This is the third round of responses to the 35 questions Evangelist Jonathan Shuttlesworth claims in his video series those who disagree with the health and wealth focused Prosperity Gospel cannot answer. To be crystal clear, these are questions to which Shuttlesworth and those of like mind truly claim we have no answer. Please see Part 1 and Part 2 for a full introduction to this series.

Biblical/Theological Questions Covered in Part 3

#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 for his children’s children? 

Logical Fallacy at the Heart of the Issue

Before getting to the specific questions to be addressed in this post, I wanted to pause to address a logical fallacy that serves as the primary, central thought in the video series. Mr. Shuttlesworth’s purpose in asking all these questions is an attempted “gotcha,” thinking that, in the case of Question #11 below, for example, that if the servant who buried money in the ground is the one who was rebuked, and the ones who invested and increased their portions are praised, then he has proven that God’s plan is all about prosperity and effectively debunked historic Christianity’s perspective on money. There are actually comments on the YouTube videos that say this video has essentially “proven” the Prosperity position.

In common use terms, what he’s using here is a “defeater” argument. A defeater says, “Because this is true, that can’t be true.” As already stated, his entire approach is, sadly, based on faulty logic, and until now I’ve not spent any time going over the logical problems with the video series. I’ll do that now briefly. 

The two assumptions that have been addressed previously that underlie the questions in the video series, (1) if you disagree with my interpretation of the Bible, then you reject Scripture, and (2) if you disagree with what I believe about prosperity, then you hate prosperity, are based on a misapplication, or erroneous appeal, to the law of excluded middle. That is, his approach sees this issue as the following dilemma: if their position is true, then mine must be false, and if my position is true, then theirs must be false. 

One of the a priori principles of logic is the law of noncontradiction, which says that a proposition and its opposite cannot both be true. The law of excluded middle is based on the law of noncontradiction. The law of excluded middle says that either a proposition or its negation is true. A fallacy of excluded middle, or false dilemma, erroneously bifurcates an issue, “excluding” any third option. This fallacy is the central, pervasive thought in Shuttlesworth’s approach to this issue. He takes his own position, then formulates (based on conjecture) something equivalent to an opposite of that position, and attributes belief in the conjectured opposite position to those who disagree with his original position, (1) because they happen to disagree, and (2) regardless of what they actually believe or in what manner they disagree. Utterly disregarding all explanations and critiques that have been published for decades, he resigns himself to simply denying the reality of a made up position. 

#11 Did Christ condemn the servants who multiplied their money and praise the servant who buried their money?

The Parable of the Talents

This is yet another text reference that completely misses its intended point. First, it should be noted that Jesus didn’t condemn anyone in the text, nor is He the one who divided money between three servants. Shuttlesworth asks, “When Jesus divided talents of gold to three servants based in proportion to their abilities, and then came back to get an account for what they did with it, did he rebuke the two that doubled their money…?”

I know I’ll sound overcritical and less than charitable here, but I am tempted to assume Shuttlesworth hasn’t studied this text, and possibly hasn’t read it himself (at least, that’s how it sounds), which is ironic considering the way he challenges dissenters here. “I’d love to hear your thoughts on that,” he says. “You don’t have any, because you’ve never thought.” (49:15) 

In the text, Jesus is telling a parable about a man who divided money between three servants. Jesus didn’t do that Himself. He told a parable about it. In Matthew 25:14 Jesus says, “It (the kingdom) is like a man going on a journey. He summoned his own slaves and handed over his property to them.” Basic observations about who is talking to whom in these stories are very important, yet clearly missed in this case.

In the parable, a wealthy man gives three different amounts of money to be taken care of by his three servants while he is away. The two with higher amounts invest their portions, which earn returns, and the one with a smaller amount buries it in the ground to keep it safe, so there was no increase when his master returned to collect his money. The two that invested and gained are praised, and the one that did not is rebuked. 

Again, the assumption he’s working from is, “if you disagree with what I believe about prosperity, then you hate prosperity and believe God does too.” The contention, then, is that those of us who disagree with the prosperity message, since we think prospering and increase is bad, would like to see the servant who buried his portion in the ground to be the one praised. The severe logical problems with this have already been explained above. 

Let’s get a few things straight. First, the money never belonged to the three servants. It wasn’t given to them to do with what they wanted. The master entrusted them with that money in order to grow an increase for himself. What you do not see in this parable is the servants being rewarded with personal financial gain, as suggested by Shuttlesworth and pretty much everyone in his camp. Therefore, second, the parable is about trustworthiness and faithfulness, not financial gain. Third, not everything in the Bible is about money, and sometimes, when money is mentioned in a parable, the point of the parable is not money. 

Are the Parables of the Sower and the Tares Among Wheat teaching farming lessons? Is the Parable of the Prodigal Son teaching a lesson about father and son relational dynamics? Is the Parable of the Lost Sheep teaching about shepherding? Then why would a money parable be strictly teaching money lessons? That’s not how parables work, because that’s not how similes and metaphors work. A parable is an extended simile, and an allegory is an extended metaphor. These are literary devices that convey a message through analogy, most often using real-life situations to describe spiritual ideas. I’m not trying to be condescending here; maybe there are some basics of literary interpretation that are ignored or not understood with these texts. 

The Parable of the Talents, beginning in Matthew 25:14 begins, “For it is like a man going on a journey.” “It” refers to the Kingdom because this parable is part of a longer discourse of parables that describe the Kingdom, like the Parable of the Ten Virgins (25:1-13) before it, and the parable of the unknown day and hour  (24:36-44) before that. These parables should all be read together since they are part of the same discourse. The Parable of the Talents serves as a follow-up to the Parable of the Ten Virgins.

The Ten Virgins, the unknown day and hour, and Parable of the Talents are all three about preparedness for the return of the Messiah. These parables deal with what followers of Jesus should be concerning themselves with while awaiting His return. In the Ten Virgins, the foolish virgins found the task easier than it turned out to be, and in the Talents the foolish servant found the task harder than he thought (Blomberg, 371). The main focus is stewardship of what God has given to us for His Kingdom’s benefit. 

One major clue that the parable is being misread when it is made to reference literal money, and how God feels about money, is its ending. In verse 29-30 Jesus explains the parable saying, “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And throw the worthless slave into the outer darkness–in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 

If this parable is a teaching about literal money, then we must conclude that God has deemed that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and then go to hell for their poverty. A little bit of common sense goes a long way here. Even without having 100% clarity on the correct interpretation of the parable, this is enough to show at the very least that Shuttlesworth’s take on it is vastly mistaken. 

What seems to be the emphasis of the parable is the level of responsibility for what was given, determined by who gave it, not by the amount. In the parable, each of the three servants were supposed to have taken seriously the amounts they were given, regardless of how much. Likely what is in view here is stewardship of abilities and responsibilities in life. The one with little should not treat his little any less seriously than the one with much. The point is not the amount, but stewarding well in response to the One who gave it. This is not a parable about an increase in finances. Not if you read it fairly. Not if you consider how parables work.

#12. According to how you believe, how can someone be the lender and never the borrower?

This question is connected to #1 “Did God talk about prosperity” in Part 1. If you haven’t read it, I recommend going back and covering that before #12.

The Scripture appealed to here is Deuteronomy 28:12.

¹² Yahweh shall open for you his rich storehouse, even the heavens, to give the rain for your land in its time and to bless all of the work of your hand, and you will lend to many nations; you will not borrow from them. (LEB)

If this is the text to which the question appeals, then the way a person can be, “always the lender and never the borrower” is (1) Be a nation and not an individual, because this text is an address to the nation as a whole. This becomes very clear when you consider the statement, “You will lend to many nations,” and as far as I am aware, while many prosperity preachers are wealthy, none are so wealthy that entire nations are seeking them out to borrow money. (2) be the nation of Israel, (3) be party to the Mosaic Covenant, since Deuteronomy is the written covenant into which God and Israel entered, (4) live in Canaan, since the Mosaic Covenant is a Suzerain-Vassal treaty that details the conduct of Israel and the great king Yahweh and the dynamics of their relationship in that land specifically, and (5) obey every law and statute of the Covenant faithfully, including moral, dietary, and ceremonial laws, (6) get a time machine and go back to between 1400 BC and ≈30 AD, because that’s when the Mosaic Covenant was active. 

#13 According to how you believe, how will a righteous man leave an inheritance to his grandchildren? 

We have to be careful with Proverbs. The nature of a proverb is such that we have to be very careful that we do not ascribe prescriptive power to sayings which were designed merely to provide probabilities and general wisdom principles. Let’s keep in mind that Solomon did not write all the content of Proverbs. Solomon both wrote and compiled wise sayings from around his part of the world. Proverbs are general wisdom sayings, and should not be read as containing prescriptive power. How do we know this? First, it is in keeping with the literary style and function of proverbial sayings historically, and second, because they are simply not all true in every case. 

Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go; Even when he is old he will not depart from it.” This is simply not true in every case. Plenty of people are raised by biblically literate, loving parents who taught them the Bible and taught them how to live right, and they still wander away from the faith and make poor decisions. How can this proverb be the inerrant Word of God, and yet some children who are raised properly still depart from the faith? Because Proverbs contain probabilities and principles, not predictions and prescriptions. Again, a lot of this is made clear with a little common sense.

The passage in question in #13 is Proverbs 13:21-22. 

Disaster pursues sinners,

but good rewards the righteous.

A good man leaves an inheritance to his

grandchildren,

but the sinner’s wealth is stored up for the

righteous (CSB)

 This is another instance of Shuttlesworth misquoting the text in question. The text says, “a good man” leaves an inheritance to his grandchildren, not, “a righteous man.” It does, however, say that the wealth of the sinner is stored up, “for the righteous.” What I find interesting is that Shuttlesworth didn’t use a different Bible version when he read verse 21, because in NASB and LEB it says, “the righteous will be rewarded with prosperity.” Personally I find “prosperity” an odd rendering since the Hebrew word there is tov, which normally means “good” or “goodness.” It’s the same word in verse 22 used to describe, “the good man.” NIV, KJV, ESV, and a few others say “good” or “good things” in verse 21. 

Question 13 is presented as just a question by itself, so I can’t say for certain what the point behind the question is. Based on everything else I’ve heard, however, I can guess that the point is that if those of us who disagree with the prosperity gospel believe money and increase to be bad things, how then do we deal with a biblical proverb that says leaving an inheritance for grandchildren is a good thing? Well, first, none of us believe money or inheritance is bad, but that horse has been long dead, so I’ll move on. 

Proverbs 13 contrasts the scorner and the fool with the teachable and the righteous. Following wise teaching, discipline, and correction leads to positive outcomes in life, which includes financial gain and stability. On the other hand, the one who refuses rebuke and does not tolerate wise teaching, ends up in bad shape in life, including poverty. That is not to say foolishness or sin is always the cause of poverty; it is only one cause, and there are many, some of which are completely outside the control of the individual. Again, this is a proverb that communicates general principles. It is true that foolish living leads to bad outcomes, and wise living leads to good outcomes. In a general sense, without considering individual circumstances that may deviate from the norm of this principle, that is absolutely true. 

Shuttlesworth asks a sub-question, 13b: “What would you say that it means that there is a spiritual law that the wealth of the wicked passes to the just?” I wish he would maintain some consistency with wording. His version, NLT, says wealth “passes to the godly,” and his own question suggests it “passes to the just.” Almost all Bible versions, however, say the wealth of the sinner is “stored up for the righteous,” which is closer to the Hebrew wording. Just, godly, and righteous all mean different things. Do you want an answer to what the text means, or an answer to your question, Mr. Shuttlesworth? The two are not the same.

Shuttlesworth is claiming that the second part of verse 22 presents evidence of a “spiritual law” that sinners’ wealth transfers to God’s people. This is a pervasive claim in the prosperity/Word of Faith movement as well as the New Apostolic Reformation. C. Peter Wagner, one of the founders of the NAR, wrote a book about it, The Great Transfer of Wealth, based primarily on Proverbs 13:22. Based on this principle, He claims that Isaiah 60, a prophecy about the Messiah and the restoration of true Israel, is actually a prophecy about how the wealth of our wicked world will one day be transferred to the Church. Prosperity preachers often use this wealth transfer theory to support their claim of a financial “law of sowing and reaping,” which is part of the sales pitch for getting people to donate “seed money” to their ministries. “Give so you will get” is the name of the game in this theology. 

What is the text saying about this wealth transfer, and is it a “transfer”  at all?  Verse 21-22 both have to be considered together to get a good understanding of this. 

Verse 21 says, “misfortune chases sinners.” “Sinners” has the emphatic first position in the line, and the same word is found at the end of verse 22. These two verses are therefore framed, or book-ended, with the word, “sinners.” Granted, the word is an adjective in verse 21 (“sinful”), and a participle in verse 22 (“the one sinning”), but the point is still valid. The word tov, “good,” is the last word of verse 21 and the first word of verse 22. So the words found at the beginning and end of the stanza is, “sinner/sinful,” and at the center of the pair is, “good/goodness” coupled together. The poetic artistry is important to notice. As the saying goes, you can’t know what a text means until you understand how it means. 

The sinful person is chased by misfortune, 

But to the righteous, they will be rewarded

goodness.

 

This is my translation of 21. I’ve italicized words supplied for clarity. Hebrew poetry uses very few words, so sometimes we have to fill in the blanks to make good sense of it.

Good/goodness/a good man bequeaths to grandchildren

The first line of verse 22 is odd. Ordinarily tov by itself as the first word, followed by a verb, would mean tov is being used an adjective to refer to a noun, a good person, so the verb has a subject. That would give us a reading of “a/the good man/person bequeaths to his grandchildren.” However, it seems tov at the end of 21 and beginning of 22 are parallel features, so it’s possible that 22 is a continuation of the thought of 21, referring to the good things rewarded to the righteous in 21. That would mean tov in verse 22 does not refer to, “a good man,” but the good rewarded to the righteous in 21. In that case, goodness would refer to the reward of verse 21 continuing to serve the righteous man generationally to his grandchildren. 

While that may be possible, it is probably still best to render it, “a good man/person,” because the one who says the majority of Bible versions should read differently has the burden of proof, and I’m not going to make a strong enough argument for that with my limited Hebrew competency. I still think it’s noteworthy that tov at the end of 21 and beginning of 22 are right next to each other, so I still think they’re connected conceptually. 

The goodness rewarded to the righteous one is contrasted by the misfortune that chases the sinner. Then the good person’s passing on of an inheritance (usually a reference to property, although often the succession and possession is the focal point, not the specific object passed down) is contrasted with the sinner’s wealth being stored or kept for the righteous one. 

Let’s put both lines together. 

The sinful person 

is chased by misfortune, 

But to the righteous, they will be rewarded 

goodness. 

The good man 

bequeaths to grandchildren,

But stored up for the righteous one is the

wealth of sinners

Each verse is an antithetically parallel couplet, that is, each verse has two lines which present opposites. The two lines taken together provide conceptual continuity in that the blessing in 21 continues to bless the man in 22. The larger contrast is sinners on the outside of the structure, and goodness or the good person on the inside. Goodness and increase come to the wise, and the foolish will ultimately lose, no matter their effort. I say that because in Proverbs the righteous is equated with the wise and teachable, and the wicked is equated with the fool and the scorner. This is a case where we have to define “righteous” and “wicked” as the author does. 

So how is it that the wealth of the sinner is “stored up” for the righteous one? The Hebrew word rendered “stored up” refers to either hiding/concealing, or to storing/keeping/saving/treasuring something of value. The more interesting word, though, is the one translated, “wealth.” In the Hebrew Bible there are three primary words translated “wealth.” The one in Proverbs 13:22 has a very wide variety of uses/meanings. Most often it is translated as army/armies. Other meanings include troops, strength, power/powerful, strong/able, and wealth. There are other Hebrew words that can mean, “wealth,” and it seems this one is used to refer to wealth as power and ability. Considering the context it could also have in mind the idea of “gain.” With great gains comes more power and ability in the world.

It seems to me that what is meant by the wealth/power of the sinner being stored up for the righteous one is that what the sinner has, has gained, and uses for his own benefit is stored for use for the righteous. This is essentially the same idea as, “What you meant for evil, God intended for good.” It does not say “wealth” in the sense of literal money necessarily, and it does not say, “transfers/passes to,” but “is stored up for.” God subverts the efforts of the wicked to benefit His Kingdom and His people. This would be a more theological way of looking at it. 

On a very practical, literal level, the reason the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous is because, when considering the context of the chapter, their unwise way of living leads to their loss of resources, and those resources inevitably go somewhere. In this chapter, the righteous man or good person is the one who wisely accepts reproof and teaching and, because they do so, has a better quality of life. That’s really all the text is saying, in a fairly straightforward manner. It is not explaining a universal principle that says the wicked’s wealth gets transferred to the righteous. Plenty of very wealthy people in this world die in their sin, and their money either goes to family members or to the government. That’s because Proverbs contains probabilities and principles, not predictions and prescriptions. 

This is the end of Part 3. Part 4 will contain questions related to the coexistence of prosperity and suffering, the financial implications of the Abrahamic Covenant, stewardship, and the financial state of the ancient church as described in Acts.