I was recently asked to watch and respond to a two-part video series by Evangelist Jonathan Shuttlesworth entitled “35 Questions for Those Who Hate the Prosperity Message.” Shuttlesworth is a preacher and faith healer who co-pastors Revival Today Church alongside his wife in Coraopolis, PA.

According to Shuttlesworth these 35 questions (full list at the end of the article) are questions we “can’t answer.” This has been a challenging task, not only because both of the videos are roughly 1.5 hours long, but also because of the steady stream of insults from Shuttlesworth directed at those Christians and leaders who disagree with this particular brand of Word-Faith, health and wealth, prosperity-centered Christianity. Twice before even getting to his first question he emphatically states that those who reject the prosperity gospel message, “are some of the stupidest people you will ever meet.” I’ve decided not to spend much time dealing with this aspect of the videos, although it is pervasive. I will trust the reader/viewer to exercise discernment and determine if the type of language employed was appropriate or not.

It became clear as I listened and took notes that these questions are not actually questions as much as disingenuously worded rhetorical devices, not good faith inquiries to elicit dialogue and understanding. Despite his repeated claim, “I want to know,” it seems evident these questions are for those who already believe as he does, not questions for those of differing views to engage. But don’t take my word for it. Let the reader decide. I will be as fair as I can in responding.

Did Historic Orthodox Christianity Get it Wrong?

As I reflected on these questions, I was torn between two different approaches. On the one hand, there exists a serious disagreement on the nature of God’s relationship with mankind, the nature and identity of the person of Jesus Christ, interpretive methodology regarding the Scriptures, the nature of faith, and other important doctrines, therefore this is an important issue to address (as many others before us have). On the other hand, what Word of Faith proponents have to do is an even more difficult task than ours, which is arguing convincingly that historical orthodox Christianity, the whole of Christian teaching from Christ until the 20th century, is mistaken regarding all of these issues. I say this, because what most Christians don’t realize is how different the underlying theology of the Word of Faith/prosperity gospel movement really is. For a fuller explanation of this that is easily accessible, I recommend Justin Peters’ video series entitled Clouds Without Water, which can be found on YouTube in long and short versions. For a more in-depth study, see PhD dissertation by Kevin Smith, entitled, “The Word of Faith Movement: Towards a Constructive Engagement.”

While Shuttlesworth claims the “attacks” against prosperity gospel theology are, “not academic,” and that our position is based purely on the twisting of a few Scriptures, they have been unable to demonstrate any of this in a scholarly, logical fashion. Have you ever seen a public debate over this topic? Probably not. There may be a reason. Like Mormonism and Islam, they must offer proof that historic Christianity was corrupted at a very early date and that they alone have the correct biblical interpretation on these matters. The burden of proof is theirs.

The new kids on the block teach a different gospel, a different God, a different Christ, and a different faith. Therefore, taking the time to consider and respond to these ideas is important.

Arrangement of Questions

To simplify my response to the 35 questions, they have been divided into two sections, but will keep their original numbers from the video. The first group is Biblical and Theological questions, and the second is Assumptive Argumentation questions. Roughly half the questions are finger pointing challenges based on the following two assumptions.

1. If you disagree with my interpretation of the Bible, then you reject the Bible.
2. If you disagree with what I believe about prosperity, then you hate prosperity.

These assumptions are the basis for nearly every question in this video series. There is an equivalence made between a particular interpretation of the Bible, and the Bible itself. Shuttlesworth, and those of like mind, like to say that they, “just believe the Bible,” and cannot bring themselves to acknowledge, like everyone else, that what they believe is a particular interpretation of the Scriptures, not the Scriptures themselves. I will say the same about myself; I believe the Scriptures are inspired, inerrant, and trustworthy…but what I believe about their content is a particular interpretation. To suggest, as some have, that the Bible is not open to interpretation, or isn’t being interpreted but simply believed, is either shockingly naive or shockingly hypocritical.

Shuttlesworth, and those who follow this line of thinking, tend to have no (or little) willingness to engage in discussion regarding their interpretive methodology; the closest Shuttlesworth gets is to simply double down and say if you don’t agree, or can’t accept the interpretation that is obvious to him, then you must just be stupid (or funded by George Soros). This is literally what he does over and over again.

The logical jump from disagreeing over the biblical view of prosperity to hatred of prosperity itself is one that I find very confusing. If I believe the Bible says something different about the subject of prosperity and poverty, why does that automatically mean I love poverty, hate prosperity, and believe God does too? I would like to see that explained logically because I’m at a loss trying to understand it. The video series displays a long string of claims about what those of us who disagree with him believe, and in all my years in the church I have never met a single person who believes any of them. The introduction to Part 3 will discuss the central logical fallacy of Shuttlesworth’s approach.

So let’s begin. Jonathan Shuttlesworth, I will respond and answer the questions you claim we can’t answer. And I won’t even ask you to send me money.

Biblical and Theological Questions covered in this post

#1. Did God speak about prosperity?

#2. Does El Shaddai mean the God of Poverty or the God of Just Enough?

# 1. Did God Speak About Prosperity?

The blessings/curses section of Deuteronomy 28 is the text appealed to for this question. It is true that within the confines of the Mosaic Covenant (the agreement Israel entered into with God at Mt. Sinai, mediated by Moses), if Israel was to be obedient to all the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant (the book of Deuteronomy), God would make Israel materially prosperous. National Israel, that is, not each individual Israelite. The entire Covenant text is directed toward Israel as a nation and not Israelites as individuals. Identifying the recipient is basic hermeneutics 101. You cannot expect God to grant to an individual a blessing that is part of a national covenant, especially when the individual is not part of the nation or covenant in question. We cannot “go beyond the written word” (1 Cor. 6:4). 

As much as it is true that material prosperity is provided in the Mosaic Covenant, the “prosperity” teaching on this contains a number of errors, logically and hermeneutically, which manifest as inconsistent or incorrect application and appeals to the Mosaic Covenant. One of these has already been pointed out. Mr. Shuttlesworth explains in another video on the same topic that in Deuteronomy 7:15 God promised to keep Israel safe from diseases, then argues that if God was able to do that in the Old Covenant but is not able to do that in the New Covenant, “then the Old Covenant was the better covenant,” which is a non sequitur. Before we get to why, consider this: if you recognize that the New Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant are distinct covenants, why directly apply a provision from one to a member of the other? Can a person be party to both covenants? In Romans 7 the Apostle Paul explains that a person can only transfer from one covenant to the other by death. 

“Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.” Romans 7:1-4 (NASB)

If a person can only be party to one of these two covenants, to the Law or to Christ, why do you think you can apply a provision (or curses, see question 6) from the Mosaic Covenant directly to the New Covenant believer? Can I, as an American citizen living in the USA, appeal to a citizenship benefit granted to Australian citizens? No, because I am not an Australian citizen and I don’t live in Australia (More on this issue under Question 12 in Part 3, which also appeals to Deuteronomy 28).

As previously stated, the contention that the Mosaic Covenant is the better covenant if God is unable to act in the New as He did in the Old, is a non sequitur. Here’s why: those of us who reject the prosperity gospel have never claimed that God is “not able” to do anything. Obviously we believe God cannot sin or do something self-contradictory, but beyond those that are obvious and logically necessary, we have never believed there exists any kind of limitations on God’s freedom. Ever. On the contrary, it is Word of Faith theology that makes claims about God’s supposed inability to act.

Essek W. Kenyon and Kenneth Hagin, the men who formed what is called the Word of Faith movement, or “prosperity gospel,” on the basis of extra-biblical, private revelation, portrayed God as bound and unable to act without the permission of humans. It is a common teaching from the prosperity preachers (still being taught by Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, and Kenneth Copeland, etc.) that when Adam sinned he gave his earthly dominion to Satan who became the legal god of this world, and Yahweh found himself unable to act in the affairs of this world. God therefore needs permission from human beings to act in this world since he lost his “legal right” to do so when Adam sinned.

This is not biblical doctrine. Kenyon and Hagin (and many others) claimed private, divine revelation, and incorporated those revelations into their studies of the Bible. This is what happens when purported private revelation is given higher status than Scripture itself. It’s not just faulty hermeneutics; the faulty hermeneutics is required in order to make the Bible accommodate the private revelations that would otherwise not correspond with the biblical revelation. This is exactly the same as the Book of Mormon used as a grid by which the Bible is interpreted by LDS/Mormons.

If private revelations agree with Scripture, they are needless. If they disagree, they are false.”

John Owen

Those who reject the prosperity teaching believe, according to the Scriptures, that God is able to do anything and everything, on earth and in heaven, and therefore do not claim that God is “unable” to do anything. The question in our critique of the prosperity gospel’s view on this promise of prosperity is not about God’s ability, but what God has specified to do within the various biblical covenants. 

It is correct to say that the plan of God for this world includes physical peace and prosperity. We do not dispute this. It is, however, incorrect to say that every element of the New Covenant is currently in place and active. Is the world currently restored to pre-fall glory? Have we ceased aging or dying? Is sin absent from the world? Have wars all ended?  Has the sun disappeared because God Himself is the only light we need?

If these elements of the New Covenant have not come, then maybe other elements of the New Covenant have not come to fruition just yet either. We can agree that God desires for His people to live in peace, in health, and without sin. But that is, very obviously, not the current age we live in. We can mostly agree on the what, just not the when. Those who adhere to historic orthodox Christianity are not the ones diminishing the greatness of the New Covenant. Prosperity gospel theology has diminished it by reducing its effects to primarily physical improvements in a fallen world. The New Covenant restores the world and humanity entirely.  

Speaking of physical improvements, this response to the 35 Questions focuses on financial prosperity. However, I do need to mention something here about healing. Healing is another physical benefit of the New Covenant appealed to by many, not only within the prosperity gospel movement, but in the charismatic movement in general. The last line of Isaiah 53:5 says, “By his wounds we are healed,” and followers of these movements always interpret “healed” as referring to physical healing.

Space prohibits a fuller examination of this verse, but it should suffice to point out that, “we are healed,” in the last line would mean physical healing, except that the first part of the verse says, “He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him,” which is then followed with, “and by his wounds we are healed.” Context, context, context, ladies and gentlemen. Words are meaningless outside of a specific context. What wounds are being referred to? The wounds of sin, both our own as well as the effects of others’ sins against us.

Notice the hinge in the middle, the way to peace. The way to peace is the “chastisement upon him.” Notice, the opposite of transgressions and iniquities is peace (not “physically healed”), based on how the first line and last line hinge on that middle statement. Transgression and iniquity puts us at enmity with God, the way to peace with God is the punishment upon Christ, “and by his wounds we are healed” from sin and death.

Let’s return again to the physical healing view of Isaiah 53:5. If physical healing is the correct interpretation of these statements (contrary to a very long, very consistent interpretive tradition and good common sense while reading), wouldn’t Isaiah’s prophecy here of the New Covenant’s provision of healing be superfluous? If healing is already provided for in the Mosaic Covenant, what makes the New Covenant’s promise of healing different or better?

Furthermore, the misguided nature of staking claim on a promise of prosperity on the basis of Mosaic Covenant texts is further demonstrated by considering the economic equality plan for Israel in Deuteronomy 15:1-18.

“1 At the end of seven years you shall grant a remission of debt. 2 And this is the manner of the remission of debt: every creditor shall remit his claim that he holds against his neighbor, and he shall not exact payment from his brother because there a remission of debt has been proclaimed unto Yahweh. 3 With respect to the foreigner you may exact payment, but you must remit what shall be owed to you with respect to your brother. 4 Nevertheless, there shall not be among you a poor person, because Yahweh will certainly bless you in the land that Yahweh your God is giving to you as an inheritance, to take possession of it. 5 If only you listen well to the voice of Yahweh your God by observing diligently all of these commandments that I am commanding you today. 6 When Yahweh your God has blessed you, just as he promised to you, then you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow from them, and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.

7 If there is a poor person among you from among one of your brothers in one of your towns that Yahweh your God is giving to you, you shall not harden your heart, and you shall not shut your hand toward your brother who is poor. 8 But you shall certainly open your hand for him, and you shall willingly lend to him enough to meet his need, whatever it is. 9 Take care so that there will not be a thought of wickedness in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of the remission of debt is near,’ and you view your needy neighbor with hostility, and so you do not give to him, and he might cry out against you to Yahweh, and you would incur guilt against yourself. 10 By all means you must give to him, and you must not be discontented at your giving to him, because on account of this very thing, Yahweh your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. 11 For the poor will not cease to be among you in the land; therefore I am commanding you, saying, ‘You shall willingly open your hand to your brother, to your needy and to your poor that are in your land.’

12 If your relative who is a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman is sold to you, and he or she has served you six years, then in the seventh year you shall send that person out free. 13 And when you send him out free from you, you shall not send him away empty-handed. 14 You shall generously supply him from among your flocks and from your threshing floor and from your press; according to that with which Yahweh your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you; therefore I am commanding you thus today.

16 And then if it will happen that he says to you, ‘I do not want to go out from you,’ because he loves you and your family, because it is good for him to be with you; 17 then you shall take an awl, and you shall thrust it through his earlobe and into the door, and he shall be to you a slave forever; and you shall also do likewise for your slave woman. 18 It shall not be hard in your eyes when you send him forth free, because for six years he has served you worth twice the wage of a hired worker; and Yahweh your God will bless you in whatever you will do. (LEB)

Deuteronomy 15:1-18 presents a strategy for economic equality within the land Israel was to possess. If Israel obeyed all the commands of the Covenant, then God would bless them financially (among many other things), and that wealth was to be distributed to the poor who were to be treated with generosity and kindness.

If the promise of prosperity in the Mosaic Covenant was directed to individuals, then why was this economic equality strategy necessary? The bigger issue here, though, the 15-ton elephant in the room, is the prosperity gospel says that God’s will is always that His people be financially prosperous, so they must believe that that prosperity is theirs in order to receive it. This is claimed partly using Mosaic Covenant texts that, if read in context, say something very different.

“IF YOU OBEY.”

The Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant. Blessings given for obedience, and curses given for disobedience. In order to appeal to these blessings, you must also appeal to the condition in which those blessings were to be given by God: strict obedience to all the commands of the Law.

Verse 1 of Deuteronomy 28, the chapter appealed to in the video to establish what God has said about prosperity, records Moses saying, “And it will happen that if you indeed listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to diligently observe all his commandments that I am commanding you today…,” and then again in verse 13-14 Moses says, “if you listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God that I am commanding you today and diligently observe them. And you shall not turn aside from any of the words that I am commanding you today to the right or left by going after other gods to serve them.” Then to introduce the curses section, verse 15 begins in like manner: “And then if you do not listen to the voice of Yahweh your God by diligently observing all of his commandments and his statutes that I am commanding you today…”

“IF YOU OBEY”

There are 613 laws in the Mosaic legislation. The Ten Commandments, and then 603 that are based on the Ten. These include moral laws, dietary restrictions, religious rituals, fabric laws, field harvesting laws, warfare conduct laws, rules about how adulterers were to be identified and punished, what sins were to be met with execution, and quite a few other things you never hear these prosperity preachers say you must follow in order to get the money God wants you to have. Not only are they appealing to texts that don’t apply to their listeners, they’re not even applying the texts they appeal to as they were written.

In other words…they’re making it up.

#2. Does El Shaddai Mean the God of Poverty or the God of Just Enough?

El Shaddai is one of the beloved names of God, a name God used of Himself when He spoke to Abraham and a few others. What does the name mean? What is claimed in the video, common to this movement, is that Shaddai means “breasted one,” a reference to God as the more-than-enough provider. Shuttlesworth is not the first to make this claim. In recent times there have been a few progressive church figures, most notably David Biale, who have used this claim to present God as female with breasts. 

It’s worth mentioning that mankind was created in the image of God as male and female; two genders together represent this image of God, which tells us, among many other things, that God is not a gendered being. Jesus said we were to pray to God as “Father,” but God is not actually male or female. While that is not what the WFM proponents are suggesting, it’s still worth mentioning in light of the “Yahweh is female and has breasts” idea. I just had to put that out there.

Where does the idea come from that Shaddai means “many breasted one”? Shaddai bears a similarity to the Hebrew word for breast, shad. Fair enough. However, at the risk of being condescending, it takes only an elementary introduction to Biblical Hebrew to figure out that while the words are spelled similarly, they are not etymologically linked. Without explaining the in’s and out’s of Hebrew morphology, Shaddai is simply not a spelling that could be derivative of shad. Every Hebrew lexicon ever written rejects this notion. The words that are much more closely related etymologically to shad are the Arabic root shad (“be strong”), shed, (“demon,” related to the Babylonian word shedu, meaning evil spirit), shadad (ruin, destroy, spoil) and its derivative shod, meaning havoc. 

Cognate language studies (comparing with other Semitic languages such as Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, etc) have shown a couple of tenable suggestions for the meaning of Shaddai. The first is that shaddai is related to shadad, the -ai suffix being first person possessive (“My Destroyer”), and the more commonly accepted second option, shaddai’s  relationship to the Akkadian word shadu, “mountain.” This would give us a meaning of something like God of the Mountain (referring to God’s abode). If this is the case, then El Shaddai is a title of God referring to His greatness as creator, having dominion over the high and mighty places of the earth. While those of other religions looked to the mountains (and to the pagan altars erected on top of them), the patriarchs who knew God as El Shaddai, looked to the God of those Mountains, not the mountains, for help.

The traditional translation “Almighty” comes from how the word was translated in the Septuagint (pantokratōr, “all-powerful”), reflected in the Vulgate (omnipotens), although more recent scholarship favors the connection to shadu, while complete clarity is not something we have. (ref. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Archer, Gleason, Waltke, and Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, HALOT, by Koehler & Baumgartner)

End of Part 1. More questions will be answered in Part 2:

List of the 35 Questions

1. Did God speak about prosperity?
2. Does El Shaddai mean the God of poverty or the God of just well enough?
3. How did God create man in the beginning and how will things be at the end?
4. Was Jesus poor?
5. What is your definition of prosperity that makes you hate it so much?
6. Is poverty listed in Scripture as a blessing or a curse?
7. If God loves poverty so much why did He never once give it to anyone in the Bible as a reward for their obedience?
8. Explain what God meant when He said in Psalm 23:5 “Your cup of blessing will run over.”
9.  If God loves poverty and hates abundance explain Elijah’s and Elisha’s ministries
10. If God loves poverty and hates abundance explain your thoughts on Christ feeding the multitude and not nearly sinking Peter’s boats with fish. 
11. Did Christ condemn the servants who multiplied their money and praise the servant who buried their money?
12. According to how you believe, how can someone be the lender and never the borrower?
13. According to how you believe how can a righteous man leave an inheritance to his children’s children?
    • 13b. What would you say that it means that there’s a spiritual law that the wealth of the wicked passes to the just? 
14. If you believe money is evil why do you carry any money? 
15. Do you not understand that prosperity and suffering can coexist?
16. Do you not believe it’s hypocritical to speak against prosperity while enjoying lavish American luxury?
17. Do you believe that the blessing of Abraham is not extended to Christians and does not include financial wealth?
18. Do you believe that good stewardship does not lead to increase? 
19. What are your thoughts about the early church having poverty totally eradicated? 
20. Do you believe God wants the wealth of the world controlled by the wicked to rule over us?
21. Do you believe wickedness carries a financial blessing and holiness carries a financial curse?
22. Do you believe it’s possible to honor the commandments of Christ to help the poor, clothe the naked, and feed the hungry while being impoverished yourself?
23. If a person gave all their money to the poor according to Scripture what would happen to them?
24. Do you actually believe no rich men will be in heaven? 
25. Tell me as a Christian one good thing about the church having less money. 
26. Are offerings in the Bible or are offerings something that were invented by so-called prosperity preachers?
27. Are offerings taught in the Bible as part of a financial reward system? 
28. Were people challenged to give more than they had been comfortable giving in the Bible?
29. Were significant givers honored by God in Scripture? 
30. Did God promise to meet only our basic needs but condemn anyone who desired beyond that?
31. Do you believe it’s possible to increase materially and not begin to love the money instead of God?
32. Do you believe God loves saving money more than he loves you?
33. Do you find it strange that demonized people who hate the church feel the same way about offerings and giving that you do?
34. Do you find it strange that your ministry requires the support of people who have more than enough?
35. How much do you personally give?