notcom

Jesus Christ is not a Family Hating Communist

    People’s opinions and knowledge are not equal in all subjects. In our society, people hire others to do jobs that they themselves would have difficulty with or could not do. We take our cars to the mechanic and our bodies to the doctor when they are broken. We take our taxes to the accountant and we rely on the butcher to slaughter the tasty little animals so that we may eat…. So why do we consider all men’s opinions to be equal when it comes to discerning what is actually true in matters ethical and religious?

     Bart Kosko, in his article Jesus Christ: Family Hating Communist, is claiming de facto that he is an expert on Christianity and on what the Christian Scriptures actually mean. As a fundamentalist¹Christian allow me to submit that Kosko, although able to read and write, does not know the first thing about biblical interpretation and this fact I will show. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that he deliberately quoted Scripture out of context to support his case.²

     Proper biblical interpretation first requires an impartial translation of the ancient language into the modern. This is critical so that a proper exegesis can be made of the text so it is then possible for it to be understood the way it was meant to be understood.³

    The next imperative is context. A text out of context is a pretext. For example, there is a phrase in the Bible that says "There is no God." Does the Bible therefore propose atheism? No, in context it says "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"⁴A Mormon would claim that Psalm 82:1 presents the idea of polytheism. But in the context of the rest of the psalm, it is clear that the passage is referring to unjust judges. If you leave this principle (of respecting context) for your own vices, it is clear that you can make the Bible say anything you want it to.

    As part of context, it is important to understand what is being said as the audience at that time and culture would have understood what was being said. In other words, how would a first century Jew understand what Jesus said, as opposed to how (let’s say) a white, middle-class, 20th-century male would understand those particular words and phrases. Cultural understandings change.

    The recognition of what type of literature you are reading is also important. Discernment must be practiced to deduce which passages should be understood literally (law or history,) figuratively (parables and other various metaphors and similes,) or generally (wisdom) Rendering all passages in the Bible literally is something the Bible’s opponents love to do. To do so relegates the Bible to an absurdity, which their itching ears want to hear. If this principle were performed with other forms (primarily secular) of literature, it would be laughable. But, to do this to the Bible is fair game for the supposedly learned.⁵

    Next is a concept called sola scriptura. It basically states that you should allow the Scripture to speak for itself inside the context of what was originally meant, and that Scripture should define the Church rather than the Church defining Scripture (i.e., Roman Catholicism.) It also acknowledges that all Scripture (Genesis to Revelation) was ultimately authored by the Holy Spirit and is therefore equally inspired. The entire canon testifies to Christ and to His mission.

    How did the Canon recognizing the 66 books comprising the Christian Bible come to be, you ask?⁶ Well, those books were basically unstoppable based on the principle found in John 8:47, "He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God" and in other Scriptures.⁷ Whether or not you belong to God is your choice.⁸

    The doctrine of tota scriptura is basically the principle that all of Scripture that is inspired must be included in the formulation of a belief system;⁹and that Scripture should be used to interpret Scripture and not upon the opinion of a man nor upon any particular church’s doctrine.¹⁰ What a particular man says may or may not be true, but the mere authority of a man remains no proper test for truth.

    Finally, it all ties together with reason. There is nothing in the Bible that goes against reason that anyone has to accept on faith alone. That notion is a secular lie put forth to discredit the idea that there is such a thing as absolute ‘religious’ truth. If there were any actual, provable contradictions, I would not be a Christian. There are concepts that go above limited human reason but never against it. This is because there are different conditions of existence between a necessary Being and His contingent beings.
    God gave us logic and reason, so in obedience we should use them. Kosko’s interpretations are largely based upon categorical and contextual errors which I will now demonstrate point by point since I’ve finished giving the micro-lesson on Biblical hermeneutics.

    Kosko stated that Jesus had only contempt for wealth and that Jesus said that only the poor could go to heaven.¹¹Kosko’s assertions imply a direct causal relationship between the state of being rich and as such therefore unworthy of Heaven. He then tries to back his statement by quoting the "eye of the needle" metaphor deliberately out of context to prove his point. When Jesus overturned the money changers tables, He did not utter "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God" as Kosko put it. Rather He said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it `a den of robbers.'"¹² Not the same is it?

    In this case, Jews were required by the Law of Moses to bring a sacrifice and pay the temple tax. Most did not have a suitable sacrifice with them so they would purchase one and would also probably have to exchange money in order to make the purchase and pay the tax. A captive audience like this would be a great money-maker for a scoundrel. Thieving in the House of God would be grievous to Jesus who was God incarnate.

    Jesus was a rational man (the arguments for the insanity of Jesus don’t hold up.)¹³ He knew things must be bought and sold, both labor and goods, so that people may live. In fact, it is written that buying and selling through honest labor for honest gain is considered virtuous.¹⁴Since Jesus is God,¹⁵ and God had blessed people with wealth before,¹⁶ it follows logically that God does not consider wealth in and of itself to be a bad thing. In fact, there are Scriptures that endorse the proper use of wealth in order that you may do good.¹⁷ But it is something to be careful with, in that you don’t allow your wealth to come between you and God. This leads us to the confrontation between the young rich man and Jesus where the "eye of a needle" metaphor is actually used.

When the ‘famous anti-capitalist metaphor’ is put into context, you’ll see that it doesn’t mean exactly what Kosko intended it to mean: it (being rich) rules out going to heaven.¹⁸ I’ll show the passage and then make commentary on it from a Christian perspective.

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: `Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'" "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." Mark 10:17-27

    When addressed as ‘good teacher,’ Jesus responds by asking if the man realized what he was saying and that all you have to do is keep the law perfectly. The man responds that he has kept the Law, but in his heart he knows he is not perfect.¹⁹ When the text says that Jesus loved him it meant that Jesus (being God, knew the man’s heart and that he had sinned)²⁰ did not spit in the man’s face and call him a liar. But rather He conducted a pop quiz. Knowing the man loved his money, He tested to see if the man would allow the money to get between himself and God. In other words, would he would follow the first commandment.²¹ The man demonstrated that he loved his money more than God and as such hadn’t even kept the first commandment. Not keeping all the commandments makes one a sinner who is unworthy of Heaven.²²

    Jesus’ statement "how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God!" prefaces the supposed anti-capitalist metaphor. Why? Because He was not talking about the state of being rich! He was talking about being worthy of Heaven. These are two entirely different subjects. You may say "Well that’s just your interpretation!"²³ Wrong. Not when you match²⁴ what is being said here with the basic Gospel message, that none of us are worthy of the Kingdom of God!²⁵ The Christian message is unique from all the other religions of the world in that you cannot work your way to Heaven.²⁶ The pious act of giving up your wealth would be a work, and as such would be saying that you yourself can become worthy of Heaven. In that context, that act of giving up your money to work your way to Heaven would be sin.²⁷ So is there hope since a camel can’t physically go through the eye of a needle?

    Yes. Jesus’ statement, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God" refers to the impossibility of man to earn his way into Heaven, but that it is possible through Christ’s atoning sacrifice for man.²⁸ This is the Gospel message.²⁹ Our sin can legally be imputed to Christ’s sacrifice at the Cross and Christ’s righteous life can be imputed to us so then we can be worthy of Heaven.³⁰

    So what about the state of being rich? Becoming a Christian involves sacrifice. To forsake hedonism, to be loving, selfless and generous, admitting that you are wrong and need help, and being prepared to give all your possessions and possibly your life for Him is only part of it. Upon accepting Christ, He unseats you as the epistemological center of your universe, this is possibly the toughest thing for a proud and/or wealthy person to do.³¹

    So, when put into a Christian perspective, we see wealth as being a possible indirect cause (being centered on the world as opposed to accepting Christ as Lord) rather than a direct cause (the actual condition of being rich) which excludes you from Heaven.

    Kosko’s citation of Luke 14:33 and his interpretation of it, was misleading. There is a difference between prepared to give and give. Equating things that don’t equate is not logical.

    The claim that Acts 2:44-45 promotes the idea that Christians ought to practice communism has several problems with it. First of all these passages are descriptive not prescriptive as far as the grammar is concerned and in the fact that the Book of Acts was written as a primarily historical work. Secondly, as far as the text indicates, the system was only temporary and voluntary³² since other passages imply that the rich and poor were together as brothers in an apparently capitalistic society.³³ Lastly, the Ten Commandments establishes the idea of personal property. 34

    The assumption that Jesus was an Essene (or was influenced by their teachings) is based on the fact that He didn’t talk against them in the Bible. There is a problem though, here is a brief list of the differences between Essene teaching and what Jesus taught: Jesus opposed ceremonial purity; Essenes radicalized it. Jesus opposed legalism; Essenes were decidedly Mosaic Law legalists. Jesus stressed the Kingdom of God; Essenes did not. Jesus opened salvation to the Gentiles; Essenes were Jewish nationalists. Jesus taught that there was only one Messiah; Essenes looked for two³⁵ …. The list of differences was cut short for the sake of brevity, but suffice it to say, the "Jesus was an Essene" argument is pretty weak.

    Kosko’s use of quotations from a Harvard theologian and the Pope is fine and dandy, but argumentation based upon the authority of a man is, at best, only supportive. What these men say may or may not be true. But, argumentation based upon sincerity, authority and/or majority proves nothing.

    I’m going to take a wild guess at this, but the ‘fundamentalists’ Kosko’s probably referring to are the "name-it-and-claim-it" and "health-n-wealth" preachers like those which can be seen on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. (I could be wrong but those folks are pretty visible.) The prosperity preachers³⁶ promote a gospel of greed, declare that you can speak things into reality, that it’s a sin to be poor, assert that God uses the "force of faith", blaspheme the atonement, say that God is a man, claim they are "little gods," and the list goes on and on.³⁷ (I am not allowed³⁸ nor able to judge the heart,³⁹but I am allowed to judge what people say and do.⁴⁰) They use Christian terminology and say ‘Jesus’ quite often, but the doctrine they preach is not Christian.
So in this sense, I would agree with Kosko that these ‘fundamentalists’ do not preach what Jesus and His Apostles preached.

    Now let’s examine Kosko’s claim that Jesus hated the family. Luke 14:26 doesn’t actually say what Kosko presupposes it to say when put into proper context for many reasons. His interpretation is an excellent example of a Christian opponent’s forcing the "Everything-in-the-Bible-is-to-be-taken-literally-as-it-is-written-in-English" as universal axiom down our throats, in an attempt to make Christians look stupid. It is unfortunate that such a tactic frequently works for those who lack a discerning mind. But to someone who actually does his homework, it only reveals the opponent’s profound ignorance and prejudice.

    Jesus was using a common Semitic rhetorical exaggeration to make a point.⁴¹ A 1st-century Jew would have understood this use of hyperbole as being an indirect claim to be God since in Jewish tradition only God openly demanded such devotion as Jesus claims here.⁴²

    Secondly, the English word hate was translated from the Greek word miseo. Miseo is an extension of the primary misos, which means hatred. The extension means to love less.⁴³ So when you examine how it was translated from a ancient language to it’s closest modern equivalent we find that the word hate doesn’t do the original meaning justice does it? In English, we say that we love hamburgers and that we love our spouses and use the same word to express it. But ancient Greek for example, there are four words that all mean specific things that are translated into the same English word, love. In Greek the form of the word determines it’s meaning.

    This principle follows as we look at the parallel account in Matthew 10:37-39,

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

    Both of the passages say the same thing but from a different perspective.⁴⁴ The concept squares with the Biblical teaching that Jesus is God and that God is to be loved first. Parents are to be honored and loved.⁴⁵ It is commanded of us by the Scriptures to love each other as we love ourselves.⁴⁶ Also, since it is blatantly obvious that you would have no framework for loving others if you don’t know how to take care of ourselves first, then it follows that you ought not literally hate yourself as Luke 14:26 appears to say you ought do in English. So as to be consistent as a true Christian strives to be, to love less is the only intelligent way to interpret this passage.

    Allow me to pretend for a moment: I’m going to call myself an electrical engineer. Never mind that I have never learned any electrical engineering principles. I have declared it, so it shall be. What if I wrote a book claiming that it was about electrical engineering, and then signed it using a famous electrical engineer’s name; How valid and credible would the information be inside? Likewise, don’t force the Book of Thomas on me, I don’t accept it. It is Gnostic heresy probably authored in Syria about the middle of the 2nd-century.⁴⁷

    Matthew 10:34-36 is a prophetic passage as Jesus paralleled what was said in Micah 7:6. This is truth, and it did happen as Jesus said it would. The purpose of Christ’s coming to earth was to reconcile man to God. But the result also brought division between those who were for Christ and those who were against Him. Kosko’s emphasis of shall be fails to prove his point since it is obvious from the passage’s context that it is a descriptive prophetic declaration. Shall be doesn’t necessarily imply a voice of command. In this case, a true prophetic declaration was made that did happen. Not by the power of Christ, but through the knowledge given Him by the Father, and then He accurately stated what He knew was going to happen as ‘it shall be.’

    Many false teachers and heresies arose. Those who loved the truth had to separate themselves from those who loved the lie.⁴⁸ Wars were fought throughout history for the freedom to worship the truth. Atrocities were committed, families were divided and the struggle continues today. I for one will not lay down my sword,⁴⁹though it may cost me dearly. I fight for Him.⁵⁰

    Though it does nothing to logically defend my case, I would like to say a few things about the ‘scholars’ Kosko likes to quote. Bart Ehrman cites ‘Q’ implying that it is an actual textual source for ‘anti-family’ traditions. ‘Q’ is a purely hypothetical document.⁵¹ It does not exist. So he can be dismissed as someone who is misleading, hiding behind his title of ‘scholar.’

    John Dominic Crossan (as one of the heavily promoted ‘Jesus Seminar’,) as with the Seminar, rests his work upon a materialist presupposition.⁵² His argument is circular in that it presupposes that miracles cannot happen, so anything miraculous in the Bible must be thrown out as fantasy, and so arrives at the conclusion that any miraculous occurrences reported in Bible did not in fact occur.

    The Jesus Seminar, a collection of liberal Catholics and Protestants, Jews and atheists, vote using different colored beads on various sayings of Jesus’ to determine whether or not these sayings were actually uttered by Jesus himself.⁵³ A primary criterion for "probably not" is if the saying was something a later Christian would say or if it was something a Jewish Rabbi would say.⁵⁴ Hmm… Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who was the author of the Christian faith. Enough said, I’ll move on….

    Kosko’s assertion that Jesus was a "typical cult leader," and as such maneuvered to inspire fanatical veneration ignores at least several glaring problems. As I have demonstrated, Jesus did not act as ‘typical cult leader’ in that He did not manipulate His disciples into breaking ties with their families nor did He command it.

    Secondly, Jesus did not act as "typical cult leader," because in the span of a week the multitude went from praising Him⁵⁵ to calling for His crucifixion⁵⁶ because He did not tell them what they wanted to hear. Doesn’t sound like much of a plan to get a fanatical following.

    After the crucifixion, the bulk of His followers were the eleven. They were unbelieving,⁵⁷scared,⁵⁸and confused.⁵⁹ If that were the result of a "typical cult leader," that would have been the end of it. But Jesus rose from the dead physically,⁶⁰ and opened their minds.⁶¹ Those men set out and changed the world,⁶² and most of them paid with their lives.

    Lastly, belief does inspire fanaticism, Muslims are a great example. Men will die for what they believe in. Christianity is unique to all other belief systems in this respect: The Apostles were in the position to actually know whether or not what they were saying was actually true. Men will not suffer and die for what they know to be a lie.

    The argument that ‘good, consistent’ Christians should not be a part of a family is absurd. Marriage is an institution ordained by God.⁶³ Jesus confirmed this in Matthew 19:4-6 and acknowledged the validity of family relationships.⁶⁴ The Book of Acts records disciples (believers) as having wives and children⁶⁵ and elsewhere in the Scriptures it says that leaders in the church could be family men.⁶⁶

    God’s creative design for the structure and function of the base unit of society is the ‘Traditional Family’ since all roles are prescribed by Scripture. The family structure provides the framework for disciplining children.⁶⁷ The Bible prescribes that family members should love one another⁶⁸and care for each other's needs,⁶⁹and that children are to be loved⁷⁰and instructed.⁷¹ Scripture demands that husbands love their wives⁷²and that wives love their husbands⁷³and that they be faithful to one another.⁷⁴

    Since I have clearly shown that it is not required of a Christian to be a communist nor to hate his family, Kosko’s conclusion that conservative Christians are inconsistent on the basis of their Scripture is baseless. Inconsistent as a political movement is concerned, we might have something there. But that’s another story….

My final conclusions: God has ordained people to unite the family.⁷⁵ The conservative Christians are well within the Bible’s teaching in defending the traditional family. Abortion is wrong.⁷⁶ Homosexuality is wrong.⁷⁷ Divorce is wrong.⁷⁸ The role of the father is imperative to children, as I have previously cited sufficient Scripture to substantiate that assertion. And yes, communism doesn’t work. Duh.

I’ll close with this observation: It would be best that Kosko not pretend to be an expert on Christianity, and that I not pretend to be an expert on electrical engineering.

Mark Jennings

1. (As in the fundamentals of the Faith. I believe in a triune God, the infallibility of scripture, the full divinity of Christ, miracles, and full atonement of Christ. All within the framework of The First Principles, and upon the principles of sola scriptura and tota scriptura.)
2. Romans 1:18-20
3. (The Jehovah’s Witness’ New World Translation is a good example of the antitheses of the interpretation principle of exegesis. The belief system was already in place, then they translated so that their belief system would be vindicated by the translated text. This is obviously terribly deceptive.)
4. Psalm 14:1
5. Jeremiah 8:8-9
6. (It is not my purpose in this article to write an apologetic on the canonization and authority of the Bible. Yes, all arguments for that authority are ultimately circular. But, I would rather rest that circularity upon a supreme necessary being, than one from a contingent being, a man, who is no better than I.)
7. Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 25:14, John 7:17, Proverbs 28:5
8. John 7:17, Matthew 23:37, Act 2:38-41, 1 Corinthians 9:17, 1 Peter 5:2.
9. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
10. Acts 17:11
11. In Matthew 27:57 it is recorded that Jesus had at least one rich disciple.
12. Mark 11:17
13. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998) pp. 192-207.
14. Proverbs 31:10-31
15. Matthew 26:63-65;12:6-8, Luke 4:12; 8:28, John 5:17-23:10:30-33.
16. Genesis 24:35, Job 42:10
17. 1 John 3:17
18. Bart Kosko, Jesus Christ: Family Hating Communist (Liberty, Vol. 14, No. 9, Sept. 2000), p.57 ,note #3
19. 1 John 1:8-10
20. John 7:19
21. Deuteronomy 5:7, Matthew 6:24
22. James 2:10
23. (Kosko’s citation of Pilzer (Note #3) is unclear as to what words and what requirements Pilzer’s referring to. Due to this ambiguity, this citation can be disregarded as not relevant. (Side note: Nietzsche would call my distinctions, "sacrosanct hairsplitting’s of a Christian dogmatic." To this I say, how else are going to get to bottom of the issue.)
24. (I’m hereby invoking the principle of tota scriptura, that is using Scripture to interpret Scripture.)
25. Romans 3:19-26, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Galatians 3:22
26. Isaiah 57:12; 64:6, Matthew 5:20, Acts 13:39, Romans 9:16; 9:30-33, Ephesians 2:8-9
27. Proverbs 30:12, Luke 18:9-14, Galatians 6:3, 2 Corinthians 10:12-18
28. Matthew 20:28, Revelation 5:9
29. John 3:16, Romans 4:25;5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
30. Colossians 1:19-22
31. Revelation 3:17, James 4:6
32. (In addition: Kosko’s assertion that voluntary communism equals his overall thesis that Christians ought be communists [so as to be consistent with Acts 2:44-45] is inconsistent at best. At worst, illogical.)
33. 1 Corinthians 16:2, 2 Corinthians 9:5-7, 1 Timothy 6:17
34. Exodus 20:15, 17
35. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics   (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999) , pp. 215-216
36. Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1997)
37. (These, and many other heresies are documented and refuted using Scripture in Hanegraaff’s book.)
38. Matthew 7:1-2
39. 1 Kings 8:39
40. 1 Corinthians 2:15; 14:29, John 7:24
41. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p.230
42. Deuteronomy 6:4-5
43. Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. (Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.), NT:3404
44. John 12:24-25
45. Exodus 20:12
46. Matthew 7:12; 22:39, Leviticus 19:18,34, Romans 13:8
47. Strobel, p.88
48. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
49. Ephesians 6:17
50. 1 Peter 3:15-17
51. Strobel, p.31
52. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 1996) , pp. 124-5
53. Geisler, pp.386-88
54. Strobel, p. 156
55. Luke 19:35-40
56. Mark 15:13-15
57. Mark 16:14, John 20:25
58. John 20:19
59. Luke 24:19-27
60. Luke 27:37-43, Acts 1:3, 1 Corinthians 15:6
61. Luke 24:45
62. Matthew 28:18-20
63. Genesis 2:23-24
64. Luke 11:11-13
65. Acts 21:5
66. Titus 1:6, 1 Timothy 3:5,12
67. Hebrews 12:7-11
68. Psalm 103:13
69. 1 Timothy 5:8, Proverbs 13:22
70. Titus 2:4, Colossians 3:21, Proverbs 13:24
71. 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12, Ephesians 6:4, Proverbs 22:6,15;29:17, Deuteronomy 6:7
72. Colossians 3:19
73. Titus 2:4
74. Exodus 20:14, Malachi 2:14
75. Malachi 4:5-6
76. Exodus 20:13
77. 1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:26-27
78. Malachi 2:15-16

Return to Home