Just over one hundred years ago, the
renowned pastor and statesman Charles H. Spurgeon spoke these words to
the then-largest congregation in all Christendom:
I believe that it is anti-Christian and
unholy for any Christian to live with the object of accumulating wealth.
You will say, “Are we not to strive all we can to get all the money we
can?” You may do so. I cannot doubt but what, in so doing, you may do
service to the cause of God. But what I said was that to live with the
object of accumulating wealth is anti-Christian.
1
Over the years, however, the message being
preached in some of the largest churches in the world has changed. Due,
in part, to the rise of several ungodly philosophies and movements,
2
a new gospel is being taught today. This gospel has been ascribed many
names, such as the “name it and claim it” gospel, the “blab it and grab
it” gospel, the “health and wealth” gospel, the “word of faith”
movement, the “gospel of success,” the “prosperity gospel,” and
“positive confession theology.”
3
No matter what name is used, though, the
teaching is the same. Simply put, this egocentric gospel teaches that
God wants believers to be materially wealthy. Listen to the words of
Robert Tilton, one of the prosperity gospel’s most well-known spokesmen:
“I believe that it is the will of God for all to prosper because I see
it in the Word [of God], not because it has worked mightily for someone
else. I do not put my eyes on men, but on God who gives me the power to
get wealth.”
4
Teachers of the prosperity gospel
encourage their followers to pray, and even demand, of God “everything
from modes of transportation (cars, vans, trucks, even two-seat planes),
[to] homes, furniture, and large bank accounts.”
5
By closely examining the faulty theology and errant biblical
interpretation of the teachers of this movement, this study will prove
that the prosperity gospel teachings regarding the acquisition and
accumulation of wealth are ethically incorrect.
The Theology of the Prosperity Gospel
“Theology is important,” wrote scholar
Millard J. Erickson, “because correct doctrinal beliefs are essential to
the relationship between the believer and God.”
6
A corollary to this statement is that an incorrect theology will lead
to incorrect beliefs about God, His Word, and His dealings with men. The
thesis of this paper is that the prosperity gospel is constructed upon a
faulty theology. Consequently, many of its doctrines, including the
teachings concerning wealth, are erroneous. While it is beyond the scope
of this study to examine in detail all of the specific doctrines of
prosperity theology, there are four crucial areas of error relating to
their teachings on wealth that may be isolated and examined. These areas
are the Abrahamic covenant, the Atonement, giving, and faith.
Prosperity Theology and the Abrahamic Covenant
The theological basis of the prosperity gospel is the Abrahamic covenant.
7 While
this is good in that prosperity theologians recognize that much of
Scripture is the record of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, it
is bad in that they do not maintain an orthodox view of this covenant.
Prosperity theologians hold an incorrect view of the inception of the
Abrahamic covenant; what is more germane to the present study, however,
they hold to an erroneous view concerning the application of the
covenant.
8
Researcher Edward Pousson best stated the
prosperity view on the application of the Abrahamic covenant when he
wrote, “Christians are Abraham’s spiritual children and heirs to the
blessings of faith…. This Abrahamic inheritance is unpacked primarily in
terms of material entitlements.”
9
In other words, according to the prosperity gospel, the primary purpose
of the Abrahamic covenant was for God to bless Abraham materially.
Since believers are now “Abraham’s spiritual children,” they
consequently have inherited these financial blessings of the covenant.
Prosperity teacher Kenneth Copeland wrote,
“Since God’s Covenant has been established and prosperity is a
provision of this covenant, you need to realize that prosperity belongs
to you now!”
10
Referring to the prosperity theology of Kenneth Hagin, author Harvey
Cox wrote, “Through the crucifixion of Christ, Christians have inherited
all the promises made to Abraham, and these include both spiritual and
material well-being.”
11 To support this claim, prosperity teachers such as Copeland and Hagin appeal to
Gal. 3:14, which says “that the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. . . .”
12
While it is not an understatement to say that the problems with this
argument are legion, two glaring problems need to be addressed. First,
in their appeal to
Gal. 3:14, prosperity teachers ignore the
second half of the verse, which reads, “That we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith.”
13
In this verse Paul clearly was reminding the Galatians of the spiritual
blessing of salvation, not the material blessing of wealth.
Second, prosperity teachers claim that the
conduit through which believers receive Abraham’s blessings is faith.
This completely ignores the orthodox understanding that the Abrahamic
covenant was an unconditional covenant.
14 That
is, the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant were not contingent upon
one man’s obedience. Therefore, even if the Abrahamic covenant did apply
to Christians, all believers would already be experiencing the material
blessings regardless of prosperity theology.
Prosperity Theology and the Atonement
A second cracked pillar upon which
prosperity theology stands is that of a faulty view of the Atonement.
Theologian Ken Sarles wrote that “the prosperity gospel claims that both
physical healing and financial prosperity have been provided for in the
Atonement.”
15
This seems to be an accurate observation in light of teacher Kenneth
Copeland’s comment that “the basic principle of the Christian life is to
know that God put our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and
poverty on Jesus at Calvary.”
16 This misunderstanding of the Atonement stems from two errors that proponents of the prosperity gospel make.
First, many who hold to prosperity
theology have a fundamental misconception of the life of Christ. For
example, teacher John Avanzini proclaimed that “Jesus had a nice house, a
big house,”
17 “Jesus was handling big money,”
18 and He even “wore designer clothes.”
19
It is easy to see how such a warped view of the life of Christ could
lead to an equally warped misconception of the death of Christ.
A second error of prosperity theology, which also leads to a faulty view of the Atonement, is the misinterpretation of
2 Cor. 8:9.
Without exception, this is the verse to which prosperity teachers
appeal in order to support their view of the Atonement. The verse reads,
“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was
rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty
might become rich.”
20
This problem with this interpretation is, of course, that in this verse
Paul was in no way teaching that Christ died on the cross for the
purpose of increasing anyone’s net worth materially. In fact, Paul was
actually teaching the exact opposite principle.
Contextually, it is clear that Paul was
teaching the Corinthians that since Christ accomplished so much for them
through the Atonement, then how much more ought they empty themselves
of their riches in service of the Savior. This is why just five short
verses later Paul would urge the Corinthians to give their wealth away
to their needy brothers, writing “that now at this time your abundance
may supply their lack.”
21 Commentator Philip E. Hughes wrote of
2 Cor. 8:9, “The logic implicit in the statement of this great truth is too obvious for anyone to miss it.”
22 Apparently, however, the champions of the prosperity gospel have indeed missed it.
Prosperity Theology and Giving
One of the most striking characteristics
of the prosperity theologians is their seeming fixation with the act of
giving. Students of the prosperity gospel are urged to give generously
and are confronted with such pious statements as, “True prosperity is
the ability to use God’s power to meet the needs of mankind in any realm
of life,”
23 and, “We have been called to finance the gospel to the world.”
24
While at face value these statements do indeed appear to be
praiseworthy, a closer examination of the theology behind them reveals
that the prosperity gospel’s emphasis on giving is built on anything but
philanthropic motives. The driving force behind this emphasis on giving
is what teacher Robert Tilton referred to as the “Law of Compensation.”
25 According to this law, which is supposedly based on
Mark 10:30,
26
Christians need to give generously to others because when they do, God
gives back more in return. This, in turn, leads to a cycle of
ever-increasing prosperity.
As Gloria Copeland put it, “Give $10 and receive $1,000; give $1,000 and receive $100,000;… in short,
Mark 10:30 is a very good deal.”
27
It is evident, then, that the prosperity gospel’s doctrine of giving is
built upon faulty motives. Whereas Jesus taught His disciples to “give,
hoping for nothing in return,”
28 prosperity
theologians teach their disciples to give because they will get a great
return. One cannot help but agree with author Edward Pousson’s
observation that the stewardship of “the prosperity message is in
captivity to the American dream.”
29
Prosperity Theology and Faith
A final area of prosperity theology that
merits investigation is that of the doctrine of faith. Whereas orthodox
Christianity understands faith to be “trust in the person of Jesus
Christ, the truth of His teaching, and the redemptive work He
accomplished at Calvary,”
30
prosperity teachers espouse quite a different doctrine. In his book,
The Laws of Prosperity, Kenneth Copeland wrote that “faith is a
spiritual force, a spiritual energy, a spiritual power. It is this force
of faith which makes the laws of the spirit world function. . . . There
are certain laws governing prosperity revealed in God’s Word. Faith
causes them to function.”
31
This is obviously a faulty, if not heretical, understanding of faith.
Later in the same book Copeland wrote that “if you make up your mind . .
. that you are willing to live in divine prosperity and abundance, . . .
divine prosperity will come to pass in your life. You have exercised
your faith.”
32
According to prosperity theology, faith is not a theocentric act of the
will, or simply trust in God; rather it is an anthropocentric spiritual
force, directed at God. Indeed, any theology that views faith solely as
a means to material gain rather than the acceptance of heavenly
justification must be judged as faulty and inadequate.
The Biblical Interpretation of the Prosperity Gospel
As has already been demonstrated in this
paper, the hermeneutics of the prosperity movement leaves much to be
desired. Author Ken Sarles wrote of the prosperity teachers that their
“method of interpreting the biblical text is highly subjective and
arbitrary. Bible verses are quoted in abundance without attention to
grammatical indicators, semantic nuances, or literary and historical
context. The result is a set of ideas and principles based on distortion
of textual meaning.”
33
Indeed, a survey of the volumes of literature produced by the
prosperity teachers yields numerous examples of such misinterpretations.
As was the case in the theological study of this movement, an analysis
of all such examples of misinterpreted texts would fall beyond the scope
of this study. However, it is possible to choose one verse as an
example and to examine both the prosperity gospel and orthodox
interpretations of the text.
A suitable verse for this study is
3 John 2.
34
In this verse, the Apostle John wrote, “Beloved, I pray that you may
prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.”
35
This verse is interpreted by prosperity teachers to mean that God wants
all believers to “prosper in all things.” Furthermore, their
interpretation of this verse makes clear their claim that material
prosperity is inseparably linked to spiritual growth. Oral Roberts,
regarded by many to be the father of the prosperity gospel movement,
claimed at the beginning of his ministry, during a time of search for
direction, that God miraculously led him to
3 John 2, which he understood as a revelation of the prosperity gospel.
36
Another faith teacher who has built his ministry around this faulty interpretation of
3 John 2 is Kenneth Copeland. Author Kenneth Kantzer noted that “Copeland misinterprets this [verse] as a universal promise,”
37
and writer Bruce Barron remarked that “the Copelands use these words so
often that they appear to be the key verse of their ministry.”
38 A careful study of
3 John 2, however, reveals that this verse is not a carte blanche approval of prosperity gospel teachings.
Those who use
3 John 2 to support
the prosperity gospel are committing two crucial errors, the first
contextual and the second grammatical. First, con-textually, one is wise
to note that John’s purpose in writing
3 John 2 was not to teach
doctrine; it was simply to open his letter with a greeting. This is not
to say that doctrine cannot be derived from a nondoctrinal passage, for
all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, but it is to say that one
must be sensitive to the original author’s intent. Therefore, the claim
that
3 John 2 teaches the doctrine of prosperity ought to be
regarded as suspect at best. Second, one is wise to note the meaning of
the word “prosperity” as it occurs in this verse. The term translated
“prosperity” is a form of the Greek word eujodovw. This word, which is
used only four times in Scripture, does not mean to prosper in the sense
of “gaining material possessions,” but rather means “to grant a
prosperous expedition and expeditious journey,” or “to lead by a direct
and easy way.”
39 The wording of modern translations such as the New International Version even reflect this nuance of the word.
40 Therefore it is evident that teachers who understand
3 John 2 to teach prosperity theology are misinterpreting the text.
Conclusion
Through this study of the theology and the
biblical interpretation of the prosperity gospel, one may discern five
clear reasons why this movement’s teachings concerning wealth are
incorrect:
1. The prosperity gospel is built upon a faulty understanding of the Abrahamic covenant.
2. The prosperity gospel is built upon a faulty understanding of the Atonement.
3. The prosperity gospel is based upon a faulty understanding of the biblical tachings on giving.
4. The prosperity gospel is based upon a faulty understanding of the biblical teachings on faith.
5. The prosperity gospel, in general, has been constructed upon faulty biblical interpretation.
Aside from these five specific theological
and biblical arguments against the prosperity gospel, and without even
considering the practical implications of this movement,
41
there is perhaps one general, summary reason why the prosperity gospel
is a wayward gospel: its faulty view of the relationship between God and
man. Simply put, if the prosperity gospel is correct, grace becomes
obsolete, God becomes irrelevant, and man is the measure of all things.
Whether it is the Abrahamic covenant, the Atonement, giving, faith, or
the biblical interpretation of any given verse, the prosperity teacher
seeks to turn the relationship between God and man into a financial quid
pro quo transaction. As scholar James R. Goff noted, God is “reduced to
a kind of ‘cosmic bellhop’ attending to the needs and desires of his
creation.”
42 This is a wholly inadequate and unbiblical view of the relationship between God and man and the stewardship of wealth.
Note: This article was originally published in Faith and Mission Vol 16, p. 79ff. Published with permission.
1 Tom Carted, ed., 2,200 Quotations from the Writings of Charles H. Spurgeon (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 216.
2 While
it is impossible to trace the prosperity gospel back to an exact
starting point, there are at least three movements from which it draws
its ideas. One is the experience-centered Christianity which was birthed
in the mind of nineteenth-century theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher
and has come to fruition in the form of the twentieth-century
Charismatic movement. A second philosophy that gave rise to the
prosperity gospel was the “positive thinking” school of Norman Vincent
Peale. Indeed, scholar Harvey Cox wrote concerning the prosperity gospel
that “it owed much to the ‘positive thinking’ of the late Norman
Vincent Peale.” Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven (Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1995), 272. The third modern movement that has
influenced the prosperity gospel is simply the “American dream,” or
materialism.
3 For the purpose of this paper, the phrase “prosperity gospel” will be used.
4 Robert Tilton, God’s Word about Prosperity (Dallas, TX: Word of Faith Publications, 1983), 6.
5 David
Pilgrim, “Egoism or Altruism: A Social Psychological Critique of the
Prosperity Gospel of Televangelist Robert Tilton,” Journal of Religious
Studies, 18.1-2 (1992): 3.
6 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 28.
7 This
important covenant is mentioned numerous times in the writings of the
prosperity teachers, i.e., Gloria Copeland, God’s Willis Prosperity
(Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publications, 1973), 4-6; Kenneth
Copeland, The Laws of Prosperity (Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland
Publications, 1974), 51; idem, Our Covenant with God (Fort Worth, TX:
Kenneth Copeland Publications, 1987), 10; Edward Pousson, Spreading the
Flame (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 158; and Kenneth Copeland,
The Troublemaker (Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publications, n.d.),
6.
8 Prosperity
teacher Kenneth Copeland articulated his movement’s view of the
inception of the Abrahamic covenant best when he wrote that “after
Adam’s fall in the Garden, God needed an avenue back into the earth;…
since man was the key figure in the Fall, man had to be the key figure
in the redemption, so God approached a man named Abram. He reenacted
with Abram what Satan had done with Adam. . . . God offered Abram a
proposition and Abram bought it.” Kenneth Copeland, Our Covenant with
God, 10.
10 Kenneth Copeland, The Laws of Prosperity, 51.
14 That the Abrahamic covenant is an unconditional covenant can be demonstrated by four facts. First, the covenant ceremony in
Genesis 15
was unilateral. In fact, Abraham was asleep. Second, no conditions are
stated in the covenant. Third, in the restatement of the covenant in
Gen. 17:7,13,
and 19, the covenant is called “everlasting.” Finally, the covenant was
confirmed despite Abraham’s continued disobedience and lack of faith.
15 Ken L. Sarles, “A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (Oct.-Dec. 1986): 339.
16 Kenneth Copeland, The Troublemaker, 6.
17 John
Avanzini, “Believer’s Voice of Victory,” program on TBN, 20 January
1991. Quoted in Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR:
Harvest House, 1993), 381.
18 Idem, “Praise the Lord,” program on TBN, 15 September 1988. Quoted in Hanegraaff, 381.
19 Avanzini, “Believer’s Voice of Victory.”
22 Philip
E. Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishers,
1962), 300.
23 Kenneth Copeland, The Laws of Prosperity, 26.
24 Gloria Copeland, God’s Will Is Prosperity, 45.
25 Theologian Ken Sarles rightly noted that “the Law of Compensation [is] the bedrock of the prosperity movement.” Sarles, 349.
26 In
Mark 10:29-30,
Jesus stated, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left
house or brothers or sister or father or mother or wife or children or
lands, for My sake and the gospel’s who shall not receive a hundredfold
now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and
children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal
life” (NKJV). Other verses that the “Law of Compensation” is based upon
include
Eccl. 11:1, 2 Cor. 9:6, and
Gal. 6:7.
30 J.
D. Douglas, and Merrill C. Tenny, eds., The New International
Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1987), s.v.
“faith.”
31 Kenneth Copeland, The Laws of Prosperity, 19.
34 Sarles says that this is an “often quoted verse” in the prosperity movement. Sarles, 338. Hanegraaff wrote that
3 John 2 was a “classic example” of prosperity misinterpretation. Hanegraaff, 223. Gordon Fee called
3 John 2
“the basic Scripture text of the cult of prosperity.” Gordon Fee, “The
‘Gospel’ of Prosperity,” Reformation Today 82 (Nov.-Dec. 1984): 40.
Bruce Barron wrote that
3 John 2 was “the ‘Old Faithful’ of
prosperity proof texts.” Bruce Barron, The Health and Wealth Gospel
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1987), 91.
36 For a full account of Roberts’ miraculous revelation concerning
3 John 2, see Barron, 62.
37 Kenneth S. Kantzer, “The Cut-Rate Grace of a Health and Wealth Gospel,” Christianity Today, vol. 29, June 1985, 14.
39 Joseph
Henry Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1981), s.v., “eiio86w.”
40 “Dear
Friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well
with you, even as your soul is getting along well” (
3 John 2, NIV).
41 There
are numerous practical implications that arise from the prosperity
gospel view on wealth. While it would take a lengthy treatise to explore
and explain them all, three are important enough to be considered here.
First, the prosperity gospel incorrectly implies that poverty is a sin.
Teacher Robert Tilton even said that “being poor is a sin.” Robert
Tilton, “Success in Life,” program on TBN, 27 December 1990, quoted in
Hanegraaff, 186. Likewise, Kenneth Copeland wrote that “poverty is under
the curse of the Law.” Copeland, Laws of Success, 51. Second, the
prosperity gospel “appeals to the poor and the sick to put more faith in
the ultimate fulfillment of their desires than in the Word of God.”
Sarles, 343. Third, when the prosperity gospel does cause positive
changes in a believer’s life, the prosperity teacher gets most of the
credit, and when the believer does not experience prosperity, the blame
is usually left upon that individual. For example, Robert Tilton offered
several reasons why some believers did not experience blessings:
“Individuals lacked faith, refused to follow his directions, and
criticized Tilton’s ministry.” Pilgrim, 7.
42 James R. Goff, Jr., “The Faith That Claims,” Christianity Today, vol. 34, February 1990,21.
Source:
David Jones, The
Bankruptcy of the Prosperity Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical and
Theological
Ethics, http://bible.org/article/bankruptcy-prosperity-gospel-exercise-biblical-and-theological-ethics,
Accessed 09/01/2013.
Note: C3ChurchWatch has permission to published this article.
http://c3churchwatch.wordpress.com/
![THE JEWS
As has been said the Jews had their origin in the morning time of history when God called Abraham, a Shemite, to be the father of a new nation. Gen 12: 1-3. God appeared to Abraham 10 times. These appearances were called "Theophanies," and were progressive and unconditional in their promises, and the promises were unconditionally confirmed to Abraham's son Isaac (Gen 26: 1-4), and to his grandson Jacob. Gen 28: 10-15. The history of the Jewish race is without a parallel in human history. Though oppressed, downtrodden, carried captive to other lands and scattered through the nations, the Jew has outlived all his conquerors and walks unscathed amid the nations. Any other race would have been swallowed up and its identity and national characteristics lost. The preservation of the Jewish race is the "MIRACLE OF HISTORY." Their "Emblem" is a "BUSH BURNING AND UNCONSUMED. No nation has ever had such manifest and visible tokens of the "Divine Presence." For them the Red Sea was driven back and the Jordan parted. They were miraculously fed in the Wilderness and Divinely sheltered and guided by the "Pillar of Cloud and Fire." At the blowing of "ram's horns" the walls of a besieged city fell (Jos 6: 1-27), and the Sun and Moon stayed in their courses that they might have time to slay their enemies. Jos 10: 12-14. The "Angel of the Lord" encamped about them, and one angel slew 185,000 of the army of Assyria for their deliverance. 2Ki 19: 35. No nation has given to the world such a number of great men. Such a man of faith as Abraham; such a great leader and lawgiver as Moses; such statesmen as Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon; such a king as David, and wise man as Solomon. No nation has produced such "seers" as the Hebrew Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and no such man as that man above all men, the "MAN OF GALILEE."
Larkin, Clarence (2012-06-18). Rightly Dividing The Word [Illustrated] (Kindle Locations 311-317). PreservedWords. Kindle Edition.](https://sphotos-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p160x160/556302_190211927815517_466999339_n.jpg)
