HERMENEUTICS AND "THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL": A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS

BY REUBEN KIGAME

OUTLINE

1.      The nature of the problem  

2.      The possibility of an objective interpretation

3.      The role of Hermeneutics in the preservation of Biblical truth

4.      The basic assumptions of the prosperity preachers 

5.      How prosperity preachers use the Bible

6.      Towards a correct understanding of biblical prosperity

7.      Conclusion: How to avoid spiritual deception

HERMENEUTICS AND "THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL": A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS

1.      THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

There exists at least three assumptions in the modern Church regarding biblical hermeneutics which define a deep-seated crisis when it comes to the use of the Scriptures in the proclamation of God's truth.  On the one hand, there is the widespread belief that only a small clique of theologians with specialized training in biblical interpretation should preach the Gospel because of their unique understanding backed up by a knowledge of the original languages. On the other hand, a group of preachers and teachers have emerged who despise such theological training, believing that God's truth can be grasped by the Christian only through special intuition which could occur with or without a direct reflection on biblical texts. In this latter perspective, it is assumed that the Holy Spirit sheds the light of God's truth and specific meanings of certain biblical passages via subjective reflection popularly known as "waiting on God." We will attempt to argue from the onset that these two assumptions are inadequate and misleading and that there exists a third more correct assumption based on the concept of the priesthood of all believers. This view has been stated well by Fred H. Klooster in his discussion on the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation. Klooster says, "The interpretation of Scripture is the responsibility of the entire believing community; the task is not restricted to a priesthood of specialists."[1] Whether such specialists are of the first small theological clique or the second "Spirit" experts, this view stands.  

Although this Paper strictly upholds the supremacy of both General and Special hermeneutics in the understanding of God's revelation in the Bible, it does not focus on these broad applications of hermeneutics, here defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. General Hermeneutics would force on us the task of studying and examining the rules which govern the interpretation of the entire biblical text. This is not our concern. Special hermeneutics on the other hand would compel  us to concentrate on an examination of those rules which specifically apply to specific biblical genres such as parable, allegory, prophecy or biblical types. This, too, is not our interest. Instead, we wish here to examine how the modern preachers and teachers of unlimited prosperity for the believers in Christ use the Scriptures in advancing their conclusions and the inherent justification behind such a position. The discussion will oscillate between exegesis, the application of the principles of hermeneutics to arrive at a correct understanding of the text, and aesegesis, the practice of reading one's own meaning into a text, even under the guise of special Spirit revelation.  We will defend the supremacy of the Bible as the standard or rule of faith and insist that even though we cannot understand the Scriptures without the Holy Spirit, the Spirit does not operate independent of God's Word. John Calvin saw it well when he stated in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" that the Word is the instrument (organum) by which the Lord dispenses the illumination of His Spirit to believers.[2]

There is, however, the issue of what exactly is meant by "prosperity gospel." Variously known as the "name it, claim it gospel" and "health and wealth gospel", this is the proclamation that every believer in Christ ought to enjoy a successful life with a booming financial and material abundance besides good health. In this Paper, the term "prosperity gospel" is preferred for a number of reasons: First, the preachers and teachers of this kind of inclination do not have a consensus in terminology but they hardly would love to view this kind of preaching as "name it, claim it" nor as merely focusing on health and wealth.  Second, the origin of the term "gospel" (euangelion) has pseudo significance in its meaning of "good news" which prosperity preaching tends to imply. Third, whether in health or in material matters, this kind of preaching centres on prosperity. In this Paper we will argue that it qualifies for what Paul called a "different gospel" and will be challenged on the grounds that it is unbiblical in its emphasis. We will argue that the Bible indeed teaches prosperity for the believer but not the kind that is commonly being propagated today.   Effort will be made to highlight what is viewed here as a balanced position on Christian prosperity.

We will mention here also that a number of presuppositions held by today's prosperity preachers and teachers necessitate the discussion in this Paper. These include the view that the believer in Christ can obtain whatever he wishes from God simply by "naming" and "claiming."  There is also the notion that suffering has no place in the life of the believer and that to suffer is a sure proof that one lacks faith in God or that one has sinned. Similarly, it is taught that the believer in Christ must live a life of unlimited material abundance proportional to faith in God. Several other examples could be cited but, suffice it to say, the problem is not that Christians ought not be prosperous. Indeed, the Scriptures present such men as Solomon and Abraham as materially blessed. The concern of this Paper is that Scriptures are cited and/or interpreted in a particularly careless manner as to arrive at certain justifications of unlimited prosperity. Here the problem is aesegetical and may be the result of subtle unbiblical motives or inclinations. We will argue that Hermeneutics has the unique role of preserving the purity of biblical truth through proper exegesis and that there is a right and a wrong way of looking at and applying biblical texts when it comes to the theme of prosperity. The mistaken presuppositions will be challenged and a careful and honest study of the Scriptures encouraged. Yet, in order to arrive at a proper understanding of this subject and to attempt such a critique, one needs to answer the question of whether objective interpretation is possible in a world with so many ideas and opinions. What is more, even if such an objective interpretation is possible, how can one arrive at it? This is what we will attempt to demonstrate below.

2.      THE POSSIBILITY OF AN OBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION

We wish to argue from the onset that any denial of the possibility of an objective interpretation of biblical texts, as would argue such Deconstructionists as Frege, Sausure, Wittgenstein but more so Derrida is both logically contradictory and catastrophic in implication. First, anyone who denies objectivity of any kind always expects us to consider such a denial objectively. This is self-destructive and hence unreasonable. In other words, to argue that the interpretation of biblical passages is a matter of subjective understanding and conclusions is defeatist in the sense that such a position can only be binding if it is objective.

Second, there is an evident possibility of an infinite mind which can reveal truth to finite minds like ours. The fact that we are always discovering new things and learning endlessly implies that an infinite, objective Mind exists. Such a mind knows truth in an absolute sense.  Consequently, an objective meaning in interpretation is possible because an absolute Mind must have an absolute and objective mastery of the truth. Since a cause is always greater than its effect, an absolute mind (God) with absolute and objective truth can communicate with the effect (man) who is finite. Man is made in the image of God and so, through analogy, the possibility of an objective meaning is predicated.

Third, if a cause is always greater than its effect, analogy tells us that there can be a common point of reference emanating from the cause to the effect. In other words, objective meaning is transferable. To challenge this view through the Deconstructionism of non-referentialism held by Derrida and others is to land oneself in a self-stultifying position. Notably, Derrida argues that concepts are unique to individuals and cannot be transferred to another person, making it impossible to transfer the meaning of a text to someone else. Yet Derrida writes books on the subject of Deconstructionism expecting his readers to understand what he means. If meaning is limited by language as most Deconstructionists believe, then they could never express themselves as a movement and hope to be understood at all, for they place themselves within the limits of language by expressing themselves through language. To successfully critique the limits of language in providing meaning in any text, Deconstructionists would have to place themselves outside the limits of language to do so. This is contradictory and self-defeating and hence must be abandoned as a position. In short, objective meaning in a given text is possible.

Fourth, hermeneutics provides for a reliability based on several textual checks including the historical, cultural, contextual and lexical analysis of texts. Hermeneutics also makes theological and literary analyses and compares the different views of interpretors before making any application of a text. This secures the original meaning of a given text. For critics to argue that meaning is culturally relative and hence unreliable in a given text is not just a careless neglection of such checks but defeatist in that the truth of this relativism can only stand if such a statement is relative itself.

Fifth, the Bible's writing from a historical, factual basis makes it objective. To impose the aspect of myth on it as did Bultmann is defeatist in the face of facts. To insist, as does Bultmann, that events such as the resurrection of Christ are the product of the imagination of the disciples is to disregard eyewitness reports of the disciples and the historians of the time, including those writing from a non-Christian perspective. Besides, to reject the clear meaning of texts for the reason that we live in a scientific world is to imply that history and cultural analysis is not reliable for meaning.

Yet a discussion on the objectivity of meaning in this Paper cannot be complete without a focus on the subjectivity that is frequently championed by a number of extreme charismatics who hold personal abductions in high esteem in the guise of the Holy Spirit's revelation. When the writer of this Paper sent his paper to the pastorate in Kenya titled "Benny Hinn: A critiqueof his doctrine and practices" in March, 2000, in which he encouraged that Bible passages be read and interpreted in context, one of the recipients, Barak Okal,  wrote back strongly refuting such a proposition:

"From your document it depicts you and it appears like you (sic) lack or have lacked intimate fellowship with the Holy Spirit or rather you have not experienced and enjoyed the in-feeling and being led of the Holy Ghost in otherworlds to you the bible is a Book that needs to be read analyzed and conclusions drawn from the way one thinks, you are much more theology or religious based than Life based. I would rather say that if you'd allow your life to be directed of God under the revelation of the Holy Ghost and trust God to give you Understanding of the scriptures as in Luke 23: 45 then you'd do a great job to yourself and your ministry. I think you are two different people, and your understanding of God are basically different. Personally I have read all the books you are talking about and even listened to several tapes of Bro. Benny, I have however found from them a completely deferent thing from what you are talking about and have written in your documentation. Sometimes people have complained that the Bible is contradictory so they are trying to read it in the so called "Context", they are forgetting that the mind that wrote that Book is here with us and we are with him."

3. THE ROLE OF HERMENEUTICS IN THE PRESERVATION OF BIBLICAL TRUTH

We live in a world that is increasingly closing its heart and mind to truth. In church circles, we are also increasingly witnessing a disinterest in biblical truth as several church leaders turn away from biblical absolutes and fall for principles of economics, social anthropology, psychology and even religious pluralism. In preaching, we continue to witness the sidelining of biblical interpretation in preference for a "user-friendly) proclamation. Such preaching emphasizes unbiblical themes like learning to forgive oneself, how to release your potential, how to manipulate the blessings of heaven for yourself, how to make "dangerous" prayers, and how to keep at the top, among others. If the Bible is used at all, - for it is often sidelined - it is applied with such a spontaneity that tends to leave the reader above the author, the recipient of the communication above the communicator. Even in topical sermon preparation, such spontaneity is witnessed as a random citation and application of the Scriptures is made to suit the interests of the modern day preacher. We constantly witness the "slaughter" of even the simplest literal passages as certain teachers twist obvious words and phrases to satisfy their own ego. Shock is the only end of any committed biblical exegete who watches a preacher like Bishop David A. Oyedepo taking a passage like 2 Timothy 3:16 and reads his interpretation of this passage as "Whatever is good doctrine is proved by good profits."[3]

We argue here that only a return to the study and correct application of the principles of biblical hermeneutics will reduce the common tendency towards the above spontaneity in the use of biblical passages.

In order to ensure that God's truth remains unadulterated and objectively communicable, Hermeneutics proposes a number of principles necessary for the preservation of the purity of God's revelation. In this way, Hermeneutics deters preachers and teachers of God's Word from using the Bible in a random and spontaneous manner. The principles that are discussed below play this distinct role in the preservation of the truth of God as revealed in the Biblical texts.

First, Hermeneutics proposes that in the study of any Bible passage, one should look for the author's meaning and not that of the reader. Here, the reader needs to ask what was meant by the writer of the passage rather than what the passage means to him. Many a prosperity preacher often neglects this. To grasp the author's meaning in a passage is to arrive at an objective understanding of his text. Understanding the author's meaning must come before any effort to apply such a passage to a contemporary setting. To bypass this crucial step in Biblical interpretation, as the case is with many a prosperity preacher, is to land oneself into a dangerous subjectivity. It would be an arbitrary distortion of the truth of God.

Henry A. Virkler has accurately observed, "Based on the assumption that an author is an articulate communicator (as we believe God to be), the primary presupposition of hermeneutical theory must be that the meaning of a text is the author's intended meaning, rather than the meanings we may wish to ascribe to his words." Virkler aptly concludes, "If we abandon this principle, there remains no normative, compelling criterion for discriminating between valid and invalid interpretations."[4] 

Second, in the study of any Scripture passage, one should look for the author's meaning and not his purpose. In other words, the reader should begin by asking himself what the author is saying instead of beginning with why the author is saying a particular thing. Meaning, therefore, is in what the author affirms and not in why he affirms what he affirms. The author's meaning is not determined by his purpose but his particular affirmation. As theologians often remark, meaning deals with "what" the author is saying and the significance or purpose of the author with the "so what" of his affirmation.

A good example is, perhaps, a passage such as Exodus 23:19 which says, "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk." While the meaning of this passage is vividly clear, its purpose is rather obscure.

Whether the purpose is to deter Israel from constipation, cruelty against the animals, superstitious practices, or any other spiritual motive, it is not clear. If an interpreter rushed to look for the purpose and application of this passage instead of looking at the meaning, he could very easily be misled. Indeed many theologians have different interpretations of the above passage. Some say that such an act would profane the Feast of In-gathering. Some see it as an act of cruelty since one cannot cook a kid in the milk that nourished it. Others see it as a prohibition against idolatry, while still others merely see it as dietary guidance, viewing it as a protective measure against indigestion. In short, the meaning of the passage is clear but the purpose is not. 

Henry A.Virkler has offered another key example by referring to Proverbs 22:28: "Remove not the ancient landmark, which your fathers have set." (RSV).

He writes: "Does this verse mean:

A.     Do not make changes from the way we have always done things.

B.      Do not steal;

C.      Do not remove the guideposts that direct travelers from town to town.

D.     None of the above.

E.      All of the above."[5]

 Virkler then provides the answer as (b) i.e. "Do not steal." He charges: "If you answered either (a) or ((c) it is likely that you came to the text subconsciously asking, "What does this text mean to me?" The important question … is, "What did this text mean to the original writer and his audience?"[6] It is explained that the ancient landmark referred to the boundary marker that separates one man's land from his neighbour's. It was relatively easy in those days to move this marker in the evening without your neighbour realizing. In this case, therefore, the prohibition is directed against a specific kind of stealing by taking advantage of your neighbour.

Third, Hermeneutics advises that one look for meaning in the text rather than beyond the text. The meaning is not in the author's mind, i.e. beyond the text; neither is it in the mystic's mind, i.e. beneath the text; and neither is it found in the author's unexpressed intentions, i.e. behind the text. Meaning is found in the author's expression in the text itself.  It is in the affirmations of the text and not in the implications of such a text.

Dr Norman Geisler has aptly provided the example of a painter and his painting by observing that the beauty of a painting is not beyond it but in the painting itself.

4.   THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE PROSPERITY PREACHERS

It is not debatable that the very narrowing of the essence of Christianity to living a life of unlimited material abundance and physical wellbeing is a serious distortion of the Biblical message. The hermeneutical precondition of Christian theology requires that Bible passages be treated in a balanced manner with clear appeal to the entire canon of God's revelation and not merely a citation of favourite portions. Prosperity preachers not only tend towards reading and interpreting Bible passages without a focus on context but also introduce several dangerous assumptions in their approach to the Scriptures, consciously or unconsciously. There are what one may call subtle assumptions on the one hand and obvious assumptions on the other hand which prosperity preachers wallow in. We are greatly indebted to A. Berkely Mickelsen for the disclosure of such subtle assumptions especially as discussed in his book, "Interpreting the Bible" in which he refers to them as artificial assumptions. We will briefly cite these assumptions below before looking at the obvious general assumptions the prosperity preachers make when interpreting Bible passages.

First, there is the artificial assumption in biblical interpretation which consists of any principle which is foreign by its very nature to the material that is being interpreted or is unnecessary to bring out and express the meaning of the biblical passage. An example might be a popular religious idea, which is adopted with the assumption that later ideas are usually better than previous ones. If, for instance, a denomination is drawn to the belief that God is "restoring the five-fold ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12) to the church", appealing as it may sound, this will automatically diminish the prevailing position of "sola scriptura" (the Scriptures alone) as the standard of faith. It would naturally put the Church in the danger of subjectivism. Unfortunately, a number of modern denominations have succumbed to this subjectivism inspired by particular interpretations of Ephesians.

Second, there is the artificial hermeneutical assumption which consists in the arbitrary application of legitimate principles in such a way that the passage is viewed as saying a particular thing e.g. on the strength of the grammar. A case in point might be a passage such as Acts 19:2, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" To construct a norm of faith and practice based on either the tense of this passage or the immediate literal implication can lead, and indeed has led, many a preacher to the insistence that conversion and the receiving of the Holy Spirit be viewed as two solitary experiences for the believer.

A third assumption consists in the importation of principles from the humanities or the sciences into the sphere of biblical interpretation where they are not applicable. If, for instance, we reduced the biblical texts to verification based on what is observable, then we would almost get rid of the supernatural. On the other hand, if faith were based on only that which is seen and proven scientifically, then the unrepeatable events of biblical history would be falsified. One might here argue that the liberal approach to biblical interpretation that gained momentum in the 19^th and 20^th centuries was partially the result of the outworking of this hermeneutical fallacy.

A fourth assumption would be that which consists in the use of any principle to make the passage of Scripture say what the interpreter wants it to say despite objective principles as understood by other interpreters indicate that such an interpretation is impossible. Mickelsen gives the example of a possible insistence that the Greek word apostasia be translated as "rapture" instead of the obvious Koine sense of "rebellion" or "falling away."  Closer to our discussion would be the arbitrary distortion of Luke 9:57-58 "… Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." According to prosperity preacher, John Avanzini, Jesus uttered these words on His way to conduct a seminar in Samaria but could not find an appropriate place to stay for the night. He makes the passage read: "Foxes have holes in Samaria, birds of the air have nests in Samaria, but I don’t have any place to stay tonight in Samaria." Avanzini puts it explicitly, "In those days there wasn't a holiday inn on every corner." So Jesus was forced to go back home to his nice, big house in Jerusalem according to Avanzini.[7]

The fifth artificial assumption consists in the use of any principle that is contrary to any of the basic emphases of the New Testament. If any assumption champions, say, an interpretation that undermines the unity of God's people and replaces this unity with an elitist focus on a few people as the community of faith in the cultic sense of the reference, then hermeneutics would be at stake.

Apart from these subtle assumptions, there are very obvious presuppositions made by the prosperity preachers, which must be challenged. These include the following:

1.      The belief that a subjective revelation is superior to the written, unchanging Word of God.

Although the Bible clearly warns against adding to or subtracting from the Word of God (Revelation 22:18-19), it is not uncommon for the prosperity preachers of today to insist that God was speaking to them through special "visitations" and "revelations." Perhaps prompted by the upsurge of Pentecostalism in the early part of the 20^th century, there was a revival of interest in dreams, visions, and special communication with God through spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues. Soon some people began to enter into special modes of distinction where they felt they were more spiritual than other Christians. The reason was that they heard regularly from God through dreams and visions. They claimed that the prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled in their day. People claimed prophetic offices and spoke to congregations claiming God had told them certain specific things. "Thus says the Lord" became very popular. It was argued that the gift of "knowledge" was at work in the sense that God was able to reveal to the preachers the specific 1conditions of members in the congregation. In spite of the flops and lies in the whole scenario, it was believed that God was restoring the Church and blessing it with spiritual and material prosperity.

Soon, prosperity preachers began to emerge declaring that God had spoken to them specifically indicating that certain individuals will be healed in meetings and others prosper materially. Some even claimed that God was speaking directly to them and showing them that there are demons responsible for poverty. Then it was time to preach deliverance from such spirits of poverty.

During a telecast on November 6^th, 1990, prosperity preacher, Benny Hinn, even said that God had revealed to him that poverty itself is a demon which needed to be rebuked using God's Word. "God had to show me a vision of a demon literally to prove this to me. … I had a vision in my bedroom. I was asleep and woke up, and right in front of my face I saw a devil. You say you saw it? Yes sir, I did. If you have problems with it, that's your problem; and that thing was mocking me in my bedroom. And the Lord spoke and said to me, "That is the demon of poverty." 

In the same telecast, with glowing tribute to John Avanzini's teaching on the wealth of the wicked, Benny Hinn encourages his audience to repeat several times after him the statement, "the wealth of the wicked is mine!"[8]

The matter of concern for our purpose in this discussion is whether God places a high premium on subjective revelations whether or not they stand contrary to His special revelation in the Bible. Although God used dreams and visions to communicate special messages to the people of old, including the prophets and Joseph the father of Jesus, these never contradicted what He had said before. Besides, He tells us in Hebrews 1:1 that in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Jesus Christ. On the other hand, there is the question of whether anywhere in the Bible there is any indication that poverty is a demon.

First, prophet Jeremiah was clearly shown by God that people claiming to speak in the name of the Lord could issue false prophecies by appealing to dreams and visions. He even decried those who stole words from other prophets and falsely spoke in His name. We read: "Indeed, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,' declares the Lord. 'They tell them and lead my people astray with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them. They do not benefit these people in the least,' declares the Lord."[9]

Here, it is clear that God is not in favour of people who rely on the subjective revelation of such prophets, and neither is He impressed by such tendencies by the false prophets. Since God does not change, it must be concluded that His displeasure stands against the modern impostors as well.

It is the presupposition that God speaks through subjective revelations today that has led many prosperity preachers to disregard the Scriptures and replace them with their own dreams and visions. They strongly believe that it is nobler to have dreams and see visions with supernatural content than to study and teach from what God has revealed in His written Word. Here, this presupposition is tantamount to saying that what God has revealed is not sufficient; one needs something newer and fresher. This is exactly where they go wrong for they believe that subjective revelations are better than the unchanging Word of God in the Bible; that a word for someone coming through a dream is fresher than the universal standard of truth as revealed in the written Word of God. It is no wonder that they could easily arrive at revelations such as the lie that poverty is a demon. Even if we were to think of the Devil as imposing poverty on a character such as Job, what he imposed on Job was distinctly different from the source. It is no wonder that Benny Hinn, in disregarding the authority of the Bible and sound biblical hermeneutics would challenge the message of Job

2.      The belief that reading one's meaning into a text is alright as long as one is convinced that he is led of the Holy Spirit.

Within the Body of Christ there is a repeated quelling of criticism against bad hermeneutics with a constant "run-away" reference to the Holy Spirit. As long as they make reference to the source of their teaching as the Holy Spirit, many modern preachers suppose that they can get away with bad hermeneutics. It is not uncommon, as seen earlier, for such teachers to condemn such critics as "unspiritual" which literally implies in most cases that they walk by the flesh and do not receive subjective revelations on a regular basis. In his book, "Goodmorning Holy Spirit", Benny Hinn even argues that he has regular audience with the Holy Spirit in his room. Any unusual experiences and any extraordinary fits are readily attributed to the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, few stop to think that the Holy Spirit is referred to by Jesus in the Gospels as the "Spirit of truth." It is not remembered that the Spirit of God searches all things and knows all things. It is not remembered that He is God and that it is dangerous to attribute to God mortal experiences and human doctrines, which go against what He has revealed in the Scriptures.

It is important to bear in mind that all this rests on our understanding of the Scriptures and that the Holy Spirit is not exempted from a correct understanding of the Bible passages. Put differently, it is impossible to understand Bible passages without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. But, crucial to this point is the fact that when the Holy Spirit illumines our understanding of certain Biblical passages, such illumination is not - and must not - be viewed as new revelation. Indeed, illumination is the work of the Holy Spirit in the Bible reader, hearer or interpreter. Yet, illumination by the Holy Spirit will be recognized as having taken place only by testing a person's interpretation of a passage by looking carefully at the text, not by feeling a warm sensation in the bosom. The feelings of the interpreter are important but they do not provide a reliable basis for understanding any passage for a passage must be intelligently understood and not merely felt. The success of such testing of the interpretation is only possible, once again, via the illumination of the Spirit of truth. Klooster has summed it well: "The Holy Spirit's illumination is indispensable for discerning the true meaning of the Spirit-breathed Scripture."[10]

The apostle Peter warned that some people were misunderstanding Paul's letters as they did other Scriptures.[11]   He alludes that such misunderstanding of Scripture brings destruction. It is hard work to study a passage but it is not an optional task for the believer who wishes to understand what the Bible teaches and most of all, this is a compulsory task for any teacher of the Bible. Yet it must be said that illumination can come even many hours after working on a passage by scientific methods. Sometimes one may work through a passage for long hours and find no clear meaning. Then when carrying out a domestic chore the Spirit of God illumines him and makes the meaning of the passage clear. Once again, it must be noticed that, even then, it is the result of study and not mere empty speculation.

In short, it is wrong for the modern-day teachers to read whatever meaning they wish into a passage and then claim that the Holy Spirit was revealing this erroneous understanding to them. For sure, error cannot proceed from the Spirit of truth.

3.      The belief that it is unspiritual to study the Scriptures academically and/or read the Bible in context.

As referred to earlier, I have received written communication indicating that my insistence that the Bible be read and understood in context was a mark that I lacked an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit. This particular correspondent took issue with my approach to the Scriptures with the argument: "... to you the bible is a Book that needs to be read analysed and conclusions drawn from the way one thinks, you are much more theology or religious based than Life based." Notice that it is considered offensive or wrong to read, analyse and draw conclusions from what one reads in the Bible. It is even assumed that to be involved in an academic study of the Scriptures leaves someone with the inability to be life-based. The reason that is often given is that the Holy Spirit reveals things directly and so nobody should bother with rigorous reading and interpretation of the Bible. It is for this same reason that theological or seminary education is resisted. Yet the Bereans were considered noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether what Paul was teaching was true. Moses urged Joshua not to let the book of the Law depart from his mouth and further advised him to meditate on it day and night.[12]  This was the only way, said Moses, Joshua would be prosperous. The problem with today's preacher of prosperity is that he believes and wants a kind of prosperity that is devoid of meditation on the Word of God. Notice that meditation here is active reflection on God's Word and not transcendental or mystical. It is painfully true that most preachers today prefer the latter, supposing that the more you empty your mind and allow the Holy Spirit to fill you up with something to teach, the more spiritual you are. Once again it must be remembered that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of truth and is a teacher. It is, therefore, strange that the modern preachers of prosperity would like to be taught or receive truth without thinking, analysing and drawing conclusions from what God has revealed in the Bible. The latter is what hermeneutics is all about.

Equally painful is the tendency by many a preacher to approach the study and application of the Word of God in the same way a gambler tosses dice. Random thumbing of the Bible pages just to find out what God might be saying in a given situation is a common practice. Related to this is the citation of Scriptures without regard for context, leading to grievous misapplications. 

4.      To challenge the misunderstanding and misapplication of Bible passages is unkind, unloving and unchristian.

When certain Christians have set out to challenge erroneous interpretations of the Scriptures, certain prosperity preachers have labeled them "heresy-hunters." In some cases, such prosperity preachers have used Scripture to castigate their critics or warned that misfortune would befall such critics.  A favourite passage in this regard is 1 Chronicles 16:22 which says, "Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm."

We will here cite an instance of such condemnation as uttered by Tel-evangelist Kenneth Copland, "There are people attempting to sit in judgment right today over the ministry that I'm responsible for, and the ministry that Kenneth E. Hagin is responsible for … Several people that I know had criticized and called that faith bunch out of Tulsa a cult. And some of 'em are dead right today in an early grave because of it, and there's more than one of them got cancer."[13]

Similarly, Benny Hinn believes and teaches that he has a unique anointing on his life and ministry that must not be questioned or criticized by anybody. He sets out to defend it including doing this by unorthodox means such as fighting it out through verbal assault. On the Trinity Broadcast Network, during his "Praise the Lord" Show, telecast on November 9, 1990, Benny Hinn said in response to the challenge that he substantiates what he had been teaching: "...Quit attacking men of God by name. Somebody is attacking me because of something I'm teaching. Let me tell you something, brother, you watch it! ... I don't mind if they attack Benny and the way he is and the way he walks, but don't attack the anointing on my life ... don't attack this man of God ... Jesus is my judge! You walk around with your stiff lip and collar on your neck - dear God in heaven, I wish I could just --- oooh!

They call it a "ministry," my foot! You know, I've looked for one verse in the Bible I just can't seem to find it, one verse that says if you don't like 'em, kill 'em. I really wish I could find it! ... Ladies and gentlemen, don't attack God's servant! Don't publicly attack them by name! ... Don't mention people's names on your radio programme and your TV programme -- thinking you are doing God's service - you are not! You stink - frankly, that's the way I think about it!"

Later, in the same telecast, he says: "...Quit it! I'm sorry, I'm not exactly the normal kind of guy, you know, I'm from Israel.  Sometimes, I wish God would give me (sic) a Holy Ghost machine gun - I blow your head off."!

Yet, a close examination of 1 Chronicles 16:22 indicates that the title "The Lord's Anointed" does not refer to prosperity preachers or prophet of any sort but to the kings of Israel.[14] Sometimes it was used specifically for the royal line that was descended from David.[15]

Even if this was applicable today, the words "touch not" and "do not harm" refer to inflicting physical harm on someone and hardly criticism of erroneous doctrine.

In fact, the only way we could tell a particular servant of the Lord should not be touched would be by checking whether or not what they have taught is in line with God's Word and not because their followers think they are great.

Hank Hanegraaff has added a significant qualification to this fact. He writes, "God's representatives are known above all by their purity of character and doctrine (Titus 1:7-9; 2:7, 8; 2 Corinthians 4:2; cf. 1 Timothy 6:3, 4.)[16]

Hanegraaff adds the argument that if any individual Christian is to be considered anointed, then all Christians must be considered anointed, given the fact that this is the only sense in which the term is used in the New Testament apart from its application to Christ.[17]  In this sense the apostle John does not use the term "anointed" with reference to inspired or dynamic preaching or teaching, but to the ability and responsibility of each believer to discern true from false teaching.

5.      The truth and value of biblical doctrine is what profits it yields.

Failure to adhere to sound hermeneutics can lead, and indeed has led to the puffing up of the egos of several prosperity preachers. Under the guise of understanding deep biblical secrets on prosperity, some of the prosperity preachers have sunk into pride and blatant misrepresentations of biblical truth before many unsuspecting church members.

Bishop David O. Oyedepo in his book titled "Understanding Financial Prosperity" has not minced his words on this question. He writes: "Until you are able to lay hold on His commandments, you never become a commander. I make bold to say that I am a commander in the realm of wealth. I don't beg, I don't pray for money, I don't borrow. I only line up myself with His commandments, and it just keeps flowing!"[18] We have already alluded to what his followers call "wisdom droplets" issued Sunday after Sunday as prophetic words to them. In one of these, he clearly states that good doctrine is known by its profits. He even argues that all the believer needs to do is learn about how he can "do exploits" and all will be well as he will be a winner in life all the time.

In "Born to Win", Bishop Oyedepo makes extensive reference to Daniel 11:32 which says,  "The people that do know their God shall be strong and do exploits."

He argues that the children of Israel knew this secret and that from Abraham on, no man, nation or a conspiracy of nations was able to defeat them in any battle.  David Oyedepo, speaking of the blessings of Abraham and his descendants, writes: "God called Abraham and gave him a covenant. He told him He would bless his seed and make them great. He signed the covenant of prosperity, health, strength and constant victory with Abraham on behalf of Israel.[19]  Since this is the theme of our concern, we will not dwell on it here. Suffice it to say that these assumptions and presuppositions must be rejected and replaced by a thorough return to proper biblical hermeneutics. Not to do this is to betray the Body of Christ who insisted that the disciples be clear about who He was and thereby abandon the prevailing opinions of people who thought He was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Similarly, we must labour to know the truth and not mere opinions of the modern-day preachers and teachers.

5.      HOW THE PROSPERITY PREACHERS USE THE BIBLE

When it comes to the defense of the fact of unlimited prosperity for every believer in Christ, the health and wealth preachers and teachers of today can hardly mince their words. In view of the numerous publications, audio and video recordings made to promote their teachings, one no longer deals with accidental pulpit slips of the tongue. The Bible is used extensively in this deceptive gospel to convince thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting victims that this doctrine is both divine and solidly justified by the holy Scriptures. We will here outline just a small selection of such aberrant use of the Bible to indicate both how dangerous such aesegesis is, but much more so that the individual believer in Christ needs to be equipped with proper hermeneutical skills.  This will ensure that personal Bible study and communal readings and interpretations of the Bible receive proper foundation and application. What is cited below is selected randomly from a cross-section of publications and does not necessarily represent a systematic survey of such usage of Biblical passages.

(i) John 10:10

The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I have come that they may have life and have it more abundantly.

One common practice by the prosperity preachers of today is to read financial and material success in virtually any passage that offers any suggestion of wellbeing, favour or grace by God for the believer. Sometimes passages that talk about spiritual blessings are pushed to imply such economic and social prosperity. One such passage is that of John 10:10 which depicts Jesus as the door for the sheep unlike the false prophets who came before Him and, perhaps, all the false teachers and leaders who would come after Him.  To see this picture in contrast with what the prosperity preachers teach today, one needs to examine the context of the passage. In verse 1 Jesus says that he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs up some other way is a thief and a robber. In verses 4 and 5 Jesus adds that the sheep will follow the true shepherd by virtue of knowing His voice and will by no means follow a stranger but will flee from him, once again for the reason that they do not know the voices of strangers.

It is no wonder that the prosperity preachers of today misunderstand what Jesus was talking about, for His audience at this time did not understand it either. In verse 6 we read, "Jesus used this illustration but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them." He makes it plainly clear in verse 8 the way verse 10 is to be understood: "All who ever came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them." In verse 9 He says, "I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture." Now we are ready for verse 10 in the light of the foregoing: "The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." The rest of the passage continues in this same vein with the focus on Jesus as the good shepherd. It is, therefore, surprising that the modern-day preachers would apply financial connotations and material prosperity to verse 10. That this is the case in modern-day preaching will be demonstrated below.

In a sermon titled "Abundant Life to the Glory of God"[20] Rev. Margaret Wanjiru made it clear that the above verse implies that it is the will of God that all His children enjoy full health and material prosperity and.  Failure to experience this is an indication that one is not in the will of God.

"It is not the will of God for you to stay sick," she declares. "Jesus said I am come that they might have life and have it more abundantly." Rev Wanjiru makes it clear that such prosperity is at the believer's command and that failure to get it is not God's problem. "The choice is yours," we read. "What we want is what we get. If you want to wait for ten years it is okay with God. If you want to wait for one month, or one day, it is still okay. … The Bible says I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly."[21]

Yet does the Bible really teach anywhere on its pages, let alone this particular verse, that the believer can have whatever they want in the sense of what you want is what you get? The Bible, also, does not point to the believer's power to set deadlines for God to fulfil certain tasks or answer certain prayers. Not only is this thought foreign to the Bible, but also the very nature of the God of the Bible does not fit this sermon. James, writing to the Christians of the time, told them that they ask and do not get because they ask with wrong motives, to consume what they ask towards their own lusts. Besides, the apostle John warned, "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."[22]

But Rev. Wanjiru does not stop here.  What is particularly disturbing about Rev. Wanjiru's use of the Bible in a setting such as this is her employment of other passages to justify an already misapplied Scripture, leading to what one might call multiple exegetical fallacies. For instance, to justify her "abundant life" principle in John 10:10, she brings in Hebrews 12:24, Deuteronomy 28:47-48, and 1 Kings 18:41-46.

Picking a section of Hebrews 12:24, Rev Wanjiru makes it clear that we are dealing here with abundant life at the believer's command.  According to her, God does not only give us things abundantly if we ask of Him but He does so in quantitative and qualitative proportions. It is all at our command and when we need it. She writes: "The book of Hebrews 12:24 says, 'The blood of Jesus speaketh better things.' Not just good, not just some things, it speaketh better things. Always better. God will give us life and give it to us more abundantly in better things. The choice is ours. We can choose what God will give us in our lives, and when he is going to do it for us."

The total disregard for the context of the passage here is appalling. This is recognizable if we look at the central theme of John 10:10. Dr. John MacArthur has summarized this theme well in his commentary on verses 9 and 10 appearing in his Study Bible: "These two verses are a proverbial way of insisting that belief in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God is the only way of being 'saved' from sin and hell and receiving eternal life. Only Jesus Christ is the one true source for the knowledge of God and the one basis for spiritual security."[23] Here, it is evident that the passage has nothing to do with financial or material prosperity.

Similarly, there is no connection between Rev. Wanjiru's understanding of Hebrews 12:24 and what the Scripture itself says. Hebrews 12:24 focuses clearly on the mediatorial death of Christ by the shedding of His blood as compared to the blood of Abel which had no mediatorial power. To understand Hebrews 12:24, one needs to read the reference of "mediator" in the context of earlier passages such as Hebrews 7:22 and 8:6-10. Chapter 9:15 cannot equally be ignored in this setting. More seriously, the reference to "better things", understood along side Hebrews 6:9 and 9:23 would outrightly cancel Rev. Wanjiru's interpretation of the passage. The issue here is that Jesus' sacrifice is better than that of Abel. Abel's sacrifice was, no doubt, pleasing to God basically because it was offered in faith and obedience. This can be verified by chapter 11 verse 4. Yet, Abel's sacrifice was impotent of atoning power. In principle, Jesus' blood speaks of better things in that it alone was sufficient enough to cleanse sin as can be seen in 1 John 1:7. The blood of Abel's sacrifice provided only a temporary covering but that of Christ's sacrifice declares eternal forgiveness.[24] The "better things" in the sacrifice of Christ are evident from earlier passages in Hebrews. They include, redemption (Hebrews 9:12), forgiveness (9:26) and complete salvation (10:10, 14). These are truly better than material achievements and abundance of which Jesus declared, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and then loses his soul?"[25]

We challenge here the presupposition by the prosperity preachers that every Christian is called to a life of financial and material abundance on the one hand, but also the tendency to assume that this is what the Bible is teaching in John 10:10. A careful study and application of biblical hermeneutical principles would have saved such preachers from aesegesis, i.e. reading into the passage an interpretation that is foreign to it. The truth of the matter is that God has called some believers to a life of poverty as exemplified by Jesus' parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus. Like a dog, Lazarus fed from the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yet it is this poor man that makes it to heaven and not the rich man who ends up being tormented in hell. It is also evident that riches, in fact, can prevent one's entry into the Kingdom of God. Jesus declared, "How hard for the rich man to enter the Kingdom." He analogously taught that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom. Paul even taught that those who want to be rich in this life have ended up piercing themselves through with many sorrows. He wrote: "For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."[26]  Later in verse 17, Paul issues a categorical injunction: "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment." It is important for the believer in Christ to know that God's gracious gifts are of greater worth than material wealth. C. S. Lewis summed this up well when he said that God refreshes us as pilgrims with inns along the way but we must never mistake these inns for home.

(ii) Mark 10:29-30:

"… No one who has left home or brother or sister or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age … and with them, persecutions and in the age to come, eternal life."

Although many prosperity preachers will vary in the details of interpreting this passage, almost all of them are unanimous in the belief that this verse is Jesus' express revelation of the key that ought to naturally lead to the prosperity of every believer in material and financial resources. While preachers like Margaret Wanjiru and David Oyedepo are convinced that it is instantaneous and at the believer's command, Gloria Copland is convinced that this Scripture implies that the success is spread over the believer's lifetime. Mrs. Copland says that Jesus "… did not say I t would come in two weeks, but He said it would come in this life … if we would exercise our faith, before we leave this life all that return would come to us." [27]   

Although Jerry Savelle has revised and qualified his statements repeatedly to exempt himself from appearing to be teaching unlimited and unqualified financial prosperity for the believer, he has put his support for this kind of prosperity in clear-cut terms: "If I am not prospering … it is not God's fault, nor the fault of the Word of God - it is my fault."[28]  

Yet, is the theme of material and financial prosperity the central focus of this passage in Mark 10? Hardly. First of all, it is crystal clear that Jesus includes brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children in this hundredfold blessing, not to mention persecutions. It is, no doubt, difficult to see how the believer might be reimbursed with regard to these relationships in a literal sense. Bruce Barron has put it well: "Since no one is likely to literally receive a hundred mothers or two hundred children, we have here a clear hint that Jesus intended his words to be interpreted figuratively." Many a prosperity preacher will misapply this verse at this point as they do Old Testament passages such as Deuteronomy 28 which denotes the conditions for Israel's blessing or curse if they obeyed or disobeyed Jehovah respectively.

Second, few preachers offer credence to the place of persecutions in the passage, viewing them as manifestations of lack of faith. Suffering and difficulty are not to be preferred by the "true believer" for the reason that Jesus bore all the suffering and problems on the cross. Most of them would view such persecutions as coming from the devil and hence a matter to be resisted. No doubt, none of the prosperity preachers would see the place of a hundredfold procurement of persecutions. At that point the text is no longer literal for most of the health and wealth preachers and the tribulation promised by Jesus becomes a spiritual anathema in the class of Peter's castigation of Jesus' preparation to go to the cross.  In short, the modern-day prosperity preachers would prefer to interpret their favourite passages which promise prosperity in a literal sense but when it comes to persecutions, a kind of shyness creeps in and a justification for suffering on your way up is adopted. Sermons about "planting a seed" to get one hundredfold abound yet very few preach about the persecutions to be experienced by the believer.

Third, it is obvious that the hundredfold blessing in this passage is restricted by Jesus to only those who would be prepared and willing to "leave" everything for the sake of Christ. A focus on what most prosperity teachers declare and the lifestyles they live and/or encourage their hearers to live is quite removed from the commitment to "leave" material things behind. In short, most of them do not meet this qualification.

Equally important here is the context of this passage. It immediately follows a passage in which Jesus presents the spiritual dangers rather than the benefits of riches. To disregard this context as a guideline to the interpretation of the declaration in Mark 10:29-30 is to practice bad hermeneutics and provides a big ground for the distortion of the simple truth of God.

Here, we challenge the presupposition that if you decide to serve the Lord you will necessarily wallow in comfort and overflowing material abundance. We argue that this is not the teaching of Mark 10:29-30. It is important to mention that God will, definitely, supply the needs of His servants "according to His riches in glory through Christ Jesus."[29] But this must be balanced by the Bible's declaration that all who want to live a godly life or name the name of Christ will definitely suffer persecutions. Indeed Jesus said that in this life His followers would have tribulation but that they should be of good cheer because He has overcome the world. Sound biblical hermeneutics would avert the prevailing imbalance in the understanding of the above passage. 

(iii) Isaiah 53:5: "… by His stripes we are healed."

Isaiah 53 is a portrait of the "suffering servant" of God who is predicted to come as the Saviour of Jehovah's people. Following the theme of Daniel 9, this Messiah is predicted as being wounded and "cut off" (killed) for the transgression of mankind for a people who, like sheep, have gone astray. "But he was wounded for our transgressions," we read in the RSV, "He was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed." A majority of the prosperity preachers believe and teach that the statement "we are healed" here refers more to physical healing than spiritual healing.

Keneth Hagin argues Isaiah, Matthew and Peter - three witnesses - tell us that not only did Jesus shed his blood for the remission of our sins, but with his stripes we're healed."[30] Yet Isaiah 53 predominantly dwells on sin. This is the emphasis in Peter as well. This is the confidence that that would make Hagin to boldly declare: "Forty-five years have come and gone, and I haven't had a headache. Not one. The last headache I can actually remember having was in August 1933. I haven't had a headache, and I'm not expecting to have one. But if I ha a headache, I wouldn't tell anybody.  And if somebody asked me how I was feeling, I would say, I'm fine thank you."[31]

While it may be fairly defended that this passage does not necessarily exclude physical healing, it does not focus on healing of this nature. The key words in this passage include "sin", "iniquity", "transgression" "gone astray", "turned everyone to his own way", etc. The emphasis is clearly that of the healing of the heart and a restoration acquired through the death of Christ. In any case, spiritual sickness is worse than physical illness. Even during Jesus' ministry, He pointed to the fact that those who are well "self-righteous" do not need a doctor but only the sick (sinners). This fits Isaiah 53 well. Although this passage applies immediately to apostate Israel, the messianic factor makes it pertinent for our day.

(vi) 1 John 1:1, 3: "…and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; that which we have seen declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."

One of the greatest misuses of this passage is from the pen of Bishop David O. Oyedepo cited earlier. He sees 1 John 1:1-3 as referring to practical financial principles in the believer's life as opposed to mere theorizing. He writes, "I want to provoke you to practical living! I'm not out to expound theories to you."[32]

Having provided this truncated rendering of 1 John 1:1-3, Bishop Oyedepo goes on to explain what the passage refers to here (for his purpose): "Friend, the things I have handled and touched, they are the things I will be sharing with you in this book. You have a very great future, an enviable one at that! All you need is to turn loose for Jesus!"

One stands in utter shock as he watches a passage that clearly refers to Jesus Christ turned into a charm for financial manipulation. It is clear that the disciples were eyewitnesses of Christ's death and resurrection and could not be silenced, at least for the reason that He was not fable. Thomas had touched his side and believed, casting aside previous skepticism. Peter and John saw the grave clothes and an empty tomb. As a group they talked with Him and broke bread together with Him. In short, they had truly handled Him, not to forget the three years of ministry with Him.

For David Oyedepo to turn this passage into a Scripture of justification for what he is about to teach on financial management is both irreverent and in bad hermeneutical taste. To hail or renown him as a great servant, let alone teacher, of God, stands questionable on the ground of bad hermeneutics.

We are left with one grand question: Is there a proper understanding of biblical prosperity? This is what we will finally turn to.

6.  TOWARDS A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF BIBLICAL PROSPERITY 

Before briefly outlining what we consider the balanced position on prosperity according to the Bible, two things need to be said about prosperity preaching today.

First of all, it would be misleading for anyone to assume that when a prosperity preacher stands up to preach or teach he will automatically speak heresy. To maintain this position would be both misleading and unkind. As a matter of fact, heresy is only possible in a setting where there is also a declaration of truth. It has been persuasive enough to think of the counterfeit as "truth plus or minus something." It must be pointed here that many of the prosperity preachers must be credited with restoring the church's attention to what the Bible has got to say on health and wealth. For our purpose in this discussion, these preachers do not go wrong by virtue of calling attention to the subject, rather, it is their bad hermeneutical methods that lead astray and need to be condemned. Indeed, it is important for every Christian to know that God blesses those who give generously. Luke 6:38 says: "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap.  For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Paul told the Corinthians, "Remember this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously." He puts this in context when he adds, "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."[33]

On the other hand, we must remember that prosperity preaching has actually reawakened concern for the poor of the earth and reminded the church that giving to and caring for the poor via practical material means is a biblical mandate. If we do anything for the needy, it is as if we do it for Christ Himself. This is one way of laying up treasures for ourselves in heaven. It is quite in line with the principle of sowing and reaping. Once again, not everything the prosperity preachers teach is wrong. Yet, given a chance to suggest a balance in the biblical teaching on prosperity, a number of things could be said:

First, the Bible does not condemn health and wealth, but neither does it promise that everyone will be healthy and wealthy. Its pages are replete with injunctions and examples to prove this point. God gives Solomon great wealth but denies it of Lazarus who died feeding from a rich man's crumbs. Abraham was extremely wealthy but Paul had to make tents to earn a living. While Abraham does not work very hard for his wealth, we hear Paul telling the Ephesian church elders, ""You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus Himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"[34]

Job is presented as having tasted both physical and material wellbeing but also some of the worst deprivation of both. Yet, God gave testimony of his uprightness before the arch-enemy of faith, the devil. It may, therefore, be concluded here that God gives something to us for the same reason He might take it away. Job put it well: "… naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised."[35]

Second, from Proverbs 30:7-9 we find the ideal attitude for the Christian regarding prosperity as presented in the "Sayings of Agur": 

"Two things I ask of you, O Lord; do not refuse me before I die: Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'who is the Lord?' or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonour the name of my God."

This is not just an Old Testament attitude. Paul declared in Philippians 4:11-12: "… I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want." It is this that leads him to say in the next verse that he can do all things through Christ who strengthens him.

If only every believer could learn this attitude, we would be the happiest of people on earth.

Third, health and wealth are not a right but a blessing to be grateful for and sought in modesty. While Paul suggests in 1 Corinthians 9 that physical exercises are profitable for the wellbeing of the body, it is clear throughout the pages of the Bible that it is God who prospers someone in matters of health. It is quite fitting to pray for such wellbeing. The apostle John wrote: "To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth. Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you even as your soul is getting along well."[36]

Lastly, there seems to be an obvious paradox in the New Testament position on wealth and health. While the world considers wealth and good looks as a sign of prosperity, the Bible places a different standard on wealth by emphasizing spiritual wellbeing as a mark of prosperity.  James wrote to the Christians in Diaspora, "The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower."[37]

Jesus even terms wallowing in greed as foolishness and tells the parable of the rich fool to that effect. "…Watch out," said He, "Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."[38]

With this balance, it is believed that we can always examine our lives for anything that contradicts the biblical position on this matter. When in doubt of what to believe or do in matters of prosperity, it is not the ideas and opinions of men we should seek but the authority of the Word of God.

7.      CONCLUSION: HOW TO AVOID SPIRITUAL DECEPTION

In the foregoing discussion, it is evident that a careless interpretation of the Bible leads not just to bad hermeneutics in the Church but is the source of dangerous doctrinal deception. For this reason, we propose here that every Christian not only reads the Bible consistently but also endeavours to study and apply the basic principles of biblical interpretation. No doubt, this should remain mandatory for all leaders, preachers and teachers in the Church. Much more time ought to be spent before the Bible pages and Bible study tools than before the television screens where the Bible is chewed for and spoon-fed to the idle Christian.

Although unpopular in many Church circles, theological training is one of the most rewarding preparations for the understanding and application of God's Word. By studying the biblical text carefully and getting to know the usage of words and phrases in the context of the biblical culture and the languages of the time, the student is in a better position to apply the message of the Bible more responsibly. Where such education is not thoroughly induced through residential study programmes such as those in seminary, it is incumbent upon the leadership of the Church to incorporate the teaching of hermeneutical skills to her members when they assemble to hear from God.

For anyone who sets out to interpret the Bible, it is most important that bad hermeneutic habits be corrected. We must admit such habits and accept the fact that we all can interpret better than we already do. Such bad habits of interpretation could be the result of faulty principles or the ignoring of correct principles. In either case, we could go astray. Just because a particular biblical idea or phrase expresses a purpose we wish to defend does not justify our careless employment of such biblical phrases. It might become a difficult habit to break. Besides, we must develop the will to do away with bad hermeneutics for human substitutes must not be preferred in the place of divine revelation.

 Lastly, the Bible urges the followers of Christ in 1 John 4:1 to "test the spirits to see if they are from God." The reason given by John here is that many false prophets have gone out into the world. Jesus warned about such prophets adding that they come in sheep's clothing but inside they are ravenous wolves. Jude, the brother of our Lord, told Christians to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints because certain men who were bent to changing the grace of God into a license for indulgence had crept into their midst. Paul warned the Galatians against believing "another gospel" and following favourite teachers who teach what people want to hear.[39]

Not to heed this reminder is to land oneself on a dangerous plane where deception in the name of God is an obvious possibility. We must follow the biblical injunction that we do our best to present ourselves as approved by God, workmen who do not need to be ashamed and, most of all, correctly handling the Word of truth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barron, B.  The Health and Wealth Gospel, 1986, Intervarsity, Chicago.

Calvin, John.: Institutes of the Christian religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, trs. F.l. Battles (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1960), (Library of Christian Classics, Vols 20 and 21).

Chilton, D. Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, 1981, Institute For Christian Economics, Texas.

Dodman, N. Understanding the Word of God, (Second Edition), 1990, Nairobi Bible Training Institute, Nairobi.

Geisler, N. L. and Nix, W. E.  A General Introduction to the Bible, (revised and expanded) 1986, Moody Press, Chicago.

Hagin, Kenneth E. Seven Things, Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin Ministries.

… Words, Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin Ministries, 1979.

Hanegraaff, H. Christianity in Crisis, 1993, Harvest House, Oregon.

IBS, The Holy Bible, New International Version: 1984

Longenecker, R.  Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 1975, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Mickelsen, A. B.  Interpreting the Bible, 1963, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

MacArthur J: The MacArthur Study Bible: New King James Version 1997, Word Publishing, Nashville.

Oyedepo, D. O. Born to Win, Lagos, Dominion Publishing House, 1986.

… Understanding Financial Prosperity, Lagos, Dominion Publishing House, 1997.

Radmacher, E. D. and Preus, R. D. (ed.) Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, 1984, Zondervan, Grand Rapids.

Robertson,J. and McQuilkin, An introduction to hermeneutics : Understanding and applying the Bible, 1983, Moody press, Chicago.  

Virkler, H. A. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation 1981, Baker Bookhouse, Grand Rapids.

…Winners Hotline, Issue 0066. (Nairobi)

…Faith Digest,  June-July 1999, published by Jesus Is Alive Ministries (JIAM),