Dewayne Bryant's Blog, page 7

Was Jesus a Racist?

Earlier this month, Reverend Brandan Robertson posted a video on Tik Tok titled, “Jesus a Racist?” The video went viral and was liked by over two thousand people by week’s end. Part of its appeal, no doubt, is because people wanted to know what evidence was behind Robertson’s accusation of Jesus as a racist. With a title like that, who wouldn’t click to find out what angle he’s taking? 

Robertson begins by asking, “Did you know that there’s a part of the Gospel of Mark where Jesus uses a racial slur?” (On his Twitter account, Robertson also posted a video of one of his former professors who claims Jesus “had to learn how not to imitate the racism of his culture.”) Robertson explains that Jesus uses a derogatory term to insult the woman, who refuses to back down. Like any good 21st-century progressive, she stands up to Jesus and “speaks truth to power” to confront Jesus’ “prejudices and biases.” Ultimately, the woman wins, causing Jesus to change his mind and repent of his racism. 

How much truth is there to this interpretation? Easy answer: none. 

Perhaps the greatest problem with the video is that Robertson has committed the textual sin of eisegesis – that is, reading a presupposition or bias into the passage in question (its opposite is exegesis, or “reading from the text,” the proper way to interpret a text). He has ignored the plain teaching of the passage and has inserted his reading instead. 

The text seems to say that Jesus called the woman a dog when she asked him to heal her daughter. There’s a slight difference between the word Jesus used (kunarion) and the term referring to a wild, scavenging canine (kuon, Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Philippians 3:2). Jews often used the latter as a slur for Gentiles. The term Jesus uses is a diminutive word meaning “pet dog” or “puppy” (a diminutive is a particular form of a word to connote smallness, intimacy, or endearment) So how do we understand this exchange? Calling someone a “small dog” isn’t too far off from calling them a “filthy animal,” right? 

Correctly interpreting the text indicates that Jesus is testing the Syrophoenician woman. He gives her the typical response she might expect from an ordinary Jew, not what he thinks himself. As commentator R. T. France observes, “written words cannot convey a twinkle in the eye, and it may be that Jesus was almost jocularly presenting her with the sort of language she might expect from a Jew in order to see how she would react” (Matthew, p. 247).

Jesus sometimes tested people to gauge their true nature or intentions. One example appears in Matthew 8:5-13 when the centurion asks Jesus to heal his servant. Textual considerations indicate that v.7 is probably best understood as a question (“Am I to come and cure him?”; see also John 4:16-18). Lots of people went to Jesus because they wanted something from him. He fed and healed hundreds, if not thousands of people. Many wanted to see or receive a miracle. Even today, people still come to Jesus not for who he is but what he can do for them. Jesus wants to see if the woman is easily deterred. With a quick-witted but humble response, she indicates that she will stand her ground—and Jesus praises her for it.

But if Robertson is right and Jesus did repent of racism (which is indicated nowhere in the text), this destroys the entire New Testament system of salvation which is predicated upon Jesus being a sinless sacrifice for humanity’s sins (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:27; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 John 3:5). If Jesus is the racist (or misogynist, as others have tried to argue) that Robertson claims, then he is not the spotless sacrifice demanded by God’s justice. If that is the case, no one can be saved. 

Robertson’s uber-progressive, socially-conscious depiction of Jesus demands a total rewrite of New Testament theology. Jesus becomes a good but flawed example of obedience instead of the savior of humanity. The gospel is not the good news authored by God but pliable, flexible teaching with which we interact creatively. Sin becomes a corporate issue involving uncaring, selfish, and abusive systems and institutions instead of something for which God holds us personally accountable. This is part and parcel of the progressive gospel that Robertson promotes. 

The attempt to inject activism into the Bible to expose racism is no different from 18th– and 19th-century attempts to perpetuate it. After all, racists pointed to the same passage in Matthew’s Gospel to defend their bigotry. Both are two sides of the same coin. Maybe they should learn that God uses a different currency. 

Did Jesus use a racial slur? Not unless you’re trying to read that preconception into the Bible. 

Beth Moore: Hero or Heretic? The Power of a Story

A recent article in Christianity Today describes the departure of Beth Moore from the Southern Baptist Convention. It begins, “For nearly three decades, Beth Moore has been the very model of a modern Southern Baptist.”

I nearly fell out of my chair when I read these words. It has long been something of an unsavory secret that Beth Moore was most definitely not a model Southern Baptist. Her books sold like hotcakes, and she spoke to packed-out stadiums. Moore was a cash cow for her publisher, Lifeway Christian Resources. But she has long been identified as a false teacher by many people from various denominations, including the Southern Baptists.

Some detractors simply disagreed with her presentation style. She is often guilty of suspect hermeneutics, allegorizes Scripture, and molds the biblical text to fit the message she wants to communicate. Her material is embarrassingly insubstantial and often relies on humor and emotional appeal without offering much insight into the text. Others—including many female speakers and bloggers—have more profound complaints, such as her claiming to receive revelation directly from God audibly and through visions, violating Scripture by teaching to mixed audiences (1 Timothy 2:12), using theologically imprecise language, promoting a defective view of salvation, and encouraging false teachers such as Joyce Meyer and the Osteens (among others).

The article describes Moore as an in-depth Bible teacher with unwavering loyalty to her denomination. The author cites Kate Bowler, a historian at Duke Divinity School, who lionizes Moore and identifies her as “a deeply trusted voice across the liberal-conservative divide” whose departure has cost Southern Baptists “a powerful champion.” Beth Allison Barr, a history professor at Baylor, said that Moore’s decision to leave the SBC could prompt many women to go with her.

The CT article did an impressive job of spinning the story so that Moore appeared to be a pariah in her denomination for opposing Donald Trump’s very public history of reprobate living. Following a tried-and-true formula, the author paints Moore as not only a moral champion but also a sexual abuse survivor whose voice was silenced because of her opposition to the President. Thus, it wasn’t so much that Moore failed her denomination; instead, her denomination failed her.

What the article doesn’t say is more telling than what it includes. Moore has offered fellowship to and enthusiastic support for Joyce Meyer, whose doctrinal errors are legion. Apart from her membership in the Word of Faith movement (a “name it and claim it” heretical group that believes every faithful Christian will enjoy good health and abundant financial prosperity), Meyer has given the world spectacular examples of biblical heresy. They include statements that:

Jesus ceased being the Son of God when he died.Jesus became the first born-again human being when he was suffering in hell. It was there that demons punished him before the resurrection.Christians are like “little gods” because we’re made in God’s image.Christians should be happy, healthy, and wealthy. If not, it’s because they have a lack of faith.God speaks to her by direct revelation.

Moore has also endorsed Victoria Osteen, who made waves when she claimed this:

So, I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship Him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?

Faithful Christians shun narcissistic, blasphemous teachers like Meyer and Osteen. They test their teachings against the Bible (1 John 4:1-6; cf. Matthew 7:15-20). They publicly reject and admonish them for teaching error (Ephesians 5:11; 1 Timothy 1:3-4, 18-20; 2 Timothy 4:2; cf. Titus 3:10-11; 2 John 1:10-11). Moore has offered them unqualified support and speaks at conferences where such teachers are put on pedestals.

Moore claims to receive direct revelation, which she highlights in stories such as when God once told her to go to a specific bus stop to give money to someone or brush a stranger’s hair in the airport. She employs poor hermeneutics and twists verses out of context (cf. 2 Peter 3:16-17). She values emotion over truth (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3-4). In other words, she uses the typical false teacher’s playbook.

No amount of spin can conceal the fact that Moore left the Southern Baptists many years ago. She only recently made it official.

She isn’t a hero. She’s a heretic.

Have We Forgotten How to Pray? And Do We Care?

Prayer is a precious and sacred means of communication God has given to mankind. The Bible has specific teachings on how it should, and should not, be done (Matthew 6:1-14; Luke 18:1; Ephesians 6:18; 1 John 5:14). Unfortunately, people don’t always take holy things very seriously. From off-color religious jokes to taking the Lord’s name in vain, it seems like humanity excels in failing to take God seriously. We’re going to look at two prayers that do precisely that. 

The first was offered by Paula White, a senior pastor, popular charismatic leader, and one-time spiritual advisor to Donald Trump. On November 5, she offered an utterly bizarre prayer. I’ve transcribed some portions of her prayer here, much of which was spoken in a cadence:

[S]trike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike until you have victory for every enemy that is aligned against you let there be that we would strike the ground for you will give us victory, God. 

I hear a sound of abundance of rain. I hear a sound of victory. I hear a sound of shouting and singing. I hear a sound of victory. I hear a sound of an abundance of rain. I hear a sound of victory. 

The Lord says it is done. The Lord says it is done. The Lord says it is done … 

Victory, victory, victory, victory in the corridors of heaven. In the corridors of heaven victory, victory, victory, victory, victory, victory, victory, for angels are being released right now. Angels are being dispatched right now. 

… (unintelligible nonsense speech) …

White cobbles together biblical references torn out of context (see 1 Kings 18:41; 2 Kings 13:14-19; Psalm 121:4; cf. Exodus 32:18). She says that angels are “being dispatched” from Africa and South America. Who told her that angels were being dispatched from these areas (cf. Daniel 10:13)? She also includes the proclamation that God has declared victory. What victory, and what is that going to look like? When is it going to happen? And how did God communicate this to her?

White’s prayer is a rambling mess that violates much of what Jesus teaches about prayer in the Sermon on the Mount. He said that his people should not pray like pagans, who used a great deal of repetition in their prayers (Matthew 6:7-8). The apostle Paul tells the Corinthians to refrain from tongue-speaking if no one is there to interpret it because it doesn’t edify the church and could reflect poorly on the congregation (1 Corinthians 14:23-28). 

A second prayer, offered by congressman Emanuel Cleaver, contained even more disturbing language. One feature that immediately raised eyebrows was his closing by saying, “Amen, and a-woman” (“amen” is not a gendered word but simply means, “so be it.”) Almost instantly, Twitter erupted in a firestorm. Cleaver seems to have been genuinely surprised that so many people took offense to the statement. He intended it as a lighthearted pun recognizing that a record number of women are now serving in the US congress. 

It is disappointing that, instead of acknowledging his gaffe, Cleaver (who is a United Methodist minister) decided to double down on his word selection. He stated that he was “deeply disappointed that my prayer has been misinterpreted and misconstrued by some to fit a narrative that stokes resentment and greater division among portions of our population.” 

For a trained minister, it is almost unthinkable that he would not be able to recognize that people seemed to be truly upset at his inclusion of ill-advised gender humor in a prayer. This is especially true given that prayer is clearly described by Jesus as a serious matter—so much so that anyone offering a genuine prayer should make it a spiritually intimate concern and not a public spectacle (see Matthew 6:1-8).

Even more troubling is something many people seemed to miss: his addressing the prayer to “The monotheistic God, Brahma, and god known by many names by many different faiths.” The United Methodist Church is classified as a mainstream Protestant denomination. Still, Cleaver’s prayer reflected the influence of polytheism, relativism, and Eastern spirituality, if not outright Hinduism—things completely incompatible with biblical teaching. 

Do we care about prayer anymore? We might shrug off these two examples as ridiculous exceptions. Absurd? Yes. But exceptions to the rule? I’m not so sure. Prayers offered across the world every Sunday morning probably have their fair share of bad theology (most no doubt because of simple misunderstanding or a slip of the tongue—even professional communicators make mistakes). But others may include appeals for health and wealth, tongue-speaking, and attempts at humor. And then some succumb to the temptation to sermonize during the prayer for the audience’s sake—of all issues with prayer, this is one of the most common, and anyone can be guilty! 

Prayer is a beautiful and sacred time of communication with God. This is the case in our private lives, as Jesus makes clear. But it’s not different for those who lead public prayer. It’s something we should take seriously without trying to grandstand, preach, offer social/political commentary, or make the audience laugh. We should allow the Bible to govern how we pray and for what we pray. 

Jesus took prayer seriously. We should, too. 

No Room for the Devil

Ricardo Montalban was one of the most memorable actors of the late 20th century. Many might remember him as the titular villain from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn when he played a genetically-engineered superman who faced off against Captain Kirk and the crew of the Starship Enterprise. But Montalban is perhaps more famous for his work on the television series Fantasy Island which aired from 1977-1984. 

In the popular show, Montalban plays a mysterious figure named Mr. Roarke. Viewers never learn his age. Hints from various episodes indicate that he might even be immortal. Visitors to his island paradise have their fantasies granted by Mr. Rourke, who often does this to teach them a valuable life lesson or show them the error of their ways. On occasion, he admits a terminally-ill visitor to live out one last wish. Admittance requires a fee, although it varies from one person to another. 

In one episode, Mr. Rourke comes face-to-face with the devil himself, played by Roddy McDowall. The devil has staked a claim on several souls of those on the island but is outwitted by Mr. Rourke, who has apparently played this game—and won—many times before. During their final exchange, Mr. Rourke offers an insightful comment as the two discuss the nature of love. 

THE DEVIL: I find love very useful. Without love, there would be no temptation. In my business, I couldn’t get along without it. 

MR. ROURKE: On the contrary, love is the creative energy of a universe. Without it, life would be hell, and you would have won long ago. Someday—someday when all mankind really learns to love—you will finally be destroyed. 

There is a great deal of truth in this. Imagine a world where all humanity is united in their love for one another. They take seriously the biblical command to love God and love their neighbors as themselves (Mark 12:30-31). They practice the fruit of the spirit in daily life and try to live up to the high standard prescribed in the Beatitudes. They do their best to imitate the character of Christ. 

In this world, pride would be extinguished. Selfishness and self-centeredness would become a distant memory. No one would ever lack encouragement or support. Joys would be brighter, and troubles more bearable. 

What sin, what crime, what work of the flesh couldn’t be undone by love? How little room there would be in that world for a devil.

Movie Review: The Pilgrimage

If you’re looking for a Medieval religious story that will cause you to ask some pretty deep questions about the nature of unquestioned faith and its abuses, The Pilgrimage is for you. 

SPOILER ALERTS ABOUND! THOU HAST BEEN WARNED!

This past week I watched a film that popped up on my Hulu list of suggestions. The Pilgrimage, starring Spider-Man hero Tom Holland, tells the story of a band of travelers attempting to deliver a holy relic to Rome to aid in the Crusades. Challenges force members of the group—and viewers—to question the very nature of faith, as well as its abuses.

The movie opens with a group of men leading a lone figure out to his execution by stoning in AD 55. After the poor man’s gruesome demise, the scene cuts to a community of Irish monks in the early 1200s. We discover that these men serve as the guardians of an ancient relic. A papal representative named Brother Geraldus (played by French actor Stanley Weber) comes to requisition the sacred object. The monks send a small contingent of brethren from their community to accompany the relic on its journey. 

The group consists of Geraldus, his guards, several monks, and a lay brother (a converso) known only as “The Mute” (played magnificently by John Bernthal). Despite objections raised by one of the other monks, the young Diarmuid (played by Holland) accompanies the group even though he’s had virtually no contact with the outside world beyond his cloister. 

In time, we discover that the relic is none other than the very stone used to deliver the coup de grace for St. Matthias, the man we saw murdered at the beginning of the film. The story is told that when Matthias was killed, the stone caught fire and incinerated his executioners. The monks believe that its holy power will destroy anyone of insufficient purity who dares to touch it. Consequently, the religious characters in the film treat it with a reverence mocked by the skeptical. 

Their journey is interrupted when attacking Norsemen steal the stone and the reliquary in which it’s being transported. During the battle, The Mute quickly dispatches several enemies—including their greatest warrior—making it clear that he’s no mere manservant, but a skilled soldier returned from a previous Crusade. Brother Geraldus seizes upon the opportunity to proclaim that The Mute has proven to be a tool of God himself and that he must lend his talents to the group’s efforts in recapturing the relic. Whether Geraldus really believes this or is merely capitalizing upon the moment is uncertain. We are left to imagine that either is possible. 

The person responsible for taking the relic is the treacherous Raymond de Merville (played by Richard Armitage), a local king’s son charged with protecting the group. He’s made nefarious plans of his own, however. He’s made a deal with the Norsemen who stole the relic and decides to hold it hostage for personal gain and security for his family. Fortunately, Father Ciaran (played by John Lynch) secretly threw it from the cart shortly after its capture. It is recovered by the few remaining travelers who now consist of Geraldus, Diarmuid, another monk, and The Mute. 

Raymond does his best to recapture the stone, and in doing so, offers a window of clarity into attitudes toward religion. He’s unimpressed by pious men because “anyone can wear the robes of a monk”—and rightly so as church history is filled with hypocrites. He murders Father Ciara to find the location of the missing stone with a torture tool he acquired from a priest in Constantinople, who had used it to get information out of other victims—how many times in church history have authority figures felt that the ends justify the means? When Raymond kills the monk, he dismisses the relic’s importance, saying, “You will die an agonizing death, and for what? Even if we don’t find the relic, another stone will do! Put it in a pretty box, and people will accept it! Even a king, or a pope.” And there we have it—the irreverently honest voice of those who correctly recognize the problem of blind, uncritical faith.

Eventually, the fleeing group stumbles upon a couple of boatmen, who agree to give them passage. Raymond and his men finally catch up to the group in a climactic showdown. An archer kills one boatman and a monk before depleting his arrows. Raymond fatally stabs The Mute, who kills the nobleman and gives Geraldus, Diarmuid, and the other boatman time to flee to deeper waters where they can escape apprehension. In the last tragic moments, we see the bodies of the fallen, with the ever-faithful, doomed Mute taking his last breaths. 

Geraldus and Diarmuid argue over the relic. The young monk tries to throw it in the ocean, essentially returning it to God. A horrified Geraldus grabs for the stone. The strap of the bag in which it’s located becomes tangled around his arm, and he falls from the boat into a watery grave.

In the final scene, a helpless Diarmuid looks out over the landscape. He’s beyond the reach of Raymond’s men. The relic is at the bottom of the ocean. The Mute, his friend and protector, is dying. He has seen the ugly face of belief in Geraldus. He’s now virtually alone. In the last words of the film, the boatman asks, “Where to now?” 

Was that question meant for Diarmuid or us? 

It is worth noting that the most pious figures in the movie seem to fit common Christian stereotypes. One of the monks who defends the relic has what appears to be an irrational, blind faith in the object. Father Ciara dies as a resolute, uncompromising martyr. The youthful and sheltered Diarmuid is the only one who expresses a clear, reliant faith upon God. This trio of the blind believer, the wizened traditionalist, and the inexperienced youngster fit some of the more negative portrayals of Christians in the 21st century West. 

The Pilgrimage depicts virtue and villainy as two sides of the same coin. Although Brother Geraldus and Raymond de Merville seem to be light years apart—the former, a dedicated, faithful servant of the Church, the latter a wicked, scheming opportunist—we are left to wonder how different the two men are. Both love power and use religion as a tool to get what they want. The seemingly noble Geraldus offers absolution to protectors who seem to have little inclination toward spiritual matters. He tells Diarmuid that the problem is not people who have lost faith in the church but who have lost their fear of it. He grows increasingly comfortable in intimidating young Diarmuid, mirroring Raymond’s attempts to do the same. Geraldus wants to use the relic to inspire an army of warriors like The Mute, who will wage a jihad-style war to retake Jerusalem and the rest of the world. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely—and faith is no guarantee that a person will remain pure once they’ve heard the siren’s song. 

The Pilgrimage is a dark journey that causes viewers to think through their faith. What is it, and what does it accomplish? How important is evidence, anyway? And what do you do when something you thought was true has been exposed as a lie? The Pilgrimage does not intend to portray the Christian faith in a flattering light, but it inadvertently succeeds in showing why a pure, thoughtful Christianity is so much better. 

You Are Loved. Yes, You.

PostSecret is a project Frank Warren founded in 2005. Warren left postcards all across America, inviting people to mail them back to him, anonymously, along with a genuine secret they had never revealed to anyone else. Eventually, these mailed-in confessions have become a series of books and a website with over 800 million hits.  

Warren’s blog has consistently ranked as one of the most popular on the Internet. The confessions, as you might expect, cover a range of topics. They tend to focus on abuse, loneliness, personal struggles, sexual misconduct, and criminal activity. However, many respondents expressed their hopes and dreams. Some told a solitary, mournful tale. These postcards help to foster an anonymous community, wherein members can see that others share their pain, frustrations, and questions in life. 

Some of these postcards offer messages of support, like one that said, “If you are scared to hesitant to leave your toxic/abusive relationship … you’re not alone. (Sending love and strength).” Another said, “Your soulmate is out there and it’s not him. I wish you loved yourself enough to leave him.”

Some cards expressed a sentiment perhaps all of us feel at some point. One said, “I’ve been praying that God would do an “It’s a Wonderful Life’ thing with me and show me what life would be like without me. I’m not looking for catastrophic differences. Just something to show me that I’m living for something.” Featuring a classic picture of Wonder Woman, another card read, “I just … want to be needed.” 

One heartbreaking note, perhaps written by a younger person, said, “I have a few things on my Christmas list … But I would give all of them up if that could give my dad a job. All I want for Christmas … sweater sneakers money to see my dad smile again …”

Another card features a plate of Christmas confections with the words, “I hope my friends don’t mind … That there were tears in the cookies.” A plate of homemade treats should bring smiles, not serve as camouflage. 

One triumphant—and probably very wise—card said, “In 2021, I vow to live a social media free existence!!!! :)”

Not everyone broadcasts their afflictions. Many of us hide it, and we do it so very well. The nameless respondents who have sent in tens of thousands of cards to PostSecret expressed pain that no one else in their lives knows. Troubles that live in silence. Secrets that have never seen the light of day. Hurts hidden away in the corner of a soul where no one else can find them. 

Sometimes secrets are shocking not because of what they reveal, but because they exist undetected right in front of us. It might be someone you know. It might be your neighbor next door, your spouse, or your child. Then again, it might be you, and you need to know that someone cares. 

All of us go through difficult times. The beauty of Christ’s church is that we don’t have to do it alone. The church provides a place of warmth and love. Many people may still feel uncomfortable opening up to others, and that’s a legitimate concern. We’re all human—and it’s only natural to guard ourselves against others whom we’re not sure we can trust. We like our armor. It doesn’t just protect us; it also conceals our vulnerabilities. All of us know that anyone can be hurt, but no one wants to make it easy. 

Armor makes everyone look formidable. But it also hides our trembling. And our tears. 

The New Testament makes it clear that God loves his creation. We talk about John 3:16 so much that it’s become passe. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son” rolls off the tongue without a second thought. But we should give it that second thought. We should meditate on it—because we’re part of that world. Even though we’re familiar with the idea, our familiarity doesn’t diminish its truthfulness. 

The winter season can be a time where many people feel alone. But as we plunge headlong into 2021, we all need to understand that everyone is loved. All of us are magnificent works of art created by the Master Artisan, who wants each of us to be treated with the same prestige and acclaim as a priceless museum showpiece. To be respected, admired, and ultimately point to the hand of the one who created us. 

Coming out of 2020 into a new year full of possibilities, you need to understand that God loves you more than you can imagine. Yes, you. 

How Have False Prophets Fared in 2020?

[image error]

On his television program titled, It’s Supernatural!, host Sid Roth featured videos from various self-proclaimed prophets about what the year 2020 would have in store. Roth often has these figures on his television show. But 2020 has been quite a year and an especially bad one for false prophets. Since these spiritual charlatans can’t actually see the future, their predictions are hilariously off-target. By the way, Roth also mentions watching the track records of prophets to confirm their accuracy (I guess he hasn’t been paying close attention). So, let’s do that. How did these so-called prophets do?

Shawn Bolz said God showed him that coronavirus would not be the
“pandemic that people are afraid of.” One week later, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Oops. Patricia King gets close by saying there would be a time of crisis, although she isn’t specific. Big surprise! How many crises do we see every year? A lot, if you consider how much goes on in our world. Millions starve around the world annually. Millions more are displaced by violence and conflict or ravaged by disease. Industrialization creates water shortages for entire regions. The Middle East is always volatile—you can count on Iran doing something squirrely on an almost annual basis. Are not these crises worthy of our attention, care, and concern? Not for our friendly neighborhood false prophets, who tend to focus most of their attention on the United States, and especially American politics and wealth. On a side note, King also claimed in 2018 that, after suffering from the flu, that she flew up to heaven to talk to God about a cure for the virus. Thankfully, he showed her that the flu was caused by demons dropping “spiritual black clouds” onto the earth and gave her a magic sword to decapitate them all. It also gave her the power to electrocute them with Sith God’s lightning. You know, because if you really want to kill a demon, decapitation just isn’t enough. But if “THE FLU VIRUS IS FINISHED,” like she claimed, I’m still waiting for my insurance premiums to go down. Down like, you know, a decapitated demon. Who’s also been electrocuted. Perry Stone claimed 2020 would represent a fulfillment of Joel 2. According to his prediction, it would be a year filled with the favor of God. You mean, like living through a pandemic that kills tens of thousands, isolates hundreds of millions, and creates an environment where domestic violence, child abuse, divorce, anxiety, depression, and suicide can flourish like never before? You could argue that this chaos creates opportunities for Christian service, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what he had in mind. Kevin Zadai claimed children would prophesy, laying hands on people and healing them. Having children prophesy sounds great and all, but what concerns me is what’s going to happen when kids start healing everybody. There are a lot of kids, which means that there’s going to be a lot of healings. What are we going to do about the medical industry? Will people be excited about these unlicensed children putting medical practitioners out of business? That’s a huge sector of the American economy that’s going to take a hit. And is this a sustainable health care model? Well, I suppose we’ll just deal with it if when we get there.Tracy Cooke claimed the weather would change to get our attention. It would bread records and nature itself would prophesy (whatever that means). I’ve lived in Oklahoma, and the weather there changes every fifteen minutes. Does that count? Even better is his claim that there would be prophetic “snipers”—so-called because they’re going to be so accurate. Seeing how he and his prophetic compatriots can’t offer anything more specific than what you’d find in the weekly horoscope, I’m not holding my breath.Hank Kunneman said there would be huge public meetings filled with children moved by the spirit of God. Unfortunately, the closest thing we have to this is violent protests, unless you also throw in Trump rallies for good measure. So far, stadiums and public venues have been empty across the country.James Goll said there would be a billion-soul harvest, especially of youth. Essentially, he’s saying that most of the kids on the planet are going to convert to Christianity. Even if he’s rounding up, that still a lot of kids. Unless he’s rounding up to the nearest billion, that is. Clarice Fluitt prophesied that we would see a new person on the US supreme court. Seeing how the grim reaper had been ringing Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s doorbell for a decade, that seemed like a fairly safe bet. She also said that the person would be a woman of integrity. Given that Trump has a history of appointing women to some high-profile positions, and that his opponents would have a tougher time arguing against a female appointee, that was another reasonably safe bet. Honestly, I thought Ginsberg’s astonishing resilience would have her pulling a Betty White and outliving all of us. Rodney Howard-Browne gets the award for the most spectacular claim, in which he said he would curse Coronavirus just like the Zika virus, and that he would personally keep the former from coming to Florida. Except that his home state has had nearly a million cases of Coronavirus, with over 18,000 deaths. As they say, “Go big, or go home” (and as a millionaire making a good living from fleecing people, he’s got a spectacular home to go to in an exclusive gated community in Tampa, FL). Kenneth Copeland is infamous for his numerous failed prophecies, including his “judgment” against Coronavirus and his declaration that a cure would appear “right now.” The former hasn’t happened, although Pfizer announced a vaccine just days after Election Day. Of course, Copeland is just as infamous for his massive amount of wealth and bizarre refusal to fly commercial because it interferes with his spirituality. Copeland once bragged about needing a personal airplane because he’s just too important to fly coach for Jesus.

2020 has been what I call a “prophecy-killer.” Coronavirus has exposed these false prophets and others like them for the liars they are. Their greed is obvious; their deception is equally so. Not only did they fail to see something as earth-shaking as COVID-19, they can’t do anything about it. Dozens of faith healers could be on the front lines wiping out Coronavirus and cleaning out hospitals. Figures like Benny Hinn and Todd White—who claims he can walk down the street and cause random amputees to regrow their limbs—could be doing it to the glory of God. They could prove their prophetic status and generate millions of new supporters. Billions of dollars would be pouring into their ministry bank accounts. So why don’t they do it? 

For the same reason that psychics never win the lottery. 

Image courtesy of Luis Quintero / Pexels.com 

The Importance of Context

[image error]

What is “context” in writing? It’s the information with a bearing on a word, verse, or larger passage that must be recognized to understand and interpret the text correctly. It’s what both precedes and follows a word or passage that clarifies its meaning. If we don’t take this information into consideration when studying a written text, it’s likely that we could come away from it with some kind of misunderstanding. 

While context is essential in any number of circumstances, it’s especially true for the Bible and other religious books. When Christians read the Bible, we have to understand the context of what we’re reading to ensure that we understand it properly. If we disagree with some religious text, we have to understand it, also. If we don’t, then our objections will be meaningless. 

Taking passages out of context is a popular tactic for critics of the Bible. In the meme at the top of this post, we have the juxtaposition of two passages—Acts 2:21 and Matthew 7:21—which seem to contradict one another. Once we understand the contexts of each, we’ll find out that they actually agree. Tearing these verses out of context to obscure the important details is precisely the reason why the critic who made the meme deliberately chose to place these two statements side-by-side.

In Acts 2:21, the greater context is Peter’s preaching the first recorded gospel sermon in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. He tells his audience that “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” What does Peter mean here? Simply put, calling upon the name of the Lord is a kind of shorthand for obedience to the gospel, which he later defines as, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Here, calling upon the name of the Lord includes an expression of faith following the person’s decision to trust fully in the saving work of Christ, and then submitting to baptism. It’s synonymous with conversion. 

In Matthew 7:21, the greater context sees Jesus contrasting those with genuine faith and others who merely go through the motions. In the few verses before, he mentions false teachers and others who bear fruit that exposes their true nature, whether healthy or diseased. In the following verses, he contrasts the wise and foolish builders to illustrate what it means to call upon his name sincerely. Jesus is talking about the one who says, “Lord, Lord,” who is disingenuous, while those who will be saved do God’s will.

Here we have two very different uses of the phrase, “call upon the name of the Lord.” One is synonymous with obedience, while the other is merely said by those who are inauthentic and who put their trust in something other than God. Again, the reason why the meme’s creator put these two phrases together was to generate mistrust in the text. 

Understanding context is not only vital for biblical interpretation—it also plays a significant role in Christian apologetics. After posting a four-part series on the top ten passages in the Qur’an, an atheist criticized my posts, claiming that the Bible also included homophobic, misogynistic, and violent passages. When I asked for evidence, he merely provided a handful of passages taken out of context. I called him on it. Unable to rally defend his position, he ran to his Facebook page and joked to his fellow atheists that I accused him of taking passages out of context but that I was guilty of doing the same. Let’s put that to the test. 

If those posts, I examined ten different passages, often placing each in its context in its chapter in the Qur’an. I gave the historical background to each selection, offered references to other passages where similar ideas appear in Islamic sacred texts, noted how Islamic scholars have traditionally understood them, and provided links to modern imams teaching the very interpretation I gave. In short, I looked at each passage in its literary, cultural, and historical context. I also provided a wealth of evidence to show that my interpretation of these passages was indeed accurate according to the body of Islamic sacred texts and modern Islamic scholarship.  

Proper Bible interpretation rarely matters to many critics of the Bible. As we can see, some deliberately choose to spread false information, it seems, because they are dishonest. Believers have to be careful when defending the gospel that we don’t appear to be doing the same. 

How Did Little Boy David Kill Goliath With A Slingshot?

[image error]Movies, documentaries, and television programs regularly depict David as a little boy who kills Goliath with a slingshot. Scholars often follow a similar path, describing David’s battle with Goliath as the stuff of legend. In his monumental biography of David, accomplished biblical scholar Baruch Halpern describes him as a “mere youth” and “delicate little amateur.”Alexander Rofé claims that David was a “lowly youth who makes an ideal fairy-tale hero.” So, how did this little boy kill Goliath? And how did he do it with such a simple weapon?

The problem here is that false depictions of David have become such a part of our culture that we often believe them to be an accurate portrayal of the biblical account. Most people see David as a child when he fought Goliath, mostly based on Saul’s description of him as a “youth” (1 Samuel 17:33). What most may not realize is that this is a somewhat inaccurate translation that contradicts other descriptions of David in the same chapter.

Before David fights Goliath, one of Saul’s aides describes him as a “man of valor” and a “man of war” (1 Samuel 16:18). The words used to describe David here are gibbor and ish, respectively. A gibbor was a “mighty man”—the same word used of David’s elite warriors in 2 Samuel 23 who are responsible for incredible acts of bravery and military prowess. This term appears over 150 times in the Hebrew Bible and describes military heroes or champions. The other word, ish, refers to an adult male. Neither describes a little boy.

A second detail often missed by readers is found at the end of 1 Samuel 16. Here the author states that David enters Saul’s service as an armor-bearer (v. 21). In the Bible, these individuals were capable warriors (1 Samuel 14:1-5) who fought on the battlefield (1 Samuel 31:4-5). The author describes David as a soldier before his encounter with Goliath.

This brings us to Saul’s description of David as a “youth.” This is understandable, given the fact that Saul is older and has sons that seem to be around David’s age. Further, even though David is already a warrior, there are doubtless more accomplished soldiers in the Israelite army. Saul’s language is part of his attempt to dissuade David from accepting Goliath’s challenge, perhaps because he sees David as something other than the best option available.

But what of the description of David as a “youth”? Here we have to dig into the text itself. Saul uses the term na`ar, which is often translated as “youth,” “lad,” or “boy.” In military contexts in the Hebrew Bible, however, the term points to an adult male warrior. This is how the term is used in extrabiblical literature as well. In his account of his battle with Hittite forces at Kadesh in 1274 BC, pharaoh Ramesses II states that a contingent of warriors called ne`arin (Hebrew plural, na`arim) saved the Egyptian army from certain defeat.The term also appears in Ugaritic texts as a word describing professional soldiers.

If we interpret David’s description properly, we see that he is a young soldier of military age (at least 20, cf. Numbers 1:3, 45; 26:2), not a little shepherd boy. While he does tend his father’s sheep, this kind of thing occurred in an agriculturally-driven economy. For instance, Doeg the Edomite was Saul’s chief herdsman but also an executioner (1 Samuel 22:18-19). Later, in the Roman Republic, men would be called away from their farms to serve as soldiers, then return home to their lives as farmers after their military obligations concluded.

Even if David was an accomplished fighter, how did he kill Goliath? David’s weapon was not a slingshot but a sling. The sling was an incredibly accurate military weapon with devastating power (cf. 2 Kings 3:25; 2 Chronicles 12:2). The Assyrians used groups of slingers in war, as did the Israelites (Judges 20:15-16). A sling stone was about the size of a baseball, weighed over a pound, and could be thrown at speeds over 60 miles per hour. Far from a pebble fired from a child’s toy, a sling stone was an especially lethal weapon. The Roman writer Vegetius wrote that sling stones were more dangerous than arrows and could kill a man with blunt force trauma (Epitoma Rei Militaris 1.16).

If we take all the evidence into account and interpret the biblical text accurately, we see that David is a young soldier who has at least some experience. There are more accomplished warriors in Saul’s service, but David’s skill with a sling enables him to catch Goliath by surprise. David’s choice to use a sling is a brilliant move as Goliath had no missile weapons (based on Egyptian depictions of Philistine warriors, his “javelin” was probably a second sword; 2 Samuel 17:6). With no armor, David could strike at a distance and easily evade an opponent weighed down by a massive amount of equipment (vv. 5-7). David’s decision to use a sling and wear no armor was a genius tactical decision.

So how did little boy David kill Goliath with a slingshot? He didn’t. By reading the story as the biblical author intended, we can see that David is not a little shepherd boy who fells an enemy warrior with a child’s toy. He is a capable and intelligent young soldier who surprises his opponent through his unconventional choice of weapons. To describe David as an amateur or fairy tale hero in this story is not only poor scholarship; it borders on the obtuse.

Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 10.

Alexander Rofé, “The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, Theology, Eschatology,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. Jacob Neuser, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1987), 117.

Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos: Vol. II: Rameses II and His Time (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 43.Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 10.

For more detailed information, see Dewayne Bryant, “David: Mighty Warrior or Fairy-Tale Hero.” Online:  https://biblearchaeology.org/research/judges-united-monarchy/4605-david-mighty-warrior-or-fairy-tale-hero.

This article was originally published at The Daily Apologist.

Image courtesy of Awais Jamil / Unsplash.com

If Time Travel Existed, He’d Murder Jesus

[image error]We’ve all heard someone ask the question, “If you could travel back in time and kill one person, who would it be?” This is standard fare for discussion in Reddit threads and on sites like Quora.com. Most people usually respond by identifying a world dictator who executed millions, the inventor of some weapon of mass destruction, or a person who formulated a dangerous ideology or religious faith.

On Twitter, one user asked the question, “If you were dropped 2000 years back in time with nothing but the knowledge you have now – what would you do? Timothy Snedicker, a Ph.D. student at USC-Santa Barbara, responded, “Easy, I would find and assassinate Jesus of Nazareth.” He later doubled down on his position with other tweets, saying, “Theologically speaking, it would be really important to get him before is calling and ministry begins, so that gives me roughly a decade to make it to Palestine, locate the man, and make my move. I don’t want to be the heroic Judas Avant la lettre,” and that “murdering him before his baptism” was vital.

Following a firestorm of replies, Snedicker deleted his account. Interestingly enough, the statement on the home page of USC-Santa Barbara’s Department of Religious Studies claims the following:

Our expertise lies in the academic study of the world’s religions. Each emphasizes the sanctity of life. In Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, human life is holy because God is holy (Lev 19:4; Qur’an 5:32, 6:131; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

Snedicker is an intelligent guy. He’s a Ph.D. student and teaching assistant at USC-Santa Barbara (a highly respected university), even if he does pepper everything he writes with French and German expressions (which comes across as posturing braggadocio, but probably standard fare for a young, egotistical graduate student). But he also knows enough to make a back-handed statement like, “The Catholics have convinced me to change course, so, instead of going back to kill Jesus I’m gonna go back and save him from crucifixion.”

Is this any better? Not really. Snedicker confessed in another tweet that he did not have a “high Christology,” but I suspect he knows enough to understand just how central the crucifixion of Jesus is to Christian theology. Assuming that the possibility of saving Jesus from execution even existed, he would know that such an event would wreck Christianity. So, his claim of “repentance” was little more than bad comedy.

Snedicker’s comment exposes his historical illiteracy. When it appeared, Christianity raised the value of human life. It gave a voice to women and stopped the abominable practice of child exposure. It curtailed the ridiculous sexual license of men and demanded fidelity of both partners. It led to the outlaw of violence and death as sport. It provided a realistic and non-mythological way of looking at the world, which led to the rise of modern science. Christianity also led to the development of the university. All of this, thanks to Jesus.

I wonder if Snedicker would care to imagine what his life would be like if he could murder Jesus, and whether our laws and culture would be as draconian as they were 2000 years ago. But I’ve got a couple of other questions for him. He likes to write about the police—I wonder if he thinks his pedantic philosophizing does more to curb for police brutality than would the application of the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23)? If he opposes racism as much as his online materials suggest, does he think that he articles written for the cultural and philosophical elite could do as much to rectify race-relations in our country as applying New Testament teaching on the value of all humanity (Galatians 3:28)?

The New Testament provides a wealth of moral and ethical teaching that demands we respect one another, treat each other with love and concern, help the powerless, and lift the fallen. I doubt Snedicker’s individual philosophy will do any of that. Then again, he is just a young, arrogant, 20-something philosophy grad student. Maybe when he gets a little older and wiser, he’ll learn what life is really like outside the echo-chamber of his ivory tower.

Image courtesy of Andrey Grushnikov / Pexels.com