Has the pro-Obama "Matthew 25" political action committee misappropriated Matthew chapter 25?

There is a new political action committee that claims the 25th chapter of Matthew in the Bible as its own. I've posted my thoughts on this to their very own Facebook network.

Please have a look and see if you can help provide counterarguments to the blowback that will inevitably result.

Here is the original post in case it gets canned by the Matthew 25 Network.

To be clear, I've joined this group not in support, but in protest so that I could submit my views on Matthew 25 to this group's supporters. My hope is that I will be able to help you to understand why many conservative Christians will find it difficult to take this "Matthew 25" organization seriously.

When I first read about this PAC on my Blackberry's feed reader before Sunday School today, I immediately turned to Matthew 25 to get a refresher on the topics discussed in that chapter.

While I can see how the Matthew 25 organization might feel justified in co-opting verses 35-40 in support of their supposedly "more charitable than thou" stance towards conservatives, I also had to keep from laughing out loud during Sunday School at how poorly this chapter could look being applied to the PAC in the eyes of the majority of the conservative Christians it is trying to court.

True understanding of the scriptures comes from reading the full context of what was recorded. So, let's break it down into smaller chunks of the whole chapter and see if the traditional interpretations of these verses still apply to conservatives or have somehow, today, become more relevant to liberals.

I'm using the King James Version (KJV) here because it is the most complete, and chronologically closest to the source, translation into English of the common Bible most people have today. If you happen to speak Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, I refer you to the representative or original source texts for comparison, but you will find that the KJV is quite faithful to those translations.

This is not meant to be a biblical spitting match, but a serious study in contrasts between how modern-day conservatives view these scriptures and how they might react to attempts from liberals to convert them to the idea that it applies to their ideologies (abortion, gay marriage, social handouts instead of hand-ups) as much as to those of conservatives.

Matthew chapter 25 is basically a bunch of parables. Jesus taught these as a way to hide truth from people who weren't yet prepared to accept Christ or who might ridicule or take issue with the boldness of what he was saying (and therefore might unjustly be condemned for rejecting truth given in plainness). Simultaneously, his purpose was also to speak clearly to those who had willing hearts and minds and were prepared to accept what Christ said, even if his teachings didn't agree with what they had been taught from a secular perspective. See Matthew 13 where it states:

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

The first parable in Matthew 25 struck me as one that conservative Christians might take issue with in regards to liberals coming "late to the party" as per Christian values.

1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were aready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

In other words, we've been standing here at the door as a church for about 1,972 years waiting for the Bridegroom (Christ) to come for His bride (the Church). We haven't been perfect at it, and we've gotten a lot of things wrong (blood soaked wars over doctrine or to "convert" people, etc.) but on the whole, the general tradition...arguably a conservative one...has withstood the test of time. Be prepared that conservatives will see the Matthew 25 PAC as a living example of the five foolish virgins in the parable above who procrastinated buying oil (testimony and belief in traditional Gospel principles) for their lamps until it was too late.

Next in Matthew chapter 25 comes the parable of the talents:

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Conservatives will take you to task on this parable as well. The traditional and, we feel, correct interpretation is that we are required to take all that the Lord gives us and to turn it into something profitable or of use to the world. The last servant did none of that, but squandered his opportunity to increase the investment capital he was given. You can see where this is going, right? Temporally speaking, if we look at it in a pure capitalist light, it is quite condemning of liberal policies and social welfare. The lord in this parable didn't say, "Ah well, here's your welfare. Now, run along." He sent the guy packing. Likewise, if we give people money and they view it as a handout to hoard rather than a hand up to invest and make something of themselves, we're going to be falling into the category of the slothful servant.

Spiritually speaking, the parable of the talents has reference to the good we're expected to do in the world with the abilities we've been given. That still plays into conservative hands on issues of abortion, challenges such as same-sex attraction and choosing to abstain rather than spread disease and misery, and anti-socialism/communism (all experiments thereto having failed spectacularly in every single instance).

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Now, with those four verses, which precede the motto verses of the Matthew 25 organization, are just too obvious to pass up. Not only because it puts into question just whether people's motives and true characters will equal salvation for them in the end, but it also notably uses the directions "left" and "right" in dividing the goats from the sheep, respectively. I wouldn't presume to state that it will be divided quite so nicely between Republicans and Democrats. I know plenty of supposed conservatives who, through their hypocrisy, will probably be counted with the goats. Likewise, I know plenty of liberals who are very, very Christian, who are even against abortion and homosexuality, and just happen to support the Democrat ticket for other reasons (unions and social causes, for example). God is no respecter of persons and will judge us a) by our acceptance of Christ and b) by our works in support of Christ.

But "left" and "right" just stand out at me for some reason, partly because I know that the word "left" in Latin derives from "sinistre", which means just what it sounds like. I know that the terms "left" and "right" as applied to politics have a different origin. They are derived from the seating in the French Legislative Assembly in 1791. But in ancient times, the left hand was considered unclean, not fit to touch in a handshake, because of its use to clean one's nether regions and perform other hygenic tasks. To be on a ruler's right hand, rather than his left, was considered an honor because it represented cleanliness and purity. That's why Christ uses those terms in this parable, because that's how his audience would have interpreted it. Today's Islamofascist Muslims, to whom the radical parts of the left unabashedly pander, totally understand this reference because their languages are less corrupted from their ancient sources than ours. We conservatives find that to be the height of irony given that they support the left-wing (liberal) parties of most governments because of their "tolerance" and "understanding" for the "Muslim plight". But, it does fit with their stated goals to use the morally confused against themselves in order to dominate the world.

For conservatives today, the key verse in the 35-40 range cited by the Matthew 25 organization is verse 40, which states:

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Now, nobody can presume to claim the moral high ground on the treatment of their fellow man. ALL of us fall short of the ideal in verse 40. But when I consider what the Lord meant when he said "the least", I cannot exclude unborn children clinging to their mother's womb in a day and age when that new life is given no more respect than the "fetus" or "glob of tissue" or "product of conception" that Planned Parenthood considers it to be. Either an unborn baby is a life precious to Christ as "one of the least of these my brethren", or it is not. I would prefer we err on the chance that it is. If it is not, we will not stand accused at the judgment day because the woman who carried that child to term was inconvenienced and had to adapt to the consequences of her earlier choices. Mary was given a choice when the angel stated she was chosen to be the mother of Christ. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." She knew it was going to be difficult to explain her pregnancy, but she chose to do so in spite of that. Can't we as a society build a culture that promotes a choice of life over a choice of killing a child who has no voice in the matter?

To be completely thorough in the foregoing enterprise, I would be remiss in not quoting and commenting on the application of the final six verses:

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Again, I'll admit that there are plenty of conservatives, rich, elite ones at that, who need to read this passage very carefully to personally evaluate where they stand. But there are plenty of elitist liberals who publicly shame conservatives for not reaching out to the poor while secretly rejecting the ideals they preach when it comes to handling their own financial and business affairs. There are plenty of examples as recently exposed in "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" by Peter Schweizer and other notable journalists and skeptics who deconstruct the walls of the banner ideologues to expose their failures to live up to their own standards for others.

All of us have a mote in our own eyes that we need to cast out before we try to remove the speck in another's. Let's not use Matthew 25 or any other scriptures taken out of context as branding for political action committees. Whether you're conservative or liberal, you can probably agree that it's not a proper use of scripture as it has enormous potential to mislead people into voting for and supporting things they might otherwise object to based on other scriptural teachings.

Mathew 25 is about separating pretend Christians from the real thing. Jesus even said He spoke in parables to confuse the people that weren't serious. It gives the "virgins" and "talents" parables to speak of the Rapture. The wise virgins get to go, the unwise stay to buy and sell with the unbelievers. He is speaking to people that go to church. These people should know to watch for His coming but have fallen asleep. The "talents" parable is the same principle. Some have been given much and done things with it for the Kingdom, others have buried it and you wouldn't;t even know they were Christians by looking at them. They have no "treasure in Heaven.

In reality, it gets easier and easier to separate the believers and unbelievers but just 2 positions. What is your position o abortion, and what is your position on gay marriage? There is no serious Christian can defend murdering a baby and supporting homosexuality.........NONE! There is absolutely no Scripture that says a baby isn't a gift from God and about 25 or so that says homosexuality is not acceptable to God. He even destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah over it. It is condemned in several passages in no uncertain terms. We can look at attitudes of fornication and adultery, and other sins, but these two have become the liberal battle cry and are clearly against God's Will. Who denies America was founded on Christian principles? Who wants to stop prayer in school? Who wants to take God out of daily life? Who wants any religion but Christianity spoken of in the arena of ideas? Democrats even have it in their platform. There are definitely some Republicans are going to Hell, but a Democrat has several strikes against them that should be obvious to any reader of Scripture. The "sheep and goat" parable has to do with judging nations, not people. The supporters of Israel will be judged differently than the Israel haters. America will not and cannot stand if we turn against Israel. Whenever someone says "Well, the Pali's have some sort of point", I start to get nervous. God's people will not be allowed to fail. Love them or hate them, the Bible make it clear that God will favor them in the end.

The Dems like to think government is supposed to feed and clothe the poor, but the Bible is talking about His people, not government. If you go to a church that has no outreach to the community, chances are good it is full of Dems that want to refer the poor to a government organization instead of feed them. Jesus never said anything much about what kind of government He preferred or not. He did, however get real specific about what He expected of His people. You can be a good Christian and have a Communist dictatorship, or a Democracy. Jesus is a King, not an elected official to be booted out or argued with. One could make the argument that the government steals from us and throws the money into graft and corruption. That's doesn't seem "Christian" to me.

This isn't about me judging anybody's "mote" in who's eyes, it's about simple reading of plain Scripture. I can't judge when a man repents, so I can't say what's going to happen to him in the afterlife, but I can judge sin. In fact, I'm taught what it is and to flee from it. Romans 1 lists a bunch of sins Democrats deny is sin, and then says you don't even have to do the sin, but just agree with it to be guilty of it. If you vote for baby killers, you are one. If you vote for homosexuality, you are guilty of it. This isn't rocket science.

I believe the Rapture is coming soon, and I wonder if anyone will even notice if anyone is gone. Churches will continue and probably never miss a beat with people accepting homosexual preachers and screaming "God damn America". If someone thinks they are a "good" Christian because they tolerate sin in church, they need to read what Paul said to the Corinthian church. They were proud of their liberal policy and he told them to kick the guy out. How many churches kick anybody out for anything these days?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.