The Jews were under Roman occupation and for example, the Zionists were the insurrectionists that, altho outnumbered and outclassed by the Romans, were actively trying to overthrow them. Most Jews were looking for a political/socio-economic messiah that would restore Israeli sovereignty and a heaven on earth. In that context, the oppressed Jews were looking for power; power=wealth.

The point Jesus repeatedly makes is that He came to fulfill God’s promise to restore the damaged relationship between man and God thru a supreme sacrifice. Not an earthly kingdom, rather a heavenly one.

Jesus often illustrated the spiritual relationship in terms that the Israelites could understand — “rich” vs the “poor”. Generally speaking, the poor came to faith more readily because they had nothing else, while the rich could be deluded by their relative wealth to assume that because they were “blessed” with wealth, they must obviously have found favor in God’s eyes.

With the back and forth dialog about “poor in spirit” and “materially poor”, it must be emphasized that ultimately, Jesus is NOT concerned about earthly prosperity, either as a hallmark of faith nor as some sort of social justice. In discussing Biblical exegesis, it would be useful to keep in mind the writer’s POV as they handled a similar quotation of Jesus:

Matthew was by occupation a publican, or tax-gatherer for the Romans, yet he was of Jewish extract. His is the account of the incarnation, life, actions, ministry, miracles, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ; whereby peace and reconciliation, pardon and righteousness, atonement and redemption, life and salvation, are obtained for lost, perishing sinners. The Jews, to whom the message of grace was first sent, and among whom the Gospel was first preached.
Matthew 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark and was Barnabas’s sister’s son, his mother’s name was Mary. The Apostle Peter, a fisherman and early disciple, calls him his son. If Mark is the one and same, then he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from Peter, and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by Peter. The Book of Mark is a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ.
Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Luke the beloved physician, is thot to be a Syrian evangelist who was a companion of the Apostle Paul in great part of his travels in the Gentile world. He was not one of the disciples, so he had to rely on others to write his book.
Luke 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?

John was the earliest eyewitness to Jesus’ 3-year ministry and in his writings, he focused on the spirituality of Jesus. He also filled in about a year’s gap in the middle of Jesus’ 3-year ministry not covered by the other Gospels.
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

Although each writer had “paraphrased” Jesus (since the Gospels were written in a language other than Aramic/Hebrew, the translations can’t be word for word perfect), the point remains the same: Having a good life, let alone having it all, is pointless if you lose your soul permanently in the hereafter. Among other topics that Jesus covered was paying one’s dues to whomever is in authority, looking out for others less fortunate (personally, not governmentally, altho rulers are obligated to protect the weak), bearing of arms (Mt 10:34, 26:51, Lk 22:36-38), furthermore he never told soldiers to quit their service as the “sword and shield” of their government.

As for sKerry’s “faith without works” mantra, then it is obvious that his faith is dead when he pointedly refuses to back his faith in the start of life at conception with works to stop abortion. Likewise, his faith appears dead without charity works, given what is publically known of “his” giving, it seems the house of ketchup regularly supports immoral non-profit organizations, while his personal wealth is reserved for personal consumption. As for his notion of beating swords into plowshares, there is nothing to support that as part of peace on earth in our time. In fact — going OT here but ties back to my second paragrah — of the three times that plowshare and swords are mentioned in the same sentence; one, Joel Chp 3, refers to the opposite in preparing to defend Israel from her enemies (Islam and anti-semites in general) before the Lord returns to reign on Zion and only then are swords turned into plowshares. This is all part of God extracting his reparations from those — palestiniens and friends — who would deny the Jews their promised land. I’d hate to be on the wrong side of God’s unfolding history, in order to score worldly political points.

You are right on point! You need to check out Denton Bible Church and Denton Theological Seminary in Denton, TX. Alot of the teaching here at the Institute come from teachers down there. They are solid fundamentalists who are conservative theologists. They are also politically conservative. Well, take care and God Bless.

I don’t read the bible enough because I don’t love God enough. (That works both ways.)

So I don’t mean to hold myself up as a positive example, here, but it would sound even worse (i.e. condescending) if I tried to talk about a hypothetical friend…

As a person who was once persuaded that “turn the other cheek” meant the military was immoral, I can understand coming up with one of these mistaken (and often more politically “liberal”) conclusions.

But I was interested enough to keep asking the question and keep an open mind, until I discovered the historical context, and discovered I was mistaken. And I also noticed other verses which undermined my reading (such as where Jesus instructs his followers to carry personal sidearms, or Jesus and John the Baptist fail to tell soldiers to repent of soldiering) which tipped me off, and made me less sure.

In the end, the bible changed my politics. That’s as it should be: It is there to change us, not the other way around.

I could not agree more with your comments. I have just started to read Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones series of sermons on the Sermon on the Mount compiled in his book of the same title, and I see similarities between your exposition and his. Too bad that our liberal friends who quote verses such as blessed are the poor do not educate themselves by learning from teachers such as Dr.Lloyd-Jones!

Keep up the good work!

Blessings!

What I meant by overspiritualizing is this: if I follow you, you interpret Jesus’ statements about poverty in terms of powerlessness when it comes to salvation. I agree with that. But couldn’t it be that Jesus is also saying to his disciples: become poorer materially yourselves, because riches are a snare?

I agree that not all believers can or should do so in the way or to the same degree. Some people have to raise kids. Some people have to literally sell all they have, like Anthony of the Desert and Francis. But some form of material, and not just spiritual poverty, may be incumbent on all believers, even though there is no one-size-fits-all formula on that.

That having been said, I agree with your main point: the N.T. is not a mandate for the welfare state, and liberal Christians who invoke it to justify the policies of the Democratic Party are way off base.

Of course, when you can the supernatural element in Christianity, what’s left to do but politicize the heck out of it in the direction of some supposedly compassionate utopia?

Ciao.

Adrian

There is nothing wrong with praying that GW will win the election. Moses changed God’s mind through prayer. Don’t forget that Jesus also prayed in the Garden of Gesthemane that “this cup would pass from him”. However, He also knew and said in His prayer that God’s will be done. I personally am praying that GW will win the election. However, I know that if Kerry wins, then for some reason it is in God’s will. I might not ever understand it, as I didn’t understand Clinton being elected once, much less twice, but I know that God understands why He does such things,and that they’re in His will.