often in ways that donors never intended and would find abhorrent.”

According to the CRC, these groups, including World Relief, discuss issues like immigration and the plight of refugees “in terms of pure altruism, generosity, and welcoming the stranger.” But World Relief and others fail to mention in their fundraising efforts that, “by generously welcoming strangers to our land, [World Relief] can receive bountiful subsidies of tax dollars that underwrite hefty salaries for persons who claim to act only from the most selfless motives.”

As I have already dealt with a biblical approach to the immigration issue here, let me get to the actual issue that led to this blog:

The World Relief video promotes an unbiblical view of salvation as works-based, rather than as based on faith in Jesus Christ.

The clear message of Matthew 25:31-46, according to the video and leftist evangelicals, is that people who do not feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit those who are sick or in prison, and especially welcome immigrants and refugees to America are going to hell. Why? They argue that, because Jesus lives in the suffering people of the world, if you do not care for these people, you’re not caring for Jesus. The result is an eternity in flame-filled torment.

Burn in hell, conservative Christian

If you think I am exaggerating, I’ll let the leftists speak for themselves. Shane Claiborne, a Christian social activist who is co-director of Red Letter Christians, said about this passage: “the goats who did not care for the poor, hungry, homeless, imprisoned are sent off to endure an agony akin to that experienced by the ones that they neglected on this earth…We build up walls to keep immigrants from entering our country…And the more walls and gates and fences we have, the closer we are to hell.”

In a screed against President Donald Trump and those who supported him in the 2016 election, Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, wrote about Matthew 25 and said this: “In this text, Jesus is literally saying to us: How you treat the most vulnerable is how you treat me. He is saying I will know how much you love me by how you respond — or don’t respond to them.”

How should Christians respond to the “vulnerable”? Wallis says we should (1) act to “block and obstruct” the deportation of illegal immigrants; (2) hold accountable all efforts to promote “racial policing” by law enforcement; and (3) resist efforts to restrict immigration from Muslim countries – even from nations that have no way of sifting out jihadists.

Micah Bales, a Bible teacher who was formerly an organizer with the radical Occupy movement, blogged about Matthew 25 on the Red Letter Christian site: “When Jesus judges the world, according to this passage, he won’t care what you think about him.” Instead, all that will matter is how we answer questions like, “Did you care for the stranger?” Turning to the issue of Syrian refugees after Trump was elected, Bales stunningly insisted: “If we turn our backs on the Syrian refugees, we reject as irrelevant the claims of Jesus. We deny the truthfulness of the Bible. We renounce the Christian faith altogether…Let me be clear: You cannot ignore these refugees and be a follower of Jesus in any real sense.”

Charity = heaven?

I’ve seen leftist evangelical tripe before, so I’m not shocked the video exists (or that Claiborne, Wallis, and their ilk blog about it). Instead, I am stunned that some of the women in the “I was a stranger” video are well-known, otherwise conservative evangelicals who should know better. I’m talking about Bible teacher Beth Moore, author Joni Eareckson Tada, and Kay Warren, wife of Saddleback Church pastor and author Rick Warren.

These evangelicals are twisting Matthew 25 and doing nothing less than endangering the very gospel they claim to uphold. Does Beth Moore actually believe that Christians are going to hell if they don’t feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or if they try to limit illegal immigration into America? Does Kay Warren?

Hear me, please: true Christians absolutely will care for suffering people in this world. I believe that is what the Bible teaches. Where we find those in need, loving our neighbor means helping the person in the ditch (Luke 10:30-37). I will even go so far as to insist that our actions toward needy and suffering Christians can indicate whether or not we ourselves are actually in the faith (James 2:14-17; 1 John 3:17).

But Matthew 25 does not link a generalized ethic of charity work to the eternal destiny of those who claim to be Christian.

The Day of Destiny

So what does Matthew 25:31-46 actually teach? Let’s start with the judgment and work backward. We see two groups of people, designated by the symbols of sheep and goats, which hear the declaration of their eternal destinies. The sheep are “the righteous” (vv. 37, 46) and “blessed of My Father” (vs. 34); the goats are called “accursed ones” (vs. 41). Where does each group end up? The sheep “inherit the kingdom” (vs. 34) and are granted “eternal life” (vs. 46); the goats are sent “into the eternal fire” (vs. 41) and “eternal punishment” (vs. 46).

This is obviously serious stuff, so the follow-up question is clearly of eternal importance: What are the criteria for the separation? Upon what bases are some people designated righteous and others accursed?

How did they treat Jesus?

First, the basis for determining the eternal destiny of the sheep and goats is how people treated Jesus Christ. The line of separation is Jesus Himself, and the teaching in Matthew 25 clearly focuses on Him.

Jesus mentions the following categories of general and basic need, although it’s probably not exhaustive:

“I was hungry” (vv. 35, 42) – Did they feed Him?

“I was thirsty” (vv. 35, 42) – Did they give Him a drink?

“I was a stranger” (vv. 35, 43) – Did they invite Him in?

“I was naked” (vv. 36, 43) – Did they clothe Him?

“I was sick” and “in prison” (vv. 36, 43) – Did they visit Him?

Both groups (sheep and goats) are surprised at this standard, although there is no indication that these 2 groups were surprised concerning their eternal destinies. The standard is how they treated Jesus, but both groups question the King in identical fashion: “When did we see You” in need?

When did we see Jesus?

Let’s remember that the answer to this question is of eternal importance – people enter the kingdom of heaven or the torment of hell based on it.

To the righteous – the sheep – Jesus says this: “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me” (vs. 40). People have the opportunity to help Jesus when they help “these brothers of Mine.” If they help, Jesus welcomes them into the kingdom.

To the wicked – the goats – He makes a similar pronouncement, except it is the negative side of the coin. Jesus says, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me” (vs. 45). People refuse to help Jesus when they do not help “one of the least of these.” Because they are unhelpful, they are banished to hell.

Who are these people that need help? Jesus clearly identifies them as “these brothers of Mine, even the least of them.” Leftist evangelicals claim that these people are all needy individuals.

How did you treat Christians?

They are wrong. There is nothing imprecise about Jesus’s words in this passage. These are His disciples – Christians – especially those engaged in doing kingdom work. Earlier in this very same gospel, Jesus was speaking to a large group of people, and he was told His mother and brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak with Him (Matthew 12:46-50). Matthew recounts His response:

“But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, ‘Who is My mother and who are My brothers?’ And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, ‘Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and my sister and mother’” (vv. 48-50).

There it is – “His disciples.” His brothers are those who do “the will of My Father who is in heaven.” His brothers are Christians. The brothers of Jesus are notevery person on the face of the planet – although they are nevertheless precious to God. Every person on earth is made in His image, but not every person is a son or daughter. Those who have repented of their sins and put their trust in Jesus are children of God. The unrepentant are “illegitimate children” (Hebrews 12:8). If they are not children of God by faith, then they are not the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:10-12).

Does this make sense in the context of Matthew 25? Absolutely. There is a consistent message in the New Testament that the way people treat His disciples, as they go about preaching the gospel, reflects how they are actually treating Jesus:

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me” (Luke 10:16; cf. Matthew 10:25, 40; John 13:20).

This explains the surprise of both the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. That people will go to heaven for receiving Jesus Christ would not surprise the sheep; that people would go to hell for rejecting Jesus Christ would not surprise the goats. However, the fact that eternal destiny is determined, in part, by how Christians are treated – that would be surprising.

Remember, there are other parables in which this theme is played out. In Matthew 22:1-14, a king (representing God the Father) invited people to a wedding feast. But the messengers were mistreated and even killed. This was interpreted as an act of intolerable disdain for the one who sent the messengers – the king himself. (See also Matthew 21:33-41.)

In Matthew 25, what does the phrase, “even the least of these,” mean? Simply this: Not everyone who loves and serves Jesus is an apostle. God even cares about the obscure saints. For those who hurt or disregard them when they are in need, those unbelievers are in for a rude awakening on the day of judgment.

The bitter fruit of fear

It is not an exaggeration to say that the leftist misinterpretation of Matthew 25 undermines the gospel message of salvation by faith alone. According to them, if people go to hell for not feeding the poor, then the opposite must also be true – people go to heaven if they do. Even people who are not Christians would be welcomed into heaven based on their good works. On the basis of Matthew 25, I’m not sure how you could avoid this conclusion.

Ask yourself this: How many hungry people must I feed in order to be considered among the sheep? How many must I clothe? How many must I visit in the hospital? In addressing World Relief’s self-serving video – and teachers like Beth Moore who promoted it – how many illegal immigrants must I be in favor of letting into America in order to fulfill charity to “the stranger”?

Does this leftist interpretation of Matthew 25 create fear in your heart or promote a desire to do good to all because of gratefulness for one’s salvation? I think it is clear: Fear is the bitter fruit of a doctrine of salvation by works because there is never any assurance or peace.

I don’t expect a whole lot from evangelicals named Claiborne or Wallis. They are twisting this passage in order to push political agendas, like amnesty for illegal aliens. But well-known Bible teachers like Beth Moore should know better – and they should be ashamed.

—-


Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose – Ep.4 (1/7) – From Cradle to Grave

File:President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan in The East Room Congratulating Milton Friedman Receiving The Presidential Medal of Freedom.jpg

January 21, 2021

President Biden c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse.

The first step is to remove all welfare programs and replace them with the negative income tax program that Milton Friedman first suggested.

Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income.

Here is a transcript of a portion of the “Free to Choose” program called “From Cradle to Grave” (program #4 in the 10 part series):

Transcript:
Friedman: After the 2nd World War, New York City authorities retained rent control supposedly to help their poorer citizens. The intentions were good. This in the Bronx was one result.
By the 50′s the same authorities were taxing their citizens. Including those who lived in the Bronx and other devastated areas beyond the East River to subsidize public housing. Another idea with good intentions yet poor people are paying for this, subsidized apartments for the well-to-do. When government at city or federal level spends our money to help us, strange things happen.
The idea that government had to protect us came to be accepted during the terrible years of the Depression. Capitalism was said to have failed. And politicians were looking for a new approach.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a candidate for the presidency. He was governor of New York State. At the governor’s mansion in Albany, he met repeatedly with friends and colleagues to try to find some way out of the Depression. The problems of the day were to be solved by government action and government spending. The measures that FDR and his associates discussed here derived from a long line of past experience. Some of the roots of these measures go back to Bismark’s Germany at the end of the 19th Century. The first modern state to institute old age pensions and other similar measures on the part of government. In the early 20th Century Great Britain followed suit under Lloyd George and Churchill. It too instituted old age pensions and similar plans.
These precursors of the modern welfare state had little effect on practice in the United States. But they did have a very great effect on the intellectuals on the campus like those who gathered here with FDR. The people who met here had little personal experience of the horrors of the Depression but they were confident that they had the solution. In their long discussions as they sat around this fireplace trying to design programs to meet the problems raised by the worst Depression in the history of the United States, they quite naturally drew upon the ideas that were prevalent at the time. The intellectual climate had become one in which it was taken for granted that government had to play a major role in solving the problems in providing what came later to be called Security from Cradle to Grave.
Roosevelt’s first priority after his election was to deal with massive unemployment. A Public Works program was started. The government financed projects to build highways, bridges and dams. The National Recovery Administration was set up to revitalize industry. Roosevelt wanted to see America move into a new era. The Social Security Act was passed and other measures followed. Unemployment benefits, welfare payments, distribution of surplus food. With these measures, of course, came rules, regulations and red tape as familiar today as they were novel then. The government bureaucracy began to grow and it’s been growing ever since.
This is just a small part of the Social Security empire today. Their headquarters in Baltimore has 16 rooms this size. All these people are dispensing our money with the best possible intentions. But at what cost?
In the 50 years since the Albany meetings, we have given government more and more control over our lives and our income. In New York State alone, these government buildings house 11,000 bureaucrats. Administering government programs that cost New York taxpayers 22 billion dollars. At the federal level, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare alone has a budget larger than any government in the world except only Russia and the United States.
Yet these government measures often do not help the people they are supposed to. Richard Brown’s daughter, Helema, needs constant medical attention. She has a throat defect and has to be connected to a breathing machine so that she’ll survive the nights. It’s expensive treatment and you might expect the family to qualify for a Medicaid grant.
Richard Brown: No, I don’t get it, cause I’m not eligible for it. I make a few dollars too much and the salary that I make I can’t afford to really live and to save anything is out of the question. And I mean, I live, we live from payday to payday. I mean literally from payday to payday.
Friedman: His struggle isn’t made any easier by the fact that Mr. Brown knows that if he gave up his job as an orderly at the Harlem Hospital, he would qualify for a government handout. And he’d be better off financially.
Hospital Worker: Mr. Brown, do me a favor please? There is a section patient.
Friedman: It’s a terrible pressure on him. But he is proud of the work that he does here and he’s strong enough to resist the pressure.
Richard Brown: I’m Mr. Brown. Your fully dilated and I’m here to take you to the delivery. Try not to push, please. We want to have a nice sterile delivery.
Friedman: Mr. Brown has found out the hard way that welfare programs destroy an individual’s independence.
Richard Brown: We’ve considered welfare. We went to see, to apply for welfare but, we were told that we were only eligible for $5.00 a month. And, to receive this $5.00 we would have to cash in our son’s savings bonds. And that’s not even worth it. I don’t believe in something for nothing anyway.
Mrs. Brown: I think a lot of people are capable of working and are willing to work, but it’s just the way it is set up. It, the mother and the children are better off if the husband isn’t working or if the husband isn’t there. And this breaks up so many poor families.
Friedman: One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up. In this public housing project in the Bronx, New York, 3/4′s of the families are now receiving welfare payments.
Well Mr. Brown wanted to keep away from this kind of thing for a very good reason. The people who get on welfare lose their human independence and feeling of dignity. They become subject to the dictates and whims of their welfare supervisor who can tell them whether they can live here or there, whether they may put in a telephone, what they may do with their lives. They are treated like children, not like responsible adults and they are trapped in the system. Maybe a job comes up which looks better than welfare but they are afraid to take it because if they lose it after a few months it maybe six months or nine months before they can get back onto welfare. And as a result, this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle rather than simply a temporary state of affairs.
Things have gone even further elsewhere. This is a huge mistake. A public housing project in Manchester, England.
Well we’re 3,000 miles away from the Bronx here but you’d never know it just by looking around. It looks as if we are at the same place. It’s the same kind of flats, the same kind of massive housing units, decrepit even though they were only built 7 or 8 years ago. Vandalism, graffiti, the same feeling about the place. Of people who don’t have a great deal of drive and energy because somebody else is taking care of their day to day needs because the state has deprived them of an incentive to find jobs to become responsible people to be the real support for themselves and their families.
_______________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733

Related posts:

Washington is lecturing us about eating too much when they are spending addicts!!!!

Washington is lecturing us about eating too much when they are spending addicts!!!! Let’s Fix the Real Obesity Problem in Washington May 11, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Whenever someone proposes that we need more intervention from the federal government, I always go to the Constitution and check Article I, Section VIII. This is because I’m old fashioned and […]

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute:HUD has to go!!!! (includes political cartoon)

You want a suggestion on how to cut the government then start at HUD. I would prefer to eliminate all of it. Here are Dan Mitchell’s thoughts below: Sequestration’s Impact on HUD: Just 358 More Days and Mission Accomplished March 12, 2013 by Dan Mitchell As part of my “Question of the Week” series, I had […]

Coldplay the documentary with pictures and videos (Part 6 )

Coldplay Max Masters – Part 7 of 7 Chris Martin revealed in his interview with Howard Stern that he was rasied an evangelical Christian but he has left the church. I believe that many words that he puts in his songs today are generated from the deep seated Christian beliefs from his childhood that find […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 138 B)

Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients in NYC Published on Mar 18, 2012 by vclubscenedotcom Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients __________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I […]

Are conservatives generous or are liberals?

Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients in NYC Published on Mar 18, 2012 by vclubscenedotcom Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients __________ Liberals like the idea of the welfare state while conservatives suggest charity through private organizations serve the […]

Democrats lied about spending cuts in 1982 and 1990

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict What kind of intervention does Congress need to get it to spend with its spending addiction? Back in 1982 Reagan was promised $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases but the cuts never came. In 1990 Bush was promised 2 for 1 but they […]

Transcript and video of Republican Debate June 13, 2011 New Hampshire (Part 4)

Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.4 Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas gestures as he answers a question as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, left, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, listen during the first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Jim Cole) KING: Welcome […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 1) (Al Green, Famous Arkansan)

  Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so (at 4:04 pm CST on April 7th, 2011, and will continue to do so in the […]

Six great economic crossroads of the 20th and 21st centuries examined by Michael Reagan

I found this article very interesting. The Kennedy-Reagan Truth vs. the Obama Delusion by Jim Denney In his book The New Reagan Revolution, Michael Reagan examined six great economic crossroads of the 20th and 21st centuries. These six critical junctures in the history of the United States serve as economic laboratories to test two contrasting economic […]

Dumas:Lowering Capital Gains Tax Bad Idea

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com This video clip gives 6 reasons why the Capital Gains Tax should be abolished Ernest Dumas in his article “Tax work not wealth,” (Arkansas Times, Nov 25, 2010) asserts, “The (capital gains) tax rate was raised in 1976 under President Gerald Ford and economic growth accelerated. President Jimmy Carter cut the top rate from 39 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Cato Institute, Ernest Dumas, Taxes | Edit |

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: