This is a continuation of responses to the 35 questions Evangelist Jonathan Shuttlesworth claims those who disagree with the health and wealth focused Prosperity Gospel cannot answer. Please see Part 1 for a full introduction to this series.

Biblical/Theological Questions covered in this post (the order is intentional, see introduction to Part 1)

#3: How did God create man in the beginning, and how will things be in the end?

#4: Was Jesus Poor?

#10 If God loves poverty and hates abundance, explain your thoughts on Jesus feeding the multitude and nearly sinking Peter’s boat with fish. 

#8. Explain what God meant in Psalm 23:5 when He said “Your cup of blessing will run over.”

#9. If God loves poverty and hates abundance, explain Elijah and Elisha’s ministries. 

#3. How did God create man in the beginning, and how will things be in the end?

In the video, it is stated that when God created the world and made Adam, He didn’t “put him in the projects,” but into a lavish garden. It is also pointed out that when the world is restored in the end that it will be beautiful since the abode of God is described in Scripture multiple times as being filled with gold and precious stones. Shuttlesworth says that those who disagree with Word of Faith doctrine will be miserable in heaven … because apparently we “hate” this. I honestly don’t know what he is talking about here. This is one of the many places in the video series where Shuttlesworth is addressing something that doesn’t exist. It doesn’t seem he has spent any time at all engaging views other than his own since his entire approach to refutation of historic Christianity is based on incorrect assumptions. As a reminder, here are the two assumptions, covered in Part 1:

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

These two assumptions are the foundation for most of the questions.

The fact that God placed Adam and Eve in a lush garden, and that the world will be restored to an Eden-like state, has nothing to do with the current state of the world, besides the fact that, quite obviously, the restoration has not yet taken place. Underneath the argumentation here is an apparent misapprehension of the basic, overarching narrative of Scripture. If Shuttlesworth had read anything ever written by a believer in historic Christianity, regardless of their particular eschatology, he would know that the pre-fall and post-restoration states of the world are images we hold dear, having placed our faith and hope in Christ to restore what was lost to sin.

#4. Was Jesus Poor? and #10 If God loves poverty and hates abundance, explain your thoughts on Jesus feeding the multitude and nearly sinking Peter’s boat with fish.

These two questions overlap, so will be dealt with together. #10’s wording is difficult to tolerate. Nobody believes God loves poverty and hates abundance. Nobody I have ever heard of anyway. There is a monastic tradition that sought godliness by way of piety and poor living, and a vow of poverty does exist. Fair enough. But it is not based on the notion that God hates money, desires His people be poor and miserable, or that there is something inherently evil about money. 

This claim, that Jesus was wealthy, comes as a surprise to people who have never heard it (which is most people), probably because when most people read the Gospels it seems so obviously clear that Jesus was not wealthy. There are so many parts of the story that indicate as much, without having to rely on tiny minute details (without considering context) that may or may not mean anything significant.  

Wealthy at birth. 

According to the video, “from [Jesus’] inception on earth, although he was born in a manger, abundance began to manifest,” referring to the gifts the Magi brought to Jesus after his birth. What’s interesting is that John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, whose conception was also miraculous, born around the same time, who was indwelled by the Holy Spirit from the womb, whose life fulfilled the ministry of Elijah the prophet, didn’t also begin receiving large amounts of money when he was little. Was he not also in the will of God, and doing what He was called to do from birth? Why didn’t abundance begin manifesting for John the Baptist, a man Jesus said there was no one greater born of women?

If the meaning of the Magi’s gifts to Jesus is that God desires His people to have abundant wealth, and Jesus’ infancy wealth is to be a clue that we too are supposed to have wealth if we are living in God’s will and having faith, why didn’t Jesus’ cousin John, filled with the Spirit from the womb, who came to prepare Israel to receive their Messiah, have abundant funds? Why did he have to live in the desert wearing camel skin and eating insects? Is that because he made a negative confession at some point and thus brought it upon himself?

Why be so certain that the recorded event that astrologers brought gifts to Jesus is a story about the reader’s finances? Is it possible that the gifts Jesus received have nothing to do with you and your finances? Could it be that the meaning of the gifts is found in the gifts themselves? Considering the historical use of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, we know these were gifts that reflected Jesus’ royalty, given in response to a prophecy that said the “king of the Jews” was to be born (Matt. 2:2). The story, as written, taken on its own terms, is about a divine king born among common people, given gifts commensurate with His kingship. To take this story as exemplary of a spiritual law of finances is to deeply miss the wonder and beauty of the story of Christ’s incarnation.

Jesus owned a house

Here’s one that is not even mentioned in the video. Did you know Jesus owned a house in Capernaum? It sure seems He did. Mark’s second chapter mentions it. 

“1 And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home. ² And many had gathered, so that there was no longer room, not even at the door, and he was speaking the word to them.” Mark 2:1-2

We also know Jesus was a tradesman, so it is entirely possible Jesus built His own house, which was fairly commonplace in those days. Owning a house does not necessarily give an indication of being wealthy, especially if one possesses the skills to build it themselves. But didn’t Jesus also say He had no place to lay His head, and isn’t He often presented as homeless? Yes. I will address that under the heading “Jesus didn’t own a pillow” below. 

Jesus fed the hungry

Shuttlesworth asks why Jesus was eliminating hunger if he was poor, because you can’t feed the hungry if you’re poor (#22 asks about this too). I think he’s making our point for us. If Jesus was wealthy, and was eliminating hunger out of his wealth, why did He use a miracle? What does the miracle have to do with Him having money? Imagine you saw someone multiply food and feed thousands of people with a supernatural supply. Then imagine saying, “I think he did that because he’s rich, because if he was poor he couldn’t do that.” Does that make sense of the story? When you read about it in Matthew 14, it seems the only people who could have purchased food that day was the people. 

“Now when it was evening, the disciples came to him saying, “The place is desolate and the hour is late. Release the crowds so that they can go away into the villages and purchase food for themselves.” But Jesus said to them, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” And they said to him, “We do not have anything here except five loaves and two fish.” So he said, “Bring them here to me.” (Matt 14:15-18)

After Jesus receives the bread and fish, He multiplies it. Keep in mind, the disciples had no food, and when this same story is told in Mark 6, the detail is added that the disciples asked Jesus, “Should we go purchase bread for 200 denarii and give it to them?” (vs. 37)  When John tells of this event in John 6, he adds the detail that Jesus asked Philip, “‘Where can we buy bread so these people can eat? (Now he said this to test him, because he knew what he was going to do).” Then Philip said to Jesus, “200 denarii of bread would not be enough for them, in order that each one could receive a little.” (John 6:6-7)

When you compare all three Gospel accounts together, it becomes clear that 200 denarii was a very large amount of money, too much to go spending on bread for this many people, and not even enough at that. The reason Jesus provided food for the people was not that they were poor and unable to purchase food for themselves, but because they had followed Jesus to a place that was too far away to get food that evening. The text literally tells us that. This was not a hunger drive, and He wasn’t feeding the homeless. Those who followed after Jesus were provided for by Jesus.

This is an example of what Jesus taught about in Matthew 6:33 and Luke 12:31 when He urged the people to not worry for what they will wear and what they will eat, because God already knows their needs, but rather, “seek first the kingdom of God and these things will be added to you,” “these things,” referring to food and clothing as He had just stated. The people in Matthew 14, Mark 6, and John 6, went after Jesus without worrying about their physical needs, and Jesus provided for them, not out of His wealth, but miraculously. In no way in this story is Jesus eliminating hunger out of his abundant funds. If Jesus’ wealth is somehow tied to Him feeding the hungry, He would have bought them food. And if Jesus’ mission was to eliminate hunger, why didn’t He do this everywhere? Maybe there’s more to the story than simply material provision.

The contention in #4, as already stated, is that you can’t feed the hungry if you’re poor, even though Jesus miraculously supplied food for people rather than buying it, so the argument is baseless. The same can be said about the catch of fish in Peter’s net. The argument is actually baseless in two ways.

1. God doesn’t love poverty and hate abundance. No one has claimed that
2. The supply was supernatural, having nothing to do with Jesus’ personal wealth

Jesus is the “bread of life,” not just a food supplier.

Another thing about Jesus feeding the multitude that should not be forgotten is how, in John’s account, Jesus interacted with the crowd the next day. It’s a long portion, so I won’t reproduce it all here, but it’s the rest of John 6 if you want to go read it.

In verse 25 the crowd finds Jesus the day after He miraculously fed them. In verse 26 Jesus says to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, you seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were satisfied.” The food miracle was a “sign,” which is a word John uses for selected miracles that were performed to elicit belief in Him as the Son of God, the light of the world who had come. The people sought Jesus for food, not faith, and here He is calling them out on their lack of faith. Those with experience around dogs know that dogs respond differently to a pointed finger. Some dogs are smart enough to see what the finger is pointing to while other dogs only see the finger. This is what’s happening with Jesus’ miraculous signs. Some understood the signs as pointing to Jesus’ identity and nature while most only saw the sign. This is especially the case in John 6 and, it seems to me, within the prosperity movement.

The conversation progresses through Jesus explaining the difference between physical food and spiritual food, insisting He is their ultimate spiritual food. This doesn’t sit right with the people, and it becomes clear their lack of faith is being drawn out by the words Jesus is saying to them. This conversation culminates in one of the most controversial statements Jesus ever uttered. In verse 56 Jesus says, “The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me and I in him.” The result of that statement, and the whole conversation, is that “many of his disciples drew back and were not walking with him any longer.” (vs. 66)

As He did other times in His teaching, Jesus is teaching in a way that is designed to thin the group of followers, weeding out those who were following Him for the wrong reasons. This is probably the biggest oversight of the prosperity gospel and Word of Faith movement…following Jesus for what can be gained from Him, rather than following Him to gain Him. The Bible is clear from beginning to end that the reason to follow God is to get God, not to get what God can give you. To follow God for what He can do for you is fundamentally to reject Him. If you follow God to get from Him what you think will make you happy means you will miss both God and happiness. If you follow God to get God, He will put your soul at rest.

Psalm 63 is the most powerful example of this truth that I know of. While in a barren desert, David says that he thirsts, not for water, but for God. And in verse 3 he says, “Because your loyal love is better than life, my lips will praise you.”

Your love is better than life.

Think about that statement for a minute.

Union with God through Christ means we have the abundant, overflowing, supernatural, eternal life of Christ, no matter what our bank statement says, no matter whether we live in a mansion or on the street, no matter if we are in perfect health or on our deathbed. It is a self-seeking, short-sighted, mockery of the incarnation, life, ministry, betrayal, agony, death, resurrection, and glorification of the Son of God, to seek after Him to sweeten and comfort your physical existence as you await death. Your Savior bled and died for eternally greater things than your bank account and your parking spots. This is utterly shameful.

Jesus didn’t own a pillow

One amusing portion of this video segment regards Jesus’ statement in Luke 9:58 that “the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”  Shuttlesworth says that this statement of Jesus was figurative because in Mark 4:38 before Jesus calms the storm it says he was asleep with his head on a pillow. Here are a few observations: 

1. If a homeless person owns a pillow, is he therefore rich and/or not homeless? Does pillow ownership somehow negate financial poverty? How do we know he didn’t borrow it? 
2. Those who take the statement that Jesus had no place to lay His head as a statement of His poverty or homelessness also take this statement figuratively. No one is reading this and saying, “See here? Jesus didn’t own a pillow.” 
3. Luke Chapters 9-19 is a portion of the Gospel that details His journey to Jerusalem, a time during which He did not have a physical home because He was traveling. This is why we can say Jesus owned a house and spent time homeless. He experienced both. 
4. The reason He said this to the man who wanted to follow Him is to warn Him that pleasantness is not to follow those who do, and Jesus knew this man was not prepared for that. The context perfectly clarifies the purpose of this statement. It is not ambiguous.
5. Shuttlesworth and I both agree here that Jesus meant the statement figuratively. I’m very glad to find we can agree on something.

Jesus had a treasurer

One sub-question under number 4 is, “Did Jesus have a treasurer?” Yes He did. I’m not sure what that proves. The question is not whether Jesus collected donated money to be used for ministry purposes, but whether or not Jesus personally was poor. Don’t move the goalpost. Jesus having a money bag and someone looking after it has nothing to do with His own personal finances. It seems that personal financial benefit from charitable giving is so close to the heart of this movement that Jesus not gaining wealth from ministry donations is unthinkable.

In upcoming posts in this series I will deal with the morality of money and wealth. Can Christians be rich and still love God and others more than money, how much is too much, etc. Jesus spoke negatively about money almost every time He brought it up. I will get to that. Stay tuned.

#8. Explain what God meant in Psalm 23:5 when He said “Your cup of blessing will run over.”

This question as written is a misquotation. The line in question was stated by David, not God, and is written in first person (“my cup”), not second person (“your cup”), and it does not say “cup of blessing,” but simply “cup.” The line is just two words in Hebrew: רְוָיָֽה (overflow) כּוֹסִ֥י (my cup)

The correct wording is acknowledged when Shuttlesworth also quotes from two other Bible versions that correctly say, “My cup.” However, the first quotation, “Your cup of blessing will run over,” is misquoted. He says he’s reading from the the New Living Translation, which reads, “My cup overflows with blessings.” When you have to misquote a text (in 3 ways) to make your point, you’re probably not on solid footing with your interpretation. 

What does it mean? An overflowing cup of blessing is actually not far off. That is, however, the end of the prosperity interpretation’s accordance with the actual wording of the Psalm. What is blatantly incorrect is quoting the verse as a future tense promise, rather than what it actually is, the Psalmist’s expression of his own present reality. 

The verb tenses throughout the Psalm prior to the verse 5 are all imperfect verbs, which normally indicate incomplete action. For example, “I will not be in want,” “He makes me lie down,” “You prepare a table,” rather than, “I was not diminished,” “He made me lie down,” “You prepared a table.” But in the fifth verse the tenses shifts to perfect verbs, with one exception (“will follow” in vs 5). The reason I point out the shift from imperfect to perfect verbs is that while imperfect verbs refer to something ongoing in this context, the perfect verbs refer to something that already is, a present reality.

“You have anointed my head with oil,” contains a perfect verb, meaning it has happened (although not literally; this is poetic imagery). The next line then is, “my cup overflows,” a statement of current fact for the Psalmist. This is not a great translation, but it’s about the best we can produce in English because the word rendered “overflows” is actually a noun meaning “saturation,” understood figuratively as “well-filled.” I would translate it something like, “My cup is full,” or perhaps even, “I have an overflowing cup.”  However, it’s odd to have half a stanza without a verb, and the noun in question does represent a verbal idea, so, “My cup overflows,” or “My cup is full” suffices. This is, of course, poetry, and the rules of grammar tend to be kind of suspended in Hebrew poetry, so none of that can be pushed too far anyway. 

The main takeaway here is Psalm 23:5 absolutely, in no way contains a future tense promise that, “Your cup will overflow,” taken as an absolute promise to every individual who believes, apart from any literary contextual considerations. This clause does not even contain a verb. David is speaking of his own personal experience at that time. A good exercise might be to read Lamentations 3, another poetic text full of the same sort of perfect verbs that speak of God’s actions toward the speaker. Take the time and go read the chapter, then ask if there is good reason to read these verses as promises to everyone who believes. If not, then you must reconsider using that approach to Psalm 23. There is more to appealing to scripture as a believer than simply looking at what it says and saying, “This is about me.”

Ok, grammar aside, what is David referring to by this overflowing cup?  In verses 1-4 David describes God as a shepherd leading him through deadly circumstances. In verse 5 David describes God as the host of a lavish banquet. In their culture, a banquet host would anoint a guest’s head (vs. 5) with oil (notice this is not David’s anointing as King, because that would be out of step with the banquet metaphor), and the overflowing cup provides a picture of the best of the best in entertainment and hospitality. 

The image is of a partygoer who has been doted on and served well by his host, and at some point during the evening he pauses to reflect on his cup. “Would you look at that! My cup has not gone empty all evening!” The host has been supplying his beloved guest with unending wine….unending joy. 

To intensify the metaphor, the Psalmist says this banquet is, “in the presence of my enemies.” David was literally in the desert running from enemies. Real people were out in the real world trying to kill him. Whether that is the particular situation here or not, many dangerous paths had crossed David’s life, and this Psalm reflects on how God’s protection, guidance, and provision had continued throughout every situation, and on top of that he has continued to be entranced in the joy of His Shepherd’s presence and peace. 

His physical situation did not reflect his spiritual reality. 

David may have been in the desert among enemies, but spiritually he was feasting at God’s banquet. This is the essence of walking by faith and not by sight. We know spiritually the lavish blessings we have at God’s table, whether or not our physical circumstances are comfortable.

The reader must nearly perversely intend to misread this Psalm to see it as a promise of financial prosperity. It completely misses its message and resists reflecting on the beauty and power of the imagery that is actually present here. 

#9. If God loves poverty and hates abundance, explain Elijah’s ministry and Elisha’s ministry

Around the 44 minute mark, Shuttlesworth says, “How come when Elijah found a widow, a single mother that was down to one meal, how come he didn’t take her food and burn her house down? How come he did a miracle by the power of God to cause the oil to overflow and the jar of meal to never run out?”

“If God loves poverty and hates abundance…” It’s hard to know where to even start with this one. I’ve never even heard of a person who thinks God loves poverty and hates abundance. Shuttlesworth comes back to the story of Elisha and the widow in 2 Kings 4 in later questions about giving (because Elisha asked the widow to give the last of what she had before he performed the food miracle). Interestingly he doesn’t talk about Elijah here, only one story about Elisha.

This is a perfect example of the assumptions I listed in Part 1 being used to challenge dissenters. The assumption is, “if you disagree with what I believe about prosperity, then you hate prosperity and believe God does too.” The lack of logic in the thought process here is pretty astounding. The only alternative to the prosperity gospel is believing God wants everyone to be poor and hates people having their needs met? That’s the only alternative? Aside from this view having no grounding in any kind of logic, it is factually untrue. Nobody believes these things you say we believe, Mr. Shuttlesworth. Nobody.

This is also an example of a hermeneutical fallacy that is rampant throughout the Word of Faith movement, which is the failure to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive texts. It is easy to assume when reading a biblical narrative that what is written is written to show us specifically what we are supposed to do. After all, it is God’s Word. But the first task of reading a narrative is to recognize that it is a narrative, a record of what happened, not a prescriptive life guide. For example, when we read about people in the Old Testament who have multiple wives, does that mean that we can and should have multiple wives? Of course not. Should military units today march circles around the area they plan to attack and then shout and blow trumpets so God will give them victory? No, of course not. That’s not the point of these stories. Throughout biblical narrative God reveals Himself to the reader by what He says and what He does.

Throughout Kings there is great emphasis placed on the prophets. The emphasis in the story of Elisha and the widow is on God revealing Himself at that time through the prophet. Judaism under the Mosaic Covenant has been referred to as a “come and see” religion. God was doing a work in this nation the likes of which had never been seen in the world. People would see God’s work in Israel and know there was a God in Israel. You see this emphasis time and time again in the Old Testament. Think of Solomon’s wealth attracting royalty to “come and see.”

The prophets served the same revelatory function. God was revealing Himself to the world, not just to Israel. Through the prophets, Israel received prophetic messages that pointed them back to the Mosaic Covenant stipulations, blessings, and promises, and Gentiles discovered that there is a God in Israel. The story of Elisha and the widow finds itself in a long stream of stories regarding the prophets and how God was revealing Himself through them. By the prophet calling down a miracle (biblically seen only in Israel’s prophets, Jesus, and the apostles early on in the apostolic period), God affirms His messenger and his message.

This story has nothing to do with a universal spiritual law of finances. It does demonstrate God’s care for the poor and marginalized, the certainty of God’s promises, as well as help demonstrate the nature of faith. However, the purpose of the story is not to demonstrate God’s will that all His people live in abundance.

A spiritual law of finances will be dealt with in later questions. Stay tuned for Part 3.