Texas Senate candidate James Talarico (D) continues to display a Trumpian knack for stirring media coverage through controversy. But, unlike Trump, his particular brand of provocation involves subjecting the Christian Bible to verbal origami. In a recent townhall, Talarico cited Jesus’s teachings in support of government-funded health care, declaring that “healing the sick” is “how we will be judged and how we will be saved.”

At a July townhall-style campaign stop with black voters, Talarico answered a question about health care costs, declaring, “We can finish the work of President Obama and pass a public option so that every single American has access to the health care they deserve because health care is a human right. It is not a privilege.”

Time does not permit the author to fully mine this rich vein, so two comments must suffice. First, the notion that Obamacare was an incomplete step towards a “public option” expresses the hope of the most radical left-wing activists from 15 years ago. Second, recognizing as a human right something which others must pay for would fundamentally redefine the whole concept and disrupt the balance between rights and the attendant duties.

That was Talarico’s canned response. After a moment of hesitation, he pivoted into something more provocative. “I just — since we are in church (and because I said ‘BS’ earlier), if you read our Scriptures, if you read the New Testament, what does Jesus spend most of his time doing? It’s not” — here an unexpected exclamation from the audience interrupted Talarico’s flow — “Well, you already know, okay. It’s not preaching. It’s not teaching. It is healing: healing the sick. And, in Matthew 25, Scripture says that’s how we will be judged and how we will be saved — by healing the sick, by feeding the hungry, by welcoming the stranger, by visiting the prisoner.”

Those comments are sure to set readers to scratching their heads, wondering whether Talarico — and, apparently, the attendees who already knew his answer — are reading the same gospels.

The testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not provide enough information to say definitively how Jesus spent “most of his time.” (If anything, prayer would seem like the leading candidate.) The gospels often tie teaching, preaching, and healing together (Matthew 4:23; 9:35), which should caution interpreters against drawing sharp division lines between them.

However, in some cases, the gospel authors simply summarize Jesus’s entire ministry as preaching (Matthew 4:17; 11:1). On one occasion, Luke records that Jesus snuck away from a crowd seeking his healing, explaining, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:40-43).

Throughout the New Testament, the message of the gospel is preeminent, while miraculous signs like healings and exorcisms provide confirmation of the truth of the message. For instance, when Jesus cast out a demon, the crowd declared, “What is this? A new teaching with authority!” (Mark 1:27). When John’s disciples questioned whether Jesus was the Christ, Jesus appealed to his works of healing as confirmation of his message (Matthew 11:2-6).

Jesus handed down the same order to his followers, instructing them first and foremost to preach the gospel, and heal the sick along the way (Matthew 10:5-8).

The Scripture Talarico invokes to support his argument is Matthew 25, a classic favorite of liberal theologians to support their social agenda. In the final judgment, the Son of Man will tell his sheep, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me” (Matthew 25:35-36). The king then responds to their bewilderment, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40). From there, he proceeds to pronounce the opposite judgment on those who “did not do” these things “to one of the least of these” (Matthew 25:45).

It is true that Christian faith has an inescapable ethical component (James 2:14-24), and that Christian ethics include the behaviors mentioned here. It is even true that Christians will be judged by their works in the last judgment, although the salvation of each person relies only on God’s grace (Romans 2:6-11; Revelation 20:12-15; Ephesians 2:8-9).

But Talarico errs because he did not pay close attention to the text. Nowhere does Jesus say he will reward followers for healing the sick, only for visiting them (and the phrase “my brothers” further limits the application only to those sick who are in Christ). The text then supports a visitation ministry more than a healing one.

Furthermore, the sheep are praised for visiting those in prison, implying that the intended audience is individuals, not governments — and particularly individuals without political power. Thus, the ethical significance of this text speaks only to the conduct of individuals, not to government policy. Applying it to government policy is a stretch, and those who would do so bear a burden to prove why it should legitimately apply.

This gets to the root of Talarico’s problem — and indeed the problem of all liberal interpretation of this text. Jesus is speaking of the future day of judgment, “when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him” (Matthew 25:31). Theological liberals try to import the ethical prescriptions from the kingdom of heaven to the current kingdoms of this world.

The point of Jesus’s ethical assertions is to reassert the warning just given, “Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming” (Matthew 24:42). In light of the future judgment, Christians should be on guard against works-less Christianity. But liberals discard this framing to apply these prescriptions to current government policy.

In so doing, they may make Jesus’s words support their political agenda, but they fail to submit their political agenda to God’s word. They can misapply one or two teachings of Jesus, which are based in love but never ascribed to a temporal government. But they overlook the whole scheme of the biblical story, including the creation order and the role God has assigned to temporal government to enforce temporal order. The government does not replace the kingdom of God. It is merely a temporary custodian of this world until the kingdom of God comes in full glory.