Sharon McMahon penned a provocative essay that included a heart-tugging story about her late father and some Bible verses in order to advocate for gun control. As someone who was raised in the absolute nicest version of a cult that can be found, however, I am wary of Bible verses. Bible verses do not mean what you want them to mean. They mean what they actually mean through a holistic understanding of the Bible; and what they actually mean is almost never what you want them to mean— especially if you are trying to, um, “persuade” someone to do something your way (hello, cult leader). This is the beginning of politicizing scripture and spiritual abuse; when someone takes scripture beyond its intent and applies it to a desired behavior (especially political behavior) that is politicizing scripture and an abuse of the Bible. Such is the case with McMahon’s essay. She uses scriptures that mean one thing to make a totally unrelated point in order to gain a certain outcome. More specifically, she needlessly includes a verse from Matthew 25— a verse that she misinterprets and then misapplies. The question is, does her misstep matter? 

It is a small point of contention that stands outside the main thrust of her essay, but it is a contentious point nonetheless.

McMahon claims that the Bible teaches one must love “the least of these.” She goes on to explain that children are what the Bible means by this popular phrase. While that is where her explanation ends, further personal examination of Matthew 25 reveals that the Bible teaches that those who care for the least of these receive an eternal reward, that is eternal life. Although she does not pursue this end in her essay, the unavoidable and ultimate conclusion of her claim suggests that anyone who cares for children receives life ever-after. 

But this is Universalism.

Universalism is a necessary tool in the hands of McMahon for two reasons: The first is that she is attempting to influence people universally. Reduce the Holy Word of God to a moral code that Christians, Muslim, Hindus, Jews, and atheists can agree on and it thereby becomes a reference point for, well, everyone universally:

“Everyone’s moral code calls for the care of children; the Bible is no different. Heed the scriptures and commit to gun control.”

The second reason is that she needs to divorce the scriptures from their original intent so that she can make them mean whatever she needs them to mean universally. Today it is gun control. Tomorrow, perhaps, it is immigration, and by the weekend it is the frozen scientists in Antarctica. Universalism, or a life of good works, is a necessary vehicle of manipulation for McMahon to drive her readers toward whatever position she likes best.

Except not only is Universalism not supported in the Bible, it is not supported by Matthew 25, and neither is the universal call for the care of children nor a commitment to gun control. What is found in Matthew 25 has far less to do with governing earthly politics and much more to do with stewarding a spiritual kingdom.

In Matthew 25, Jesus did not call for the care of “the least of these,” as McMahon claims. He called for the care of “the least of these, my brothers.” The word for “brothers” in the Greek is adelphos and is used in the New Testament almost exclusively for the brothers and sisters of Jesus, who are the sons and daughters of God, and therefore are the Church. Jesus’s exhortation in Matthew 25 is for the care for the least of those in the Church— often those in ministry or evangelism, as is described further when cross-referenced with Matthew 10.

This interpretation is also consistent with 2 Corinthians 11:23-27, and James 2:14-16. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul relays that he has been hungry, naked, and imprisoned for the sake of the churches in need of the gospel, which mirrors Matthew 25. In the letter from James, he writes to the church, “Show me your faith by how you treat your brothers and sisters. Do you see them hungry and naked? Do not tell them ‘Go, be well-fed, and warm!’ Go, care for them. Your faith without deeds is dead.” Was James writing to the believers there concerning their biological brothers and sisters? Most likely not as the writers of the epistles used the analogy of family to demonstrate the believers’s relationships with one another. James was writing about how the Christian faith compels Christians to care for other Christians while utilizing themes and language that also mirrored Matthew 25.

(Are there places in Scripture that call for the Christian to care for non-Christians? Absolutely, but Matthew 25 and James 2 are not the sources for that calling).

And so the answer to the initial question “Does it matter that McMahon misinterprets and misapplies scripture?” is yes. Her article broadens scripture beyond the intent established by the Lord and uses the new definition to promote a specific political position.

Did she mean for this happen? Did she intend to write a theological treastise while advocating for gun control? No, I do not think so. But when she took scripture out of context, she inadvertently placed it within a new theological framework. Her point would have been much better made if she had stuck to gun control and left the scriptures alone.

Post script:

To the Church in Galatia, Paul wrote, “Do good to all people, especially the household of God.” His ancient words can help us today navigate the number of pressing causes and prioritize our time, money, and effort.

Do good to all.

Especially the Church.