As much as we wring our hands regarding inter-religious conflict, most of the fighting in which people of faith engage is with those who share the same religion. Christianity is no exception. In fact, such divisions have existed literally since the beginning of Christianity. For example, the gospels of Mark and Luke record Jesus admonishing His disciples for criticizing a man who was performing miracles in Jesus’ name. (This man wasn’t part of the “in” crowd.)
In short, the original followers of Jesus attempted to limit Christian membership; today, many followers of Jesus are attempting to limit the Christian message. For example, two heated intra-religious battles among Christians have recently come to the fore. Both concern hermeneutical (i.e., interpretative) and exegetical (i.e., explanative) implications of Matthew 25:34-46. There is a particular focus on verse 35, which speaks to Christians’ duty to feed the hungry and to take care of strangers.
Specifically, some Christians believe that this passage applies not just to individuals; they say that it should extend to government action as well. By contrast, some Christians argue that Jesus’ words here only apply to individuals — not the government. The latter group includes the Speaker of the House, Representative Michael Johnson. Who’s right?
We have benefitted from extraordinary Christian apologists going back for roughly two millennia. They include African Bishop St. Augustine, Italian priest Thomas Aquinas, and Greek Bishop Irenaus. Contemporary giants include C.S. Lewis, James Cone, and William Lane Craig. However, I believe that the best interpreter and arbiter of scripture is scripture itself. In short, we should consider the most commonly repeated and most easily understood passages when trying to discern God’s key messages to humankind.
… the biblical directive to treat strangers well isn’t merely a New Testament phenomenon.
To that end, the biblical directive to treat strangers well isn’t merely a New Testament phenomenon. At least 36 Old Testament passages admonish us to feed, clothe, and house strangers. Broadly speaking, we are to welcome them rather than exclude them. Regarding the New Testament, the Greek word for “stranger” in Matthew 25:35 is “xenos.” That word can be translated as “foreigner”, “alien”, or “guest.” It is also the root of the word “xenophobia.” Yet, in great contrast to the notion that we should fear strangers or foreigners, the Bible instructs us to welcome them. It tells us to embrace them. Indeed, it tells us to love them.
Unfortunately, millions of my fellow Christians think that such compassion applies to “people,” but not to “the government.” This is a strange, and strained, argument in part because our government was created not only “by” and “for” the people; it is also a government that consists “of” the people. Though many Americans rail against “the government” as if it were an entity compromised of something other than human beings, it isn’t. We don’t elect non-human entities to represent us. (At least, not yet.)
Beyond that, to cite the Bible as justification for this view runs counter to both the plain meaning and the broader spirit of the text. For example, take the case of Joseph, whose life story is chronicled in Genesis chapters 37-50. As the second-highest ranking government official in ancient Egypt, he was in charge of distributing food aid to people — irrespective of whether they shared his religion, his culture, or his nationality. The only qualification was being a human being who could make his or her way to Egypt for government assistance.
People of faith as diverse as Pope Leo XIV and Senator Raphael Warnock have publicly and passionately spoken in favor of the notion that Matthew 25:35 includes “the government” and its policies. For example, they have criticized President Trump’s actions regarding immigration. Speaker Johnson has responded that government should not be involved in such issues. (One wonders how Speaker Johnson squares that with his views about whether the government should be involved in decisions regarding the “individual” right to abortion.)
Christians, like all people of faith, are subject both to “proof texting” and eisegesis. The former is a form of confirmation bias. It refers to forming a strong opinion about a given topic and then searching through scripture to find “proof” of one’s position. Similarly, eisegesis involves “reading into” scripture our own beliefs and biases, as opposed to “pulling out” of scripture its actual meaning. We call the latter “exegesis.”
… we don’t help other people because it’s “nice” to do; we help them because it is our duty as servants of God.
The Hebrew word “tzedakah” appears in the Bible more than 150 times. It is often translated outside the Bible as “charity,” but the more appropriate meaning is “justice” or “righteousness.” In short, we don’t help other people because it’s “nice” to do; we help them because it is our duty as servants of God. A faith that I should leave at the door if I work for the government is a faith that isn’t worth following.
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
