Christians and Columbus Day Confusion

Hello Dojo readers!

Recently, I had a spirited discussion on Facebook about Columbus Day (in response to a particular politician’s controversial tweet on the subject). I had written a blog post with my own feelings on the subject over a decade ago, but I wanted something with a little more historical meat to it that I could share with people whenever the subject pops up in the future…which it will likely continue to do every year.

So I asked my friend Scott if he would be interested in putting together an essay that helps set the record straight for those Christians wondering what to make of Columbus Day and Columbus’ own legacy. There is a lot of noise out there in the sociopolitical landscape we currently inhabit, folks. Lots of heat…but very little light. Hopefully this essay provides a balanced, thoughtful, historically responsible assessment of Columbus and helps readers arrive at a Gospel-centered response to his legacy.

Full disclosure: It is my own belief that no Christian should ever celebrate Columbus Day in light of the person Columbus actually was and the evils that he actually and actively brought about in the world (see the above blog post and Facebook discussion for more on why I say that). But I came to this conclusion as an adult after three decades of simply accepting what I had been taught about Columbus in elementary school and through pop-culture. So, I encourage any Christian who doesn’t have a problem with Columbus Day (especially any Christian who believes that Columbus was truly a godly man worthy of honor) and anyone who believes that any call to renounce him is simply another example of “woke culture” revisionism, “anti-American” sentiment, or “CRT”/“political correctness” (that must be opposed in order to preserve the American way of life!) to please read the following piece and ask the Holy Spirit to help you discern what honors our Lord and what does not.

Blessings from the Dojo,

JM

——————

Columbus Day Confusion

by Scott Fritzsche

Each year the argument over whether or not to celebrate Columbus Day comes up, and this year was no different. The same usual things were said—both in opposition to and in defense of the day. That is to be expected as we try to sway opinion to what we think is the proper course of action.

I am going to attempt an approach that I hope may spark thoughtful consideration. (This may end up being far longer than intended, but that is often the case when we give complicated subjects the time and consideration that they deserve, delving beyond an exchange of quips.)

The history of Columbus Day’s celebration.

When considering the celebration of Columbus Day in the United States, it should be noted that Columbus never actually set foot in what would become the United States …or even in mainland North America!

This is in contrast to figures like Juan Ponce de Leon (Florida 1513), Alonso Alvarez de Pineda (Texas 1519), or even fellow Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano (New York 1524), not to mention Lief Erikson in the 11th century (which would make him the first Christian to establish a colony in mainland North America, as Erikson was converted to Christianity by King Olaf 1 in Norway). There are at least 4 early explorers that set foot in mainland North America, three of whom were in what we now call America. So, historically speaking, we can’t accurately claim that Columbus established the first Christian colony in “the Americas”.

Most of the modern North American myths about Columbus have their source in a book by Washington Irving titled “A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus”. While it was a best seller in 1828, it has since come to be regarded by historians as highly fictionalized and inaccurate. This book is also the source of the myth that most people thought the earth was flat until Columbus sailed (they didn’t!), and many other myths (such as Columbus’ benevolent disposition toward the natives) that persist to this day.

One year after a brutal lynching in New Orleans of 11 Italian immigrants, President Benjamin Harrison would issue a call for Columbus Day to be an official holiday:

“Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States of America, in pursuance of the aforesaid joint resolution, do hereby appoint Friday, October 21, 1892, the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Columbus, as a general holiday for the people of the United States. On that day let the people, so far as possible, cease from toil and devote themselves to such exercises as may best express honor to the discoverer and their appreciation of the great achievements of the four completed centuries of American life.”

Thus would begin the lie that Columbus in any way, shape, or form, actually discovered America. Harrison would go on:

“Columbus stood in his age as the pioneer of progress and enlightenment. The system of universal education is in our age the most prominent and salutary feature of the spirit of enlightenment, and it is peculiarly appropriate that the schools be made by the people the center of the day's demonstration. Let the national flag float over every schoolhouse in the country and the exercises be such as shall impress upon our youth the patriotic duties of American citizenship.”

Here he inexplicably links Columbus to American patriotism and education.

“In the churches and in the other places of assembly of the people let there be expressions of gratitude to Divine Providence for the devout faith of the discoverer and for the divine care and guidance which has directed our history and so abundantly blessed our people.”

Lastly, he ties Columbus to national civic religion and makes him something of a modern day American saint. We must keep this in mind as we delve further into the history of what actually occurred. Consider modern view by various supporters of Columbus Day and how similar they are to this first proclamation. It is also notable that there is no real reference to Columbus’ nationality, his work, or any actual accomplishments. The proclamation of Columbus Day had to do with the American civic religion rather than who Columbus was or what Columbus did. This disconnect continues today.

After this proclamation, the first official celebration of Columbus Day was in 1906 in Colorado. Italian Americans were facing religious and ethnic discrimination in the United States (it should be stated clearly and unequivocally that such discrimination is always wrong!) and many in the community felt that the best way for Italian Americans to find acceptance would be to celebrate the accomplishments of Christopher Columbus. As historian Christopher J. Kauffman put it, "Italian Americans grounded legitimacy in a pluralistic society by focusing on the Genoese explorer as a central figure in their sense of peoplehood."

Within five years of this initial celebration, 14 other states initiated celebrations of their own. In fact, to this day, many Italian Americans view Columbus Day as a celebration of their heritage and not a celebration of an individual. This is why many in the Italian American community take it personally when statues of Columbus are removed or local municipalities do not honor the day. It is completely understandable that they feel this way as (to them!) the day is not about Columbus, but about Italian cultural heritage and identity. And it is worth noting that at the time of its first celebration, most of the actual history of Columbus had not yet come to light.

[Side note: At the same time, a separate movement to honor Lief Erikson was ongoing. In 1925 at the Norse-American Centennial, President Calvin Coolidge gave recognition to Leif Erikson as the discoverer of America due to research by Norwegian-American scholars such as Knut Geirset and Ludvig Hektoen. In his speech he said that Lief Erikson was the original discoverer of North America. Lyndon Johnson and every president since has honored that with a proclamation: October 9th is officially Lief Erikson Day, a national day of observance, in the United States, though not a national holiday. I mention this as we are talking about the history of Columbus Day in order to remind the reader that there has never been a full acceptance of the idea the “Columbus discovered America” for a numerous historical reasons.]

The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal service organization (that does many good works incidentally) was is named after Columbus as way to show that Roman Catholics have always been involved in American life. And it was this group who lobbied Franklin Roosevelt to have Columbus Day declared a national holiday, and then in 1970 it’s current date was set by Congress. This completed the process of celebrating Columbus as having discovered America that began (falsely) with Harrison, and of turning him into a national civic religious icon.

So, why the long history lesson? Because in order to fully understand what Columbus day actually is, we must understand where it actually came from.

For Italian Americans it was a celebration of cultural heritage and acceptance.

For the Knights of Columbus it was about establishing Roman Catholic faith as ever present in America.

For the government it was about the perpetuation of a national civic religion to engender patriotism.

But notice how very little of it is actually about Columbus himself, or the actual discovery America…or even mainland North America at all.

The Man Himself: Columbus in the New World

Now that we have looked at the history of the establishment of the holiday, we must look at the man that it is named after.

Beginning in the 1970s, the legacy of Christopher Columbus started to come under more intense scrutiny. The first thing one must understand about Columbus is the deal he negotiated with Spain to begin with. The Spanish crown was eager to export Catholicism around the globe, and Columbus agreed to do this. Columbus wanted wealth, and the crown agreed to allow him to keep a tithe (10%) of the treasures that he found (the exact wording was “merchandise, whether pearls, precious stones, gold, silver, spices and other objects”).

Whatever other motives Columbus may have had, there were significant monetary motives, as one would expect. This was not merely a journey of exploration as some might think, nor was it primarily a missionary journey for that matter.

Consider this brief excerpt from from Laurence Bergreen’s Columbus: The Four Voyages. Bergreen quotes Michele de Cuneo, a sailor who participated in Columbus’s second expedition to the Americas:

“While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful woman, whom the Lord Admiral [Columbus] gave to me. When I had taken her to my cabin she was naked — as was their custom. I was filled with a desire to take my pleasure with her and attempted to satisfy my desire. She was unwilling, and so treated me with her nails that I wished I had never begun. I then took a piece of rope and whipped her soundly, and she let forth such incredible screams that you would not have believed your ears. Eventually we came to such terms, I assure you, that you would have thought she had been brought up in a school for whores.”

Did Columbus do this directly? No. Was he responsible for it, I would argue yes. Were there more instances of this type? It seems likely as it was known that young women were given to members of Columbus’ party as rewards.

Or let us consider an excerpt from a letter Columbus wrote to Doña Juana de la Torre, a nurse in the royal court and sister to one of Columbus’ leading men on his second voyage. In it, he admits the following:

“Now that so much gold is found, a dispute arises as to which whether to go about robbing or to go to the mines. A hundred castellanos are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general, and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls: those from nine to ten are now in demand, and for all ages a good price must be paid.”

Note, this goes beyond the forced labor of slavery (as horrendous as that was), it is unambiguously child sex trafficking, which was not a commonly accepted behavior even in that day.

[Note from JM: Conservatives who fight to keep Columbus Day from being abolished or renamed and who also post #SaveTheChildren hashtags and bring up child-trafficking whenever societal evils are discussed MUST recon with this behavior revealed by Columbus’ own words if you expect to be taken seriously]

Also in this letter Columbus makes other interesting statements that call into question his legacy:

“I ought to be judged as a captain who went from Spain to the Indies to conquer a numerous and warlike people, whose customs and religion are very contrary to ours; who live in rocks and mountains, without fixed settlements, and not like ourselves.”

This letter was written after Columbus was arrested. Francisco de Bobadilla arrived in the ‘new world’ in August of 1500 under commission from the King and Queen to investigate conditions there. This is in response to settlers who had returned to Spain complaining about numerous things, including the rule of Columbus.

There are many that would say Francisco de Bobadilla’s motive was to seize the position of Columbus, so his account cannot be trusted. This was the view of Columbus himself (above link page 10). If you have a favorable view of Columbus, it is likely that you believe this. If you have an unfavorable view of Columbus, it is likely you do not believe this. But I propose a neutral view of both men, as their motives are largely lost to history.

The neutral view is that de Bobadilla was dispatched to investigate and arrest the guilty party or parties and seize their holdings. He did just that. To be fair, Francisco de Bobadilla was a political opponent of Columbus, and he was not any better than Columbus in his treatment of native populations. But that does not immediately discredit his report. We know that he was trusted by the same King and Queen that trusted Columbus, so it seems to me that his report and findings should not be discredited.

The reason for Columbus’ arrest was that, upon de Bobadilla’s arrival, he found Spaniards hanging from gallows. He immediately arrested Columbus’ brother and later Columbus would voluntarily turn himself in. This is significant as Columbus, and his proxies, were not just unusually cruel to the naive populations (a disturbing instance described by Michele de Cuneo told of a Spanish woman stripped down and tied to a Donkey to be whipped and beaten. Her crime? She apparently lied about being pregnant!), but also to Spanish citizens that they ruled over. Francisco de Bobadilla compiled a 48 page report, including 23 eye witnesses, in his case against Columbus. Columbus was released upon his return to Spain and was cleared of the most serious charges levied against him and his titles were restored, but he was replaced as governor of the new world colonies. He had spent roughly 7 years at the post.

In his final voyage, against the King and Queens wishes, he returned to the ‘new world’, was eventually shipwrecked, rescued, and returned to Spain. The Queen would die a short time later and the King would never receive him again. Until his death, Columbus petitioned the King for monetary redress despite the reality that he lived comfortably from the wealth he had gained. His removal as governor was based upon his treatment of Spanish colonists. This demonstrates that not only was he brutal to the natives, but also to his fellow countrymen. Not only that, but his consistent attempts to gain more money from the Crown of Spain shows that his motives whatever they began as, were far from altruistic by the end of his life.

Columbus’ Legacy

It is undeniable that Christopher Columbus left a major legacy. One does not gain a federally recognized official holiday unless that is the case. Yet, as we noted at the outset of this post, his legacy doesn’t really figure much into the origins of the holiday. But for many Columbus Day supporters, his legacy is that of the noble and brave explorer who opened up the new world and brought Christianity to it. But despite the historical developments that occurred after his life which are seen as beneficial by his supporters, if we are going to be honest with history, we must look at the evils that accompanied his life as well.

It is simply an unassailable fact is that he was a failed governor removed at the request of those he governed for abuses and mismanagement. This is not a matter of opinion, but of historical record. From a secular leadership perspective we can also say that Columbus did not delegate well, as he appointed his brothers in his absence and things degenerated to such a point that he ended up resorting to the harshest of tactics to restore order.

But for a closer look at the legacy Columbus left behind, let us look at the account of Bartolomé de Las Casas, who immigrated to the new world in 1502 (two years after Columbus was removed as governor). He became a priest 8 years later, and served as a missionary to the Arawak (Taino) people of Cuba in 1512. From 1520-1521 he attempted to form a more equitable society in Argentina, but was ousted by his colonial neighbors who incited natives to rebel against him and he joined the Dominican order in 1522. He was well traveled and saw firsthand much of what transpired in the new world directly after Columbus. Some have accussed him of being overly hyperbolistic in his writings. However, even if he was exaggerating some things, he is still considered to be an overall reliable historical witness. What follows are some of his observations from “A Brief Account of the Destruction of the West Indies” (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT):

“The Spaniards first assaulted the innocent Sheep, so qualified by the Almighty, as is premention'd, like most cruel Tygers, Wolves and Lions hunger-starv'd, studying nothing, for the space of Forty Years, after their first landing, but the Massacre of these Wretches, whom they have so inhumanely and barbarously butcher'd and harass'd with several kinds of Torments, never before known, or heard (of which you shall have some account in the following Discourse) that of Three Millions of Persons, which lived in Hispaniola itself, there is at present but the inconsiderable remnant of scarce Three Hundred. Nay the Isle of Cuba, which extends as far, as Valledolid in Spain is distant from Rome, lies now uncultivated, like a Desert, and intomb'd in its own Ruins. You may also find the Isles of St. John, and Jamaica, both large and fruitful places, unpeopled and desolate. The Lucayan Islands on the North Side, adjacent to Hispaniola and Cuba, which are Sixty in number, or thereabout, together with with those, vulgarly known by the name of the Gigantic Isles, and others, the most infertile whereof, exceeds the Royal Garden of Sevil in fruitfulness, a most Healthful and pleasant Climat, is now laid waste and uninhabited; and whereas, when the Spaniards first arriv'd here, about Five Hundred Thousand Men dwelt in it, they are now cut off, some by slaughter, and others ravished away by Force and Violence, to work in the Mines of Hispanioloa, which was destitute of Native Inhabitants: For a certain Vessel, sailing to this Isle, to the end, that the Harvest being over (some good Christian, moved with Piety and Pity, undertook this dangerous Voyage, to convert Souls to Christianity) the remaining gleanings might be gathered up, there were only found Eleven Persons, which I saw with my own Eyes…

As to the firm land, we are certainly satisfied, and assur'd, that the Spaniards by their barbarous and execrable Actions have absolutely depopulated Ten Kingdoms, of greater extent than all Spain, together with the Kingdoms of Arragon and Portugal, that is to say, above One Thousand Miles, which now lye wast and desolate, and are absolutely ruined, when as formerly no other Country whatsoever was more populous. Nay we dare boldly affirm, that during the Forty Years space, wherein they exercised their sanguinary and detestable Tyranny in these Regions, above Twelve Millions (computing Men, Women, and Children) have undeservedly perished; nor do I conceive that I should deviate from the Truth by saying that above Fifty Millions in all paid their last Debt to Nature. “

“Finally, in one word, their Ambition and Avarice, than which the heart of Man never entertained greater, and the vast Wealth of those Regions; the Humility and Patience of the Inhabitants (which made their approach to these Lands more facil and easie) did much promote the business: Whom they so despicably contemned, that they treated them (I speak of things which I was an Eye Witness of, without the least fallacy) not as Beasts, which I cordially wished they would, but as the most abject dung and filth of the Earth; and so sollicitous they were of their Life and Soul, that the above-mentioned number of People died without understanding the true Faith or Sacraments. And this also is as really true as the praecendent Narration (which the very Tyrants and cruel Murderers cannot deny without the stigma of a lye) that the Spaniards never received any injury from the Indians, but that they rather reverenced them as Persons descended from Heaven, until that they were compelled to take up Arms, provoked thereunto by repeated Injuries, violent Torments, and injust Butcheries.”

“They snatcht young Babes from the Mothers Breasts, and then dasht out the brains of those innocents against the Rocks; others they cast into Rivers scoffing and jeering them, and call'd upon their Bodies when falling with derision, the true testimony of their Cruelty, to come to them, and inhumanely exposing others to their Merciless Swords, together with the Mothers that gave them Life. They erected certain Gibbets, large, but low made, so that their feet almost reacht the ground, every one of which was so order'd as to bear Thirteen Persons in Honour and Reverence (as they said blasphemously) of our Redeemer and his Twelve Apostles, under which they made a Fire to burn them to Ashes whilst hanging on them: But those they intended to preserve alive, they dismiss'd, their Hands half cut, and still hanging by the Skin, to carry their Letters missive to those that fly from us and ly sculking on the Mountains, as an exprobation of their flight.”

“In the Year 1509, the Spaniards sailed to the Islands of St. John and Jamaica (resembling Gardensa and Bee-hives) with the same purpose and design they proposed to themselves in the Isle of Hispaniola, perpetrating innumerable Robberies and Villanies as before; whereunto they added unheard of Cruelties by Murdering, Burning, Roasting, and Exposing Men to be torn to pieces by Dogs; and Finally by afflicting and harassing them with un-exampled Oppressions and torments in the Mines, they spoiled and unpeopled this Contrey of these Innocents. These two Isles containing six hundred thousand at least, though at this day there are scarce two hundred men to be found in either of them, the remainder perishing without the knowledge of Christian Faith or Sacrament. “

“When the Spaniards first touched this Island, this Cacic, who was thoroughly acquainted with them, did avoid and shun them as much as in him lay, and defended himself by force of Arms, wherever he met with them, but at length being taken he was burnt alive, for flying from so unjust and cruel a Nation, and endeavuoring to secure his Life against them, who only thirsted after the blood of himself and his own People. Now being bound to the post, in order of his Execution a certain Holy Monk of the Franciscan Order, discours'd with him concerning God and the Articles of our Faith, which he never heard of before, and which might be satisfactory and advantagious to him, considering the small time allow'd him by the Executioner, promising him Eternal Glory and Repose, if he truly believ'd them, or other wise Everlasting Torments. After that Hathney had been silently pensive sometime, he askt the Monk whether the Spaniards also were admitted into Heaven, and he answering that the Gates of Heaven were open to all that were Good and Godly, the Cacic replied without further consideration, that he would rather go to Hell then Heaven, for fear he should cohabit in the same Mansion with so Sanguinary and Bloody a Nation. And thus God and the Holy Catholick Faith are Praised and Reverenced by the Practices of the Spaniards in America.”

“By the ferocity of one Spanish Tyrant (whom I knew) above Two Hundred Indians hang'd themselves of their own accord; and a multitude of People perished by this kind of Death. A certain Person here in the same Isle constituted to exercise a kind of Royal Power, hapned to have Three Hundred Indians fall to his share, of which in Three Months, through excessive labour, One Hundred and Sixty were destroy'd, insomuch that in a short space there remained but a tenth part alive, namely Thirty, but when the number was doubled, they all perisht at the same rate, and all that were bestow'd upon him lost their lives, till at length he paid his last Debt to Nature and the Devil.
In Three or Four Months time I being there present, Six Thousand Children and upward were murder'd, because they had lost their Parents who labour'd in the Mines; nay I was a Witness of many other stupendous Villanies. But afterward they consulted how to persecute those that lay hid in the Mountains, who were miserably massacred, and consequently this Isle made desolate, which I saw not long after, and certainly it is a dreadful and depolorable sight to behold it thus unpeopled and laid waste, like a Desert.”

It goes on and on. I encourage you to read the document in its entirety at the above link to get a full grasp of the atrocities. This too is a part of Columbus’ legacy.

Did he personally do all these things? No, he did not (though as demonstrated above he surely did enough beyond the pale!).

Does he bare some of the responsibility and should it be attached to his legacy? Yes, without a doubt.

Much of what came after was a continuation of the policies that Columbus himself had set into motion. The atrocities that occurred under his rule, even if not performed by him, were allowed, or at the very least not corrected by him.

What of the popularized idea that Columbus brought culture to the new world?

Let us be honest: what Columbus brought was European culture to the new world. Cultures existed long before Columbus arrived. While there were a few warlike cultures, the vast majority were peaceful…something that could not be said for most of Europe. No, the celebration of Columbus “bringing culture to the new world” is ethnocentrism at its worst. And ethnocentrism is always an ugly thing.

But what of Columbus bringing the Gospel?

As a Christian I very much believe that the faith should be spread to every corner of the Earth. I also fervently believe it should never be under coercion or force. We know from the age of discovery that both coercion and force were used. That is not something to celebrate, but something to learn from and not repeat.

It is worth mentioning that in 1492, the The Alhambra Decree forced all Jews in Spain to convert or be expelled if they continued to practice their faith. The Spanish inquisition was alive and well. Such was the zeal of the Catholic church in Spain at the time. Given this fact, it would be utterly naive to believe that forced conversion was not present in the new world. The moment they were claimed for Spain, the inhabitants were subject to the inquisition. I am not claiming the things noted above were done specifically in the name of the inquisition, simply demonstrating the cultural realities of Spain and the Catholic faith of Spain at this time.

For those who call any reexamination of Columbus’ life and legacy “revisionist history”, if by that you mean I, and others who think like me are intentionally making misleading or false statements to change history into some sort of socially acceptable pop culture narrative, then I assure you that you are mistaken.

If however you mean by “historical revisionism” the reexamining and challenging the orthodox interpretation and understanding of events based upon new or forgotten evidence, then you are most definitely correct. For what history demonstrates about Columbus is that he was at best a religious zealot who descended into despotism and eventually disrepute in his own land by the king who had supported him. His legacy is a decades-long merciless assault by the Spaniards on native populations resulting in cultures being erased, or nearly erased, from history. Simply put, Columbus has been made an American hero not for what he actually did, but for myths created around him that ignore facts and firsthand accounts.

In conclusion, when we as Christians consider the celebration of an individual, we must weigh all things. Yes, we as humans are all flawed. And when we celebrate a person those flaws should be taken into account along with the good we are honoring them for. This is true of any historical figure.

However, there comes a point at which the misdeeds of a person and the legacy they leave behind are so heinous that whatever good they may have accomplished is eclipsed by those evils. Such is the case with Columbus. Whatever the motivations at the beginning of his voyages may have been, by the end they were tarnished by his pride, avarice, and utter brutality toward natives and Spaniards alike. These simply are not things that should be celebrated.

—

About Scott Fritzsche: I am a Christian in the Wesleyan Tradition with a theology that I have come to call primitive Methodism. Basically, I am what most would call a theological conservative. It seems weird to me to have to describe the type of Christian I am, but such are the times. My political leanings are Libertarian by and large. If you are unfamiliar with that, depending on the policy or issue, I will either be called a heartless conservative or a bleeding heart liberal. If you have found this interesting, enlightening, or think I am a loon and want to confirm that, you can read more I, and a few others, have written over at https://unsettledchristianity.com/

Peace.

7 Reasons Why I am not a Christian Zionist

Hello Dojo readers,

Last week, my dear friend Scott Volk (founder of "Together for Israel") asked me if I would put together something of a “Case against Christian Zionism.” He wanted to hear the what I felt were the strongest arguments in favor of not supporting it.

[For those who are unfamiliar with the term, when I say Christian Zionism I am referring specifically to the belief among many Christians that the Holy Land belongs exclusively to the Jewish people and that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of God's promises to regather them. Thus the state of Israel should be politically, financially, and morally supported by Christians as a reflection of our faith in--and faithfulness to--God's purposes in history.]

Now Scott and I have a wonderful relationship and though we don't agree on some things politically or theologically, I consider him a faithful brother, a good friend, and someone who genuinely loves people and seeks to serve them regardless of ethnicity, religion, or nationality. If you’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting Scott, you can attest to this firsthand!

So I told him I'd be happy to put together a list of reasons why I personally do not believe Christian Zionism is a biblically faithful view. And rather than relegate it to an email, I wanted to share it here at Disciple Dojo so that others can evaluate my reasoning and study it for themselves.

Here they are…

[Of course, it should go without saying—but sadly, in our current climate, does not—that opposition to Zionism is 100% NOT opposition to Judaism or the Jewish people. Antisemitism is a very real, and very sinful, phenomenon. As such, it has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER among followers of Israel’s Messiah! Many Zionists as well as anti-Zionists conflate the two for their own rhetorical purposes. But this is just that: conflation. The points below in NO WAY negate the notion of Jewish people living freely and safely ANYWHERE in the world…including the Holy Land. Let me be resoundingly clear about this up front, as I know someone reading this will try and paint it as antisemitic…or will try and use these points to justify their own antisemitism. In the words of the Pharisee, Shaul “μὴ γένοιτο·”]

7 Reasons Why I am not a Christian Zionist

1. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Land belongs to YHWH alone and Covenant Israel were to be stewards who lived there as foreigners themselves (Leviticus 25:23). The Land does not ultimately belong to the Israelites...in fact, Torah makes it explicitly clear in numerous places that their possession of the Land is 100% contingent on Covenant faithfulness (Leviticus 18:28, Leviticus 26). Apart from Covenant faithfulness, no Israelite has any claim whatsoever to the Land according to Torah.
   

2. The Promise of the Land was given not to a nation, but to Abraham's Seed (Gen 15:18; 17:7-8; 26:4). In the New Testament the Gospel makes clear that Messiah--and all who are "in Him"--are Abraham's Seed (Galatians 3:7-9, 16-18, 26-29; Ephesians 2:11-21). One can be ethnically and even religously Jewish...yet not be Abraham's Seed, according to John the Baptist (Matt 3:9) and Jesus (John 8:39ff).
   

3. Christian Zionism implies that Gentiles who follow Messiah are not actually "heirs to the Promise" (Galatians 3:29), but are "excluded from citizenship in Israel" (Ephesians 2:12) and thus receive only the 'spiritual' salvation and Covenant blessings. The 'real world' Land Promise (originally given to Abraham's Seed) can only be claimed today by ethnic Jews--regardless of whether or not they are living in Covenant faithfulness. The Bible knows nothing of such an artificial bifurcation.
   

4. In the Hebrew Scriptures, Israel was *always* an ethnic mixture of people united by their Covenant faith in YHWH. From Ephraim and Manasseh (half-Egyptian), to Zipporah (Midianite), to the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt, to Rahab (Canaanite), to Ruth (Moabite), to Caleb (Kenazzite), to the Prophetic promise that Egypt and Assyria will be "my people" and "my handiwork" (Isaiah 19:25), and that foreigners will be joined to Israel (Isaiah 14:1)..."Israel" in its Covenant identity has always been, and will always be, Jew and Gentile together. Even in Romans 9-11 where Paul uses "Israel" as shorthand for "unbelieving Jews", he bookends the discussion by noting that "not all Israel are Israel" (9:6) and that when all the "wild branches" AND "broken off branches" have been joined to the single tree, only "in this way" (Gk: houtos) will "all Israel be saved." (11:26).
   

5. Christian Zionism applies extremely selective literalism in equating modern political Israel with the visions of the Prophets, ignoring many details in Scripture in order to make the founding of the modern state "fit" with Prophecies that were originally about Judah's return from Babylonian exile. While multiple (or deeper) fulfillments of prophetic passages are possible, this is ambiguous at best in light of the actual events in the 19th-20th centuries. Furthermore, Zionists maintain that "Israel" in the Bible should always be interpreted literally, yet "Babylon", "Assyria", "Gog" and "Magog" are symbolic of various other modern nations (which constantly must be updated depending on the geopolitical situation!).
   

6. Christian Zionism denies the teaching of Moses that Israel's return to the Land must be *preceded by repentance* and turning back to YHWH (Deuteronomy 30:1-8). The Zionism that directly led to the founding of the modern state of Israel was largely secular and led by atheist ethnic Jews who rejected Torah Judaism--which is why it has often been staunchly opposed for over a century by many Orthodox Jews around the world and even in Israel today.
   

7. Christian Zionism places ethnic identity over Covenant identity. It teaches that any non-religious European Jewish immigrant has more right to live in the Land than a Palestinian Christian whose family has lived there since the time of Jesus. Not only is this a blatant violation of basic human liberty, it is also entirely lacking in Biblical justification.

So there you have it. My 7 reasons for not embracing Christian Zionism. Now, I want to be very clear:

I am NOT saying that any Christian who holds to Christian Zionism is an unfaithful heretic or a wolf in sheep's clothing (though some of its most vocal and bombastic advocates may very well be both of those things!).

What I AM saying is that I believe their faithfulness and devotion to God's Kingdom exists *in spite of* their Christian Zionist views, not because of it. I have many friends who are Christian Zionists, and I have benefited from the works of numerous Christian Zionist scholars and teachers. I disagree with them and try to persuade them to abandon that view, but I do not break fellowship with them over it, nor do I hold any personal animosity toward them. This is an area where I recognize Christians strongly disagree at times. That is why I am always eager to dialogue on this subject and welcome any debate (so long as it’s not antagonistic, obnoxious, or intellectually dishonest!).

There are many other reasons that I could give for why we should reject Christian (or most other forms of) Zionism, but these are the main ones I find to be compelling from a Biblical perspective.

Also, it is important to emphasize that none of these reasons rely on any particular geopolitical or historical perspective regarding events in the Middle East, nor do they necessitate holding to any particular political stance on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, I have opinions on those things…and you can see me debate a mutual friend of mine and Scott’s on that subject HERE.

[Note: There IS a form of Zionism that I do believe can be reconciled with a faithful Biblical worldview. It is called Hagshamah Zionism. For those interested in learning more about it, see the essay "Hagshamah" by Philip D. Ben-Shmuel in "The Land Cries Out" and the writings of Martin Buber in "A Land of Two Peoples."]

A Complementarian Conundrum in Corinth?

Hi Dojo readers,

While going through some old Disciple Dojo blog files this afternoon, I came across this image a friend shared a few years ago on Facebook of a Twitter exchange between Rachel Held Evans (a popular ex-evangelical blogger who tragically and suddenly passed away a few years ago), Baptist luminary Ed Stetzer (who I hold in very high esteem!) and Darrin Patrick (with whom I'm not familiar)...

The comment that accompanied the post said, "Somebody call the burn center. We've got a third-degree here."

The implication being that 1Cor. 16:13 is indeed telling men to "act like men" and thus RHE once again shows a lack of Biblical knowledge or perhaps rejects the authority of Scripture.

However...

Despite my general disagreement with MANY of RHE's views on scripture, theology, sexual ethics, and eccelsiology, in this instance I believe a "burn" diagnosis is actually a misdiagnosis. It all rests upon a point of translation, in fact.

1Cor. 16:13 is rendered in the following ways in English Bibles:

KJV - Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.

RSV - Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong.

NRSV - Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong.

ESV - Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

NIV - Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.

NIV (2011) - Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong.

HCSB - Be alert, stand firm in the faith, be brave and strong.

HCSB (2009) - Be alert, stand firm in the faith, act like a man, be strong.

NAS - Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

NET - Stay alert, stand firm in the faith, show courage, be strong.

NLT - Be on guard. Stand firm in the faith. Be courageous. Be strong.

CEB - Stay awake, stand firm in your faith, be brave, be strong.

The term in question is the Greek verb ἀνδρίζεσθε [andrizesthe] and while it contains the root term for "man" [andr-] it can mean "act in a valiant or courageous way", "be brave", or "become a man." This is the only occurrence of this verb in the New Testament. But in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament done a few centuries before the time of the NT's writing) the term is found translated as "be courageous" in Joshua 10:25, 2Sam. 13:28, 2Chron. 32:7, and 1Maccabees 2:64 as well as "be strong" in Psalm 30:25.

So, depending on which English Bible translation Rachel Held Evans and Ed Stetzer are reading, the Bible may or may not be commanding anyone to "act like men."

What is really interesting in the list of translations noted above is that while the NIV moved from a Complementarian reading ("be men of courage") to a more Egalitarian reading in its 2011 update ("be courageous"), the Holman Christian Standard Bible went in the opposite direction between its original edition ("be brave") and its 2009 update ("act like a man"). The favored translations of Complementarians such as the NASB and ESV are no surprise in their renderings, but the NET went with a more Egalitarian rendering that matches the more Egalitarian-friendly NLT, NRSV and CEB.

So which is right? Does 1 Corinthians 16:13 actually tell Christian men to "act like men" or is RHE actually correct? This is where context becomes key.

1Corinthians 16:13 was not written to the men of Corinth. It was written to the entire church. This means that if Complementarian translations are to be taken literally, then Paul is telling all of the Corinthians--women included--to "act like men."

But this would then generate something of a Complementarian conundrum: women are being called to act like men...and the entire premise of Complementarianism is that women are NOT to act like men and men are NOT to act like women! Thus Complementarian translations of 1Corinthians 16:13 actually undermine Complementarianism when pressed to their logical conclusion.

Fortunately, many translations not committed to Complementarian readings recognize this and do not commit what's known as the root fallacy (applying the meaning of a root word to a different word that uses that same root; i.e. "andr-"/"andrizesthe") when rendering 1Corinthians 16:13 into English. They rightly recognize that Paul is NOT telling Corinthians to "act like men"; he is telling them to "be brave/courageous" in their faith and to do all things in love (16:14). He is echoing the exhortations of the LXX to God's people, who find themselves as a tiny minority surrounded by a larger more influential and powerful pagan culture. They are to be God's army in such a society...but their weapons are not sword and spear. Their weapons are faith, hope, and love. And it has nothing to do with their gender.

This is just one example of why, if you do not have access to the Greek and Hebrew languages in which Scripture was written, it is important to always read from three or more translations from across the spectrum when studying any passage in the Bible. For more examples like this, check out our free course "Bible for the Rest of Us" and see for yourself just how important translation theory can be when reading Scripture!

Jesus, Scripture, Israel, and Palestine

Hi Dojo readers, in light of the current violence our friends in the Holy Land are experiencing right now, I wanted to share this post from 2014 regarding how we as followers of Jesus approach this multifaceted and controversial conflict...

I believe we owe it to ourselves, as well as our brothers and sisters in Israel and Palestine (for whom this is no mere academic or philosophical debate!) to carefully and prayerfully think through the issues involved together as one Body of Christ.

--------------------

[Friday, April 11th, 2014] Last night at my Alma Mater, Gordon-Conwell Charlotte, I had the honor of entering into public dialogue with my good friend Dr. Michael Brown on the subject of Jesus, Scripture, Israel & Palestine. GCTS' Dean, Dr. Tim Laniak, moderated the event and around 200 people showed up. It was an excellent discussion...and my only regret was that we didn't have nearly enough time to unpack all the issues which factor in to how people view the subjects of Biblical-vs.-modern-Israel, eschatology, and most importantly, the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The dialogue unfolded within three overarching categories: Ecclesiology (Who is "Israel"?), Eschatology (What is God's plan for "Israel") and Ethics (should Christians stand with the modern state of Israel?).

Dr. Brown and I each gave opening 15 min introductions (in which neither of us had time to share as much as we'd have liked, obviously, given the gravity and complexity of the issue). This was followed by guided discussion by Dr. Laniak and some back-and-forth between the two of us.

For those that were not there, HERE is my Powerpoint presentation (including all the quotes, facts and photos I didn't have time to share). Below are some of the points I would like to have covered, if we'd had time:

On the subject of who "Israel" is in Romans 11...

It all comes down to how we translate a single preposition!

“The only question is whether he sees this as the adding of the unbelieving majority to the believing minority of Jews, which then amounts to “all Israel.” Or is he talking about adding the unbelieving majority of Jews to the whole people of God and so the whole people are brought up to “fullness,” both Jew and Gentile united in Christ.” [Ben Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary]

“To repeat: Paul is not saying that all those presently ‘hardened’ are bound to remain in that condition. On the contrary. That is the position he fears the gentile Christians in Rome may adopt, and he is arguing against it, all the way from 11.11 to 11.32. Indeed, it is partly in order to argue against that position that he has constructed this seriously dense and densely serious section of the letter. Presently hardened Jews can at any time, he insists, be ‘made jealous’, and can thereby be brought to Messiah-faith and so to salvation. But we must not, in our eagerness to agree with him on this subject, overaccept the point and over-exegete the passage. The ‘until’ clause (‘ until the fullness of the nations comes in’) does indeed provide a temporal marker, but it is not a marker which of itself can tell us what happens to the ‘hardened’ part of Israel once that time is reached. The majority view among recent exegetes has been to read the ‘until’ as indicating the time after which the ‘hardening’ will be lifted, and all ‘the rest’, suddenly unhardened, will be saved (with or without faith). But Paul does not say this, and we must not without warrant lurch after such an understanding. ...the use of the time thus created for the fullness of the gentiles to come in – is the means by which God is saving ‘all Israel’. The distinction between reading houtōs as an indication of time and an indication of manner effects a serious shift. If we read it as temporal, it opens up a forward perspective in the text: ‘and then, something new will happen, namely the salvation of “all Israel”, as scripture says …’.

But if we read it as an indication of manner, it looks back: ‘and that, the entire sequence of 11.11– 24, summed up in 11.25, is how “all Israel” will be saved’. But this brings us to the all-important phrase itself. Clearly Paul has not settled on a single designation for the Messiah-people. But, equally clearly, he constantly refers to that people in ways which indicate what his explicit argument in Romans 2— 4, in 2 Corinthians 3, in Galatians as a whole and in Philippians 3 all make clear: that in Israel’s Messiah, Jesus, the one God has fulfilled the ancient Israelite hope, expressed by Torah, prophets and Psalms alike, by bringing the nations of the earth to belong to Abraham’s people. Paul is acutely aware of the many painful paradoxes that go with this belief, but he will not draw back from it.

...“For Paul, ‘Israel’ will be a complete entity only when ‘the fullness of the gentiles’ comes in and ‘the Redeemer’ comes from Zion to take away ‘Jacob’s’ sins.” [Wright, N. T. (2013-11-01). Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Two Book Set (Christian Origins and the Question of God) (Kindle Locations 33762-33766). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.]

On the prophets envisioning a future in which Gentiles would be included within Israel...

“The OT is our story. Joshua is not simply my hero. He is my forefather. The Patriarchs are our ancestors. Israel’s victory in the OT is our victory as a community of faith today… I am not saying that the church has replaced Israel. Instead, I believe that we joined Israel. We became part of Israel. I believe that Jesus is the true Israelite… and since we are in Christ today, then we are and have always been in Israel. At a certain time in history, we were not part of God’s household… But the implications of Ephesians 2 and Romans 11 are that now we are God’s household, and since we are God’s household…we claim the history of salvation that started in the OT and found its culmination in the death and resurrection event as our history. We share in the nourishing root of the olive tree...[The State of] Modern Israel not only robbed us of our land and freedom, but it also robbed us of our Scripture and spiritual heritage as Palestinian Christians.” [Dr. Munther Isaac, in "The Land Cries Out: Theology of the Land in the Israeli-Palestinian Context]

On the role that trauma and victimhood play in forming selective narratives through which people view the conflict...

When two narratives of the same events are diametrically opposed...

There's likely some truth in BOTH of them. Our job is to listen to the other side and sift out the true from the false, while avoiding whitewashing our own.

The Palestinian narrative is one in which a European colonial empire has robbed them of the vast majority of their land...

But the nationalist Zionist narrative says, "Look at how much land WE'VE given up for peace!"...

Rhetoric of denial is usually used to justify the actions of a group. In this case, the violent highly-nationalistic settlers in Hebron (where I took this photograph on Shuhada Street--also known as "Apartheid Street" because it is illegal for Arabs to walk on it) have launched a public relations campaign to delegitimize the Palestinian narrative entirely...

On two sides of the same street in Hebron, in fact, one can see the competing narratives in the form of graffiti...

From the beginning, nationalistic Zionists used rhetoric of denial in order to justify their presence in Palestine and their appropriation of its resources...

Israeli Zionists were not the only ones who employed such rhetoric to justify their actions...

“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” [Winston Churchill, 1937. cited by Ben White in "Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy"]

On the role that trauma and victimhood continue to play within Israeli society...

To this day, many (though certainly not all!) Israeli Jews are raised to see Israel as this tiny little country surrounded by a world bent on its destruction...for no other reason than that they are Jewish. Dr. Avigail Abarbanel, an Israeli-born Jewish psychotherapist shares her story...

From a very young age, about 6 or 7 years old my generation was exposed to gruesome images of the Holocaust, piles of dead emaciated bodies, the mountains of shoes, the gates of Auschwitz, hungry and filthy children and adult prisoners in stripy pyjamas peering desperately through barbed wire. We were taught Holocaust stories, real and fictional, about the life of children like us in the Ghettos under the Nazis: the ever present hunger, the crowded conditions, the daily struggle to survive, the uncertainty, heroic children risking their lives to smuggle food into the ghettos, and the constant terror of cold-hearted SS soldiers, their guns and their dogs.

The messages were crystal clear: ‘This could be you because you are Jewish. The only reason it isn’t, is not because they won’t try to do it to you — they almost certainly will do this again — but because you are here in Israel. The Holocaust victims were weak Jews but you are an Israeli, and you must grow up to be strong. Israel is the only protection you have against ending up like one of these children in the stories and the photos. You must help make Israel strong and do everything you can to make sure it survives, so that you don’t end up like these Holocaust children’.

...When people are indoctrinated this way, this is not designed to elicit intellectual discussion. This is meant to penetrate deep into your unconscious, to the level below awareness and intellectual engagement. That way it forms a part of the very fabric that makes you who you are, it shapes you into something that the state can use. It goes so deep that it’s the sort of thing that few people tend to question.

There were plenty of school excursions deliberately designed to instil in us a deep sense of connection to and ownership of the land. Difficult issues were either lied about outright or cleverly avoided. For instance, each time we visited a site of a destroyed Arab town or village from 1948, the reason given for what we saw was that the Arabs chose to flee. (I am using the word ‘Arab’ because this is the word that was always used. The word ‘Palestinian’ was never mentioned back then. It started to penetrate the daily vocabulary much later.) The emphasis was always on how we made the desert bloom and how there wasn’t much there before our brave pioneers came and settled the land. Until a few years ago I didn’t know that we committed deliberate and systematic ethnic cleansing in 1948; that we drove out the Palestinian population and caused over 700,000 people to become refugees; that we refused their return despite a clear UN resolution from 1949. None of this is mentioned in Israeli history classes, and the majority of people still believe what they were taught at school. It’s easy to support the false knowledge that the state teaches. What’s the alternative?

All the while when we were being brainwashed to be good loyal Israelis, terrible things were being done right under our noses. Some we didn’t see, some we heard about but dismissed and others we interpreted from within the official paradigm.

Life in Israel feels so intense and so anxious that few people have any energy left to take real interest in what’s going on. And if what’s going on contradicts the way Israeli-Jews have been conditioned to see themselves, then it’s all the more urgent to push all this out of awareness.

My brother, his wife and I have a good personal relationship but we never talk about politics. He belongs to this class of Israeli-Jews who try to not see or hear what’s going on. If my brother is pushed, he would usually express the standard apologist nonsense we have all been fed, such as that the Palestinians are not like us, that they don’t really want peace and that there is no one to talk to on the other side. These arguments show a profound ignorance about what’s going on and they are nothing more than a repetition of the official state position. But I think remaining ignorant is a conscious choice.

It’s effortless to access the information the government wants you to know in Israel but if you want to find out what’s really going on or read other perspectives, you have to make a conscious effort. Few people are prepared to do this. The members of the Israeli human rights and peace groups are doing that but they are a very small minority.

The turning point for me came when I began to learn about the true reality of the conflict between Israeli-Jews and the Palestinians — that was a result of hearing Avi Shlaim, the author of The Iron Wall speak on ABC radio in 2001. What he said was deeply disturbing to me. I think if he wasn’t an Israeli-Jew himself, I would have dismissed it all as anti-Semitic nonsense. But I couldn’t easily dismiss a professor of history at a respected British university who just like me was also a former Jewish citizen of Israel. From that point on, a rift began to open between my personal human values and my Jewish-Israeli loyalty. The more I learned about the true history of Zionism and Israel the more I questioned everything I used to believe. It became harder and harder to continue to be loyal to Israel and to Jewish-Israeli culture and to continue to be an apologist for Israel.

Every aspect of my education and upbringing in Israel was designed to make me a loyal Israeli Jew. A loyal Israeli Jew is someone who puts his or her differences with local politics aside if the nation is under threat. There is a perception in the world that Jewish-Israelis are allowed to express their opinions freely and without fear of retribution from the government. This is true only up to a point. I think George W. Bush’s statement after 9/11 ‘You’re either with us or with the terrorists’, sums up well the nature of patriotic loyalty in Israel.

The problem is that the way the culture is promoted and celebrated; the existential threat is never far off. It’s reinforced almost with every religious festival and in popular culture. When I was growing up it was a regular occurrence for the Chief of Staff to reassure us that ‘Israel is ready for the next war’. The word ‘war’ was always there and we truly believed that we were surrounded by terrible and powerful enemies who want to throw us into the sea.

This some of what the majority of Jewish Israelis believe:

• We are Jews and therefore everyone hates us; everyone hates us because we are Jews.
• This hatred cannot be changed. Hatred of Jews is in the blood of every gentile (a derogatory term for non-Jews) and is passed on genetically. It’s like a mental illness that can’t go away.
• Even those who don’t exactly hate us were not prepared to stick up for us when we were in trouble, therefore non-Jews can never be trusted. There are ‘good gentiles’ and ‘bad gentiles’ but we can’t really trust even the good ones.
• This is our fate from the beginning of our existence. The Jewish people have been despised and persecuted from their beginnings. There is a continuous history leading up from biblical times to the present day. It’s never changed. Hitler and Pharaoh of the Exodus story are the same.
• The Holocaust is the ultimate proof that Jews cannot be safe among non-Jews.
• Israel is the only safe haven for Jews and must remain under Jewish sovereignty. It must always guarantee special rights for Jews, like the right of return, so that no Jew anywhere will ever find him or herself in the same situation as the Jews who were victims of pogroms and of the Holocaust.
• This must never happen to us again.
• It happened to us because we were weak therefore we must become very powerful and never let anyone push us around.
• We will never be safe until all foreigners and Arabs in particular are pushed away from our borders. We can only be safe among our own people.
• We have a right to hurt others because we have been hurt — the principle of ‘destructive entitlement’ (a term from family therapy) is at the heart of Jewish-Israeli culture.
• Others don’t matter as much as we do.
• Another Holocaust is imminent. Jews from around the world must have a place to run to when it happens. Israel needs to have enough land and resources to take in 12 million Jews.
• The main purpose of the life of every Jewish woman, man or child is to work to help the Jewish people survive. Therefore any other aspirations and passions must come second. Any values that Jewish people have must be put aside when the survival of the people is threatened.
• This makes the life of Jews and Israeli Jews more difficult than the life of other people. But this is just how it is. It is our lot to have a hard time and this goes all the way back to the Bible.

Belief in ‘specialness’ has always been part of Jewish culture... It can also be a reaction to trauma...Here are some of the beliefs held by Israeli-Jews:

• Jews and therefore Jewish Israelis are more special than other people.
• Jews have a special relationship with god.
• Jews are more ethical and moral than all other people. By extension Israel as a Jewish state is a more moral and noble country that other countries. It is ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’.
• Israeli wars are different to other people’s wars. Our wars are just and are all ‘wars of no-choice’ — milchamot ein breira.
• Our occupation is different to other occupations. We treat the Palestinians better than occupied people in other places. We cannot possibly be compared with other bad countries who do bad things.
• Our colonisation of Palestinian lands is different too. First, it’s our land anyway, and second, as Jews we didn’t have a choice. What did you want us to do — die in the Diaspora?
• Our suffering is greater and more special than the suffering of anyone else.
• Even the hatred of Jews is not like other types of racism. It’s different and special. The Holocaust is proof of that.
• The Holocaust is unlike any other genocide in human history.
• Criticism of Israel is not like criticism of other countries. It is anti-Semitism in modern disguise. By extension any Jew who criticises Israel is aiding and abetting not only the enemies of Israel but the enemies of the Jews in general, and are therefore traitors. To be a traitor you must be mentally defective in some way. Healthy people are loyal to their group no matter what.
• Our survival is more important than the survival of anyone else. We have more right to exist than they do.
• Our love for our children and our families is superior to that of others.
• Israel’s strategic enemies hate Israel because it is a Jewish state. Their hatred has nothing to do with anything Israel might have done.
• Opposition to Israel in the region has nothing to do with sympathy towards the Palestinians and everything to do with anti-Semitism. Arabs and Muslims in general hate Jews.

...It’s easy to see how a policy of apartheid is in fact embedded in the culture and comes directly from it. Jewish people believe that they should be separate from others because others are not safe. This belief makes a policy of apartheid seem reasonable and acceptable. Morality or human values are pushed aside when it comes to survival and I think this is a wider human problem that is not unique to Israel but it certainly plays a huge part in Jewish-Israeli culture. [Dr. Abarbanel's full presentation can be found at: http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/growing-up-blind.html]

On how such trauma narratives produce fear-based thinking and rhetoric...

Many nationalistic Zionists see Israel as surrounded by hordes of bloodthirsty Muslims/Arabs who are just waiting for an opportunity to destroy them. The nationalistic Zionist comic strip "Dry Bones" frequently makes use of fear-based, anti-Arab tropes in defense of the ongoing Occupation of Palestine...

[Arabs are] “beasts of the desert, not a legitimate people…The Arabs are not a nation but a mole that grew in the wilderness of the eternal desert. They are nothing but murderers.” -Avraham Stern, 1940

Likewise, the IDF produces such graphics to justify military retaliation against densely-packed civilian populations in Gaza by presenting Israel as a victim of nonstop missile attacks that no other country in the world would tolerate...

But those who oppose Israel's heavy-handed responses see things differently of course...

In fact, when you look at the actual death tolls over the past 15 years or so, things look different than many have been led to believe...

Depending on one's narrative, the events of modern Israel's founding have VERY different meanings...

On the population transfer plans of early nationalistic Zionists...

Some say that early Zionists wanted the Palestinian Arabs to remain and live alongside them in peace. However, despite public declarations from time to time expressing this idea, the actual founding Zionist figures maintained quite clearly that the goal was expulsion of the vast majority of the Arab population from Palestine in order to secure a majority Jewish state. This transfer of populations is what a number of Israeli Jewish historians refer to as "ethnic cleansing"...

Herzl on transfer...

Ussishkin on the priority Jewish immigration takes over removing indigenous Arab population...

Weitz on the need for Zionism to be clear that transfer is the goal, even if they must avoid such language in public discourse...

Ben Gurion (whom Dr. Brown quoted as pleading with Palestinian Arabs to stay in the land...but who held very different views in actuality)...

“...transfer of Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the most just, moral and correct things that can be done. I have thought this for many years.” [Shlomo Lavi]

[There is nothing] “more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the emptying of the Jewish state of the Arabs and their transfer elsewhere....This requires [the use of] force.” [Avraham Katznelson]

[All of the above quotes can be found in Nur Masalha's book linked in the resources below]

On the idea that the majority of the Palestinians voluntarily left in order to wait for the Arab army's victory before coming back to take over the land...

On early nationalistic Zionist atrocities...

Jabotinsky endorsed the terror campaign launched in the late 1930s by the Irgun, a campaign that involved such actions as placing bomb-loaded vegetable barrows in crowded Arab markets in Haifa and Jerusalem and firing indiscriminately on Arab civilian houses. Irgun’s bombing attacks of the late 1930s and 1948 were aimed at Palestinian civilians. Lehi specialized in political assassinations. Between the Haganah’s 20 May 1947 blowing up of an Arab cafe in Fajjah and the Stern Gang’s blowing up of the Cairo-Haifa passenger train (forty Arab civilians killed, sixty injured) in March 1948, more than 90 attacks on Arab villages or civilian targets took place. Most of these attacks did not involve an exchange of fire; they included such terrorist acts as burning cinemas, setting off explosives in market places, spraying bullets into crowds gathered at cafes or in the streets, dynamiting houses with people in them, and so on. [Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948]

"...the Kafr Qasim massacre in 1956 when close to 50 villagers were murdered by soldiers enforcing a curfew. The Eight soldiers who received jail terms had their sentences commuted, and were all out 4 years later. The commanding officer was fined an agora, ‘Israel’s smallest coin’." [Ben White, Palestinians in Israel. p.81]

On why the Arabs rejected the Partition Plan in 1948...

Author Craig Nielsen gives a helpful analogy to understand much of what lay at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

In my hometown of Adelaide, South Australia there has been an influx of Sudanese migrants since that country plunged into conflict some years ago. This has caused some problems of readjustment with the locals here in Australia and I myself have heard some very racist reactions to these new Australians. However, I do believe in the long run that these people will be accepted just like the Asian community was during the 80s and 90s. Australians may be wary of newcomers who are markedly different from Europeans but in the end I feel the necessary changes to attitudes will be made.

But let us imagine for a while what the situation would be if instead of this migration by Sudanese people looking to become Australians we replaced it with Sudanese coming to Australia in order to create an independent Sudanese state in South Australia that would only allow Sudanese migrants to settle there. What if plans were being made to bring millions of Sudanese to Australia to fill this newly created state? What would be the reaction of the locals to this proposal? I have no doubt it would be utterly rejected. Australians living within the boundaries of the newly proposed state would fear discrimination on the basis of their non- Sudanese status. With living space in short supply, who would be the most likely to be encouraged to get up and leave the new state when the millions of new Sudanese settlers flew in? If a referendum was taken in the state of South Australia to decide if such a proposal would be acceptable, I’m sure it would result in the utter rejection of the new state, and understandably so.

Yet the above imaginary scenario is basically what has happened to the people of Palestine and their rejection of the newly created Zionist State is equally understandable. [Nielsen, Craig, Israel Palestine: A Christian Response to the Conflict, Foundaion Press, Amsterdam. 2012. Pp. 120-121]

On the Occupation and Settlements...

In our debate, Dr. Brown claimed that the IDF has the highest of ethical standards and that claims of abuse by soldiers in the occupied territories are exaggerated or not credible. Below is a video by actual IDF soldiers (not anonymous testimonies) who served in the occupied territories that tells a VERY different story than what many, such as my friend Dr. Brown, have been led to believe:

On the Separation Wall...

In June 2002, the Israeli cabinet decided to erect a physical barrier separating Israel and the West Bank with the declared objective of regulating the entry of Palestinians from the West Bank into Israel.

Upon completion, the barrier's total length will be approximately 700 kilometres (430 mi). 90% of the length of this barrier is a fence with vehicle-barrier trenches surrounded by an on-average 60 metres (200 ft) wide exclusion area, and 10% of the barrier is an 8 metres (26 ft)-tall concrete wall.

According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, 8.5% of the West Bank area will after completion be on the Israeli side of the barrier, and 3.4% partly or completely surrounded on the eastern side.

Claims that the wall is "necessary to keep out murderers" do not match the actual realities on the ground. The wall is built not between Israel and Palestinian territories (along the "Green Line" or '67 Border), but rather it snakes into Palestinian land and separates villages from their fields, from one another, and from the illegal Israeli settlements that are continuing to be built on Palestinian lands.

The image below shows how the wall has been used to illegally annex Palestinian land. The green line is the general border between Israel and Palestine. The red line is the route of the wall. The purple areas are illegal Israeli settlements...

In Bethlehem, the wall was built in such a way as to annex Rachel's Tomb (a popular tourist site) and cut off the main street between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The pattern in which the wall was built is in no way a "security" necessity. Rather, its primary purpose is to annex parts of Bethlehem, separate the town from the fields surrounding it and inhibit movement on the part of the citizens of Bethlehem and the Aida Refugee Camp...

The wall in Bethlehem just outside of my hotel. In populated areas it is most definitely not a "fence"...

Resources for Further Study on Israel, Palestine, Ethics & Eschatology

Books

You WANT to be ‘Left Behind’!! – by JM Smith
Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians - by Gary Burge
The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal and Dissent – Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin
Whose Promised Land? - by Colin Chapman
Reading Revelation Responsibly – by Michael Gorman
Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought 1882-1948 – by Nur Masalha
Letters From Apartheid Street – by Michael McRay
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs – Ed. By Paul Mendes-Flohr
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998 – by Benny Morris
The Land Cries Out: Theology of the Land in the Israeli-Palestinian Context – Salim Munayer and Lisa Loden
Israel Palestine: A Christian Response to the Conflict – Craig Michael Nielsen
The General’s Son – by Miko Peled
A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism – by Yakov Rabkin
Zion’s Christian Soldiers?: The Bible, Israel and the Church – Stephen Sizer
Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy – by Ben White
Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary – Ben Witherington
The Problem With Evangelical Theology – Ben Witherington
Paul and the Faithfulness of God – by N.T. Wright
Surprised By Hope – N.T. Wright
The Mission of God – by Christopher Wright

Films/Videos

Little Town of Bethlehem – Jim Hanon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1602609/)
We See No Enemy – Zachary Crow (http://www.weseenoenemy.com/)
With God On Our Side – Porter Speakman Jr. (www.withgodonourside.com)
Our Neighborhood – Julia Bacha & Rebekah Wingert-Jabi (www.justvision.org/myneighbourhood/watch)
Burning Conscience: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out – AlernateFocus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo)
Christ At the Checkpoint Conference Speaker Video Archive – (http://vimeo.com/christatthecheckpoint/videos)

History/Overview of the conflict

Why the Arabs Rejected Zionism…and Why It Matters (Middle East Policy Council) – http://tinyurl.com/mdza4oy

Palestinian Christian/Messianic Jewish/Reconciliation Organizations

Bethlehem Bible College - www.bethbc.org
Christ at the Checkpoint – www.christatthecheckpoint.com
Christians Committed to Biblical Justice Challenging Christian Zionism - http://www.christianzionism.org
Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding - www.emeu.net
Holy Land Trust - www.holylandtrust.org
Kairos Palestine - http://tinyurl.com/bvbzuae
Musalaha - www.musalaha.org
Mapping Messianic Jewish Theology - http://blog.mappingmessianicjewishtheology.eu/tagged/article
Tikkun International - http://www.tikkunministries.org/

Current Ethics and Peacemaking

How to be ‘Pro-Jesus’ in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Christianity Today) - http://tinyurl.com/kt7eak8
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Six Things I Believe (Lynn Hybels) - http://tinyurl.com/jwz5g2x
Holocaust Survivors Hand Gift Baskets to Asylum Seekers - http://tinyurl.com/olxb2ao

“Facts on the Ground”: The Occupation, Checkpoints, Separation Wall and Settler Violence

Map of the West Bank, Settlements and Separation Barrier (2012) - http://www.btselem.org/map/131764
U.N. Fact Sheet on Humanitarian Concerns in East Jerusalem - http://tinyurl.com/lx9bqk5
U.N. Fact Sheet on Humanitarian Impact of Israeli Settlement Policies - http://tinyurl.com/k9jo9vc
Breaking the Silence: Soldiers’ Testimonies from the Occupied Territories – www.breakingthesilence.org.il
B’Tselem: Monitoring Human Rights Abuses in the Occupied Territories - www.btselem.org
If Americans Knew - http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions - www.icahd.org
Visualizing Palestine – http://visualizingpalestine.org/
Holocaust Survivors Criticize Israeli Policy Towards Palestinians - http://tinyurl.com/cj6r4af
Israeli Settlements: An Obstacle to a Two-State Peace (Foundation for Middle East Peace) – http://tinyurl.com/nxupgty
Photo diary of Palestinian workers’ daily checkpoint commute - http://tinyurl.com/o893fh4
A Whole System of Deception - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/10647-a-whole-system-of-deception
Where International Law Stands on the Wall - http://visualizingpalestine.org/infographic/ICJ-Separation-Wall-Legality
West Bank Water Supply - http://visualizingpalestine.org/infographic/wb-water
20 Years of Talks - http://visualizingpalestine.org/infographic/Palestinian-Israeli-Peace-Talks-Settlements-Oslo
An Ongoing Displacement - http://visualizingpalestine.org/Disappearing-Palestine
Checkpoint Births - http://visualizingpalestine.org/infographic/checkpoint-births
Palestinian and Israeli Deaths Since 2000 - http://visualizingpalestine.org/timeline-of-violence
Segregated Roads in the Occupied Territories - http://visualizingpalestine.org/infographic/segregated-roads-west-bank
Israeli Settlement Bus Routes Across the Wall - http://visualizingpalestine.org/infographic/across-the-wall
Children of the Occupation: Growing Up in Palestine - http://tinyurl.com/k4wwvba
Setter Violence: It Comes With the Territory - http://972mag.com/settler-violence-it-comes-with-the-territory/85996/
Just Another Day of Violence - http://blog.yesh-din.org/en/
Former Israeli Attorney General: ‘We Should Have Evicted Hebron Settlers’ - http://tinyurl.com/karc49a
Swedish Human Rights worker attacked by Hebron Settlers - http://palsolidarity.org/2006/11/hebron-day-06/
Photos: 20 Years Since the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre - http://tinyurl.com/ktatlno
Israeli Settler: ‘If I see her coming, no matter what age she is, 3, 4, 7, I’ll #@%& her over.’ - http://tinyurl.com/8d4yyc2
Settlers destroy 7,500 Palestinian Olive Trees - http://tinyurl.com/n8v3dpl

The “Apartheid” label and anti-Semitism

What does ‘Israeli Apartheid’ mean, anyway? (Haaretz) - http://tinyurl.com/n4gc6t2
A Night of Apartheid - http://www.timesofisrael.com/a-night-of-apartheid/
Zionism and Antisemitism: Racist Political Twins (J-Big - Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods) - http://tinyurl.com/kwyxnwg
Why Israel is ‘Singled Out’ - http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/why-israel-is-singled-out.html
A Conflict of Faith: Devoted to Jewish Observance, but at Odds With Israel - http://tinyurl.com/kn67umg
It’s the Occupation and Israeli Bigotry that are anti-Semitic (Larry Derfner) - http://tinyurl.com/kbjcppc
Why I Oppose Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State (Noam Sheizaf) - http://tinyurl.com/mbeno2s
Palestinian Textbooks Don’t Vilify Jews – http://tinyurl.com/byrjpcc

Disciple Dojo Resources on Eschatology:

“Apocalypse Now? What the Bible Teaches about the End Times” (podcast) - http://www.discipledojo.org/podcast/
“Revelation: A Guided Tour of the Apocalypse” (video course) - http://www.discipledojo.org/revelation/
"7 Reasons why I am not a Christian Zionist" - http://www.discipledojo.org/blog/christian-zionism

Once again, I want to express my sincerest thanks to Dr. Brown for participating in this discussion and reiterate that while our differences on a number of the issues are pronounced and serious, I have nothing but love and respect for him as a dear brother in the Messiah and I've grown so much from being challenged in my thinking by him during our years of debating this issue back and forth.

I also am so glad to be a part of the community of Gordon-Conwell, which puts a high value on biblical literacy and cultural engagement, all within a theologically diverse cross-section of evangelicalism.

JM

Be careful using the Bible - A response to a viral Methodist post

Hi Dojo readers,

Recently a post by a retired United Methodist minister from my home state of Georgia has been making the rounds. It comes after the results of the special 2019 General Conference in which Global Methodism voted to uphold traditional orthodox Methodist views on human sexuality and to take disciplinary action against those Methodist clergy who openly disobey UM doctrine.

Not everyone was happy. Progressive celebrity pastors and Bishops took to the internet to voice their outrage at the “harm” done by the church voting to uphold what God’s people have believed and taught for 3,400+ years. Those who once decried traditional Methodists for being willing to leave the denomination if the vote had gone the other way—who lamented the unpardonable sin of ‘disunity’—now find themselves gathering to discuss doing that very same thing in the near future, it seems.

To be clear, Disciple Dojo’s position has always been that we are not “united” in anything other than institutional finance infrastructure, and our differences are foundational and irreconcilable to the point of being almost two different religions. Like Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses, Traditionalist and Progressive United Methodists use the same words and terminology…but with VASTLY different meanings.

The previously mentioned missive by the retired UM Pastor is a perfect case in point. It was published on the denomination’s social media feed and I have take the time to respond to it during my flight back from India (where I was visiting local pastor friends there who are—to say the least—extremely puzzled by the situation!). I have left the original piece intact and only include my comments interspersed in bold.

I would welcome an open public dialogue on this subject anytime with anyone (including Rev. McCormick) so that our differences can be brought to light in a way that is insightful and will help rather than “harm” all who seek to be Methodists during this time of denominational upheaval in North America.

————————————————————-

Commentary: 'Be careful using the Bible'

(JM Commentary: Especially if you are unfamiliar with basic hermeneutic principles)

By the Rev. James R. McCormick

Feb. 5, 2019 | CUMMING, Ga.

One must be careful in using the Bible as a source of moral standards. Throughout history, the Bible has too often been used to justify one’s own moral preferences rather than to seek God’s will about human behavior. The Bible has been quoted to support slavery and segregation. The Bible continues to be used to oppose women’s work outside the home and female ordination. These are two separate issues; neither of which pertains to discussion of sexual ethics.

Others quote the same Bible to oppose slavery and segregation and to affirm women’s rights as equal to men’s. This is disingenuous at best, for even staunch Complementarians affirm women as equal to men. They merely believe the callings God gives the genders are different and complimentary. I am not a Complementarian myself, but presenting the issue like this is either rhetorically dishonest or ignorant of Complementarian theology.

In studying the Bible, it is necessary to realize that often God is cited as supporting whatever values are normative at that time in history. Cited by who? To what specifically is McCormick referring? This is so vague a statement as to be almost meaningless without actual examples. Those are “timely” standards — standards valued for a time — but not necessarily “timeless” standards that are applicable for all time and all circumstances.

Remember that the Bible affirms Abraham having sexual relations with Hagar, Sarah’s maid, in order to produce his first son, Ishmael. This is quite simply false. The Bible does not “affirm” this anymore than it “affirms” Lamech taking two wives or Noah getting drunk in his tent. That a retired UMC Pastor cannot (or chooses not to) distinguish between what the Bible DEscribes vs what the Bible PREscibes speaks volumes to the lack of basic hermeneutics among much of our UM clergy. Only later did Sarah produce Isaac, through whom Jews trace their ancestry. Remember King Solomon’s legendary 1,000 wives and concubines. Yes. And Remember how his taking them specifically marked the downfall of the entire kingdom of Israel? It would be nice if more Methodists studied the Hebrew Scriptures in depth rather than cherry picking from them for occasional sermons or illustrations. As an Old Testament teacher and lifelong Methodist I can attest firsthand to the overall lack of basic understanding of Jesus’ Bible among our denomination (and Christians in general fro that matter). Today we would call Abraham’s and Solomon’s sexual actions adultery, and not condone such actions for the behavior of others. As would Torah, Prophets, and Jesus. Remember that, in ancient Israel, eating shellfish and wearing clothing of two different fabrics at the same time were called “abominations.” Yes, Israel lived under the Sinai Covenant as a nation and the laws of the covenant spanned all aspects of life. That Covenant was brought to completion by the arrival of the long-promised New Covenant (Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36) and thus those laws are no longer the operative covenant laws for God’s people. It has nothing to do with us “knowing better” now. It has everything to do with what Covenant we live under. Again...this is basic hermeneutics 101, and every UM Pastor should know this after their first year in seminary. Walking too many paces on the Sabbath was considered sinful. Not by Torah. This was a later tradition that the Pharisees added that was never demanded by God. And, it was permissible to make slaves of captured enemies. But only for 7 years at most, after which they were to be sent away with provisions and blessing unless they chose to remain as an ‘ebed to their new household. We must always remember that Biblical slavery =/= Colonial chattle slavery. They are apples and oranges, and the colonial slave trade would never have arisen if Torah and Gospel teachings on it had been followed within Christendom. So much of what was considered sinful or acceptable was simply the norms or standards that were practiced by the majority of the people, but condemned today. But why? Not because of the passing of time. Something actually changed in Covenant history. Something monumental. Something called the Gospel.

Sadly, that practice has not changed. As a child, I was not allowed to have playing cards in our house. Dancing and even going to the movies were frowned upon, and drinking alcoholic beverages was not allowed. I was told that Jesus and his disciples drank only grape juice! Our former legalistic folk-theology should not lead us to swing to the opposite end of the spectrum. Rather, we should seek faithful exegetical balance instead of reactionary progressive revisionism.

Today, all of those things are permissible even by religious people, showing that moral standards do evolve. Or...that people simply don’t follow the unbiblical folk-theology McCormick and others were raised with, but which the Church never proclaimed as doctrine. I remember the insightful words of James Russell Lowell: “New occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth. They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.” This is only “insightful” in that it serves as a candid window into what drives McCormick’s theology: what C.S. Lewis called “Chronological Snobbery.” The pride of modernism should have been burned away in the ovens of Dachau or bled out in the killing fields of Cambodia. Alas, it seems many Methodists missed the 20th Century’s main lesson.

That brings us to a question sharply dividing the Christian community in our time: How are we to think about and act toward the LGBTQ community? We know that the majority of Americans do not oppose homosexual relations (or sexual relationships outside of marriage), yet others believe that while every person is a child of God, homosexual behavior is a choice (this is a red herring. Orientation is not a choice. Having sex is. Those are two different things that, again, a UM Pastor should know to distinguish between) and is sinful, and marriage is only to be affirmed when between a man and a woman. A key question for me is: Is that position simply an expression of ancient and current cultural norms, or is that the timeless moral position, sanctioned by God?

Think about this: The writers of the Bible did not know about germs. That’s why some thought that when a person became sick, they were possessed by demons. Jesus Himself seemed pretty clear that some people’s maladies were from demonic influence, whether or not germs were involved is immaterial. There is no dichotomy between demonic use of physical means to oppress, as we are integrated beings, spirit/soul/body. Again, this is basic Christian Theology. Today, almost all people of faith understand germs and infections, and they treat such conditions with antibiotics such as penicillin.

The writers of the Bible also did not know about genetics, but we do. We understand that we do not choose the color of our eyes, the texture of our hair or the pigment of our skin. The Bible writers did not believe these things either. Likewise, most scientists and psychologists of today believe that same-gender orientation is not a matter of choice. They also do not believe it is caused simply by genetics. Rather as any developmental psychologist will attest, the interplay between nature and nurture, particularly pertaining to the development of sexual gender identity in children is a complex matrix of factors. Anyone who takes it as either a matter of simple choice, or a matter of pure genetics like left-handedness, is showing their ignorance of the subject at a foundational level and doing a disservice to the greater public discussion of the topic by attempting to speak authoritatively on it as clergy.

Let’s go a bit deeper into the issue of morality. How do we distinguish between values that are “timely” — those that are affirmed as norms by the majority of people at one time in history, but are changed or updated in another generation because of new understandings, and the values that are “timeless” and applicable in all situations and at all times in history? What is an eternal value? Here is where the Bible, taken as a whole and seen in its depths, can guide us.

At creation, it is clear that human beings were the ultimate purpose of creation: “Created a little less than God, and crowned with glory and honor” (Psalms 8). We have been created in the image of God, called into being by God breathing His Spirit into us. All of the Bible is about how we are to be in a right relationship with God, and that relationship with God being expressed in a right relationship with ourselves and with others.

Second only to God, humans are the most important entities in existence. Therefore, what is moral in a timeless sense is whatever is helpful to human beings, and what is immoral is whatever is hurtful to human beings. That is a timeless value. It is also a completely pagan one. This definition of morality is NOWHERE taught in Scripture. It puts the onus of determining what is moral and what is immoral on our limited perspective and determinations of what causes “harm.” In contrast to this unbiblical concept, the actual texts of Scripture place the onus on determining what is and is not moral upon God’s revelation to humanity, both in Scripture and in nature (Psalm 19). When left to our own devices, humans are notoriously terrible and determining what does and does not cause “harm.” Apart from objective grounding in God’s self-revelation, “harm” becomes simply a synonym for “what I don’t like.” In fact, the very first sin in all of Scripture illustrates the falsehood of McCormick’s thesis: there was nothing inherently discernibly “harmful” about the fruit that man and woman ate. It was specifically seen as “pleasing to the eye” and “good for food.” It was, in fact, part of God’s “good” creation, after all. The ONLY evidence of its “harmfulness” was God’s specific prohibition of it and warning of the consequences. Oh, how this mirrors so many sexual expressions discussions in our Mainline Protestant circles. It cuts across all times and circumstances. It helps us separate temporary customs from values that are lasting.

Why oppose slavery and segregation? Because they are hurtful. Why do the Ten Commandments forbid murder, stealing, lying, adultery and coveting? Because they are hurtful. On the other hand, what is hurtful about playing cards, dancing or having a glass of wine with a meal? Or having an open marriage? Or having sex with another consenting adult for money? Or praying to an idol? Or not worshipping God but being a good person outwardly? 

If a person is born with a same-gender orientation, why must they be prohibited from having an intimate relationship with another person, forced into isolation and loneliness, just because many people unfairly oppose that? Why assume not having sex is the same thing as being “forced into isolation and loneliness”? Why ignore the praise Jesus gave to Eunuchs? Why overlook the testimonies of countless unmarried saints throughout the ages? Could it be because sex and marriage have become an idol in American Protestantism? And why if the situation is as described by McCormick would God speak of celibacy as a gift, of denying oneself as the core of the Gospel, and of sex being only to be exprienced within the confines of husband-wife marriage throughout the New Testament? The fact that some Christians do not approve does not make such a relationship hurtful. Correct. It’s the fact that GOD does not approve which makes it so.

Almost everyone affirms close, caring relationships between men and between women. We become concerned only when the sexual component is added. Why? All close relationships are much more than sexual. Even heterosexual marriage is about friendship, mutuality and caring. We should wrestle with the reality that close, same-sex friendships are applauded; it is only when the sexual component is added that we become concerned. Again, why? Because that is the aspect that is prohibited from anyone who is not husband and wife. Anyone. Why not have the same moral standards for same-gender relationships as for heterosexual relationships: no promiscuity, no coercion, no insensitivity. Instead, seek commitment, faithfulness, mutual sensitivity, caring and support. Because the two are not synonymous. They are two fundamentally different kinds of relationships. Who does that hurt? The participants, according to Scripture. Instead, it treats all people as persons of equal worth, as children of God, and encouraged to enjoy mutually affirming, intimate, helpful relationships with others. While ignoring the words of Jesus and His Apostles to the contrary, of course.

To “love your neighbor” is to do the helpful thing and to avoid doing the hurtful thing, even when cultural conditioning makes that uncomfortable. The irony of this sentence should not go unnoticed. Helping, not hurting, looks and sounds like Jesus to me.

The Rev. James R. McCormick is a retired United Methodist pastor in Cumming, Georgia.

News contact: Vicki Brown at (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.

JM Smith (M.Div, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) is the founder of DiscipleDojo.org, an online Discipleship resource ministry in Charlotte, NC.

Seeing the Big Picture of Romans 9-11

Hi Dojo readers,

This is a particularly Bible-geekish post. So be warned beforehand.

I recently had a friend ask me for help, as she was preparing to teach Romans chapter 9 in her adult Sunday School class. I shared with her a few suggestions about Romans chs. 9-11, one of which came from my re-reading N.T. Wright’s chapter on Romans 9-11 in his MASSIVE magnum opus “Paul and the Faithfulness of God“. [Seriously, it’s so large that Ben Witherington has written a 93-part review of it. No…I’m not making that up!]

Wright spends around 200 pages just on these three chapters of Romans…but given the amount of ink that has been spilled over the past 2,000 years on that section of the book, his treatment is well worth reading and engaging with overall. But what initially piqued my interest, and has become more convincing the more I read and reread Romans 9-11, is Wright’s suggestion that the entire section is structured chiastically. [For those who are unfamiliar with what a “chiasm” is, you can read a quick intro summary to the concept HERE.]

I wanted to share it with Disciple Dojo readers in a way that visually helps them see Wright’s proposed structure…and thus a potential way to make sense of the overall flow of this most dense (and often confusing!) section of the book. So using the Bible study approach I suggested in a previous Dojo blog post (which I still believe to be the single most effective way of studying overall books of the Bible in the modern age!), I copied and pasted Romans 9-11 into a Word doc and formatted it according to Wright’s suggested structure…using his “Kingdom New Testament” which I have on my Kindle reader. (I thought that was only fitting!)  I’ve indented the corresponding sections chiastically. I also put all OT quotations in italics. Here it is below for those who are curious. You can judge for yourself whether or not you find it persuasive or a helpful way to read this section of Scripture.

Romans 9-11’s Chiastic structure based on

N.T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God, ch.11

(Kingdom New Testament translation)

9:1 I’m speaking the truth in the Messiah; I’m not lying. I call my conscience as witness, in the holy spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and endless pain in my heart. 3 Left to my own self, I am half-inclined to pray that I would be accursed, cut off from the Messiah, on behalf of my own family, my own flesh-and-blood relatives. 4 They are Israelites; the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises all belong to them. 5 The patriarchs are their ancestors; and it is from them, according to the flesh, that the Messiah has come— who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen!

6 But it can’t be the case that God’s word has failed! Not all who are from Israel, you see, are in fact Israel. 7 Nor is it the case that all the children count as “seed of Abraham.” No: “in Isaac shall your seed be named.” 8 That means that it isn’t the flesh-and-blood children who are God’s children; rather, it is the children of the promise who will be calculated as “seed.” 9 This was what the promise said, you see: “Around this time I shall return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And that’s not all. The same thing happened when Rebecca conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac. 11 When they had not yet been born, and had done nothing either good or bad— so that what God had in mind in making his choice might come to pass, 12 not because of works but because of the one who calls— it was said to her, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13 As the Bible says, “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.” 14 So what are we going to say? Is God unjust? Certainly not! 15 He says to Moses, you see, “I will have mercy on those on whom I will have mercy, and I will pity those I will pity.” 16 So, then, it doesn’t depend on human willing, or on human effort; it depends on God who shows mercy. 17 For the Bible says to Pharaoh: “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power in you, and so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So, then, he has mercy on the one he wants, and he hardens the one he wants. 19 You will say to me, then, “So why does he still blame people? Who can stand against his purpose?” 20 Are you, a mere human being, going to answer God back? “Surely the clay won’t say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21 Doesn’t the potter have authority over the clay, so that he can make from the same lump one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? 22 Supposing God wanted to demonstrate his anger and make known his power, and for that reason put up very patiently with the vessels of anger created for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, the ones he prepared in advance for glory— 24 including us, whom he called not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles? 25 This is what he says in Hosea, I will call “not my people” “my people”; And “not beloved” I will call “beloved.” 26 And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” There they will be called “sons of the living God.” 27 Isaiah cries out, concerning Israel, Even if the number of Israel’s sons are like the sand by the sea, Only a remnant shall be saved; 28 For the Lord will bring judgment on the earth, Complete and decisive. 29 As Isaiah said in an earlier passage, If the Lord of hosts had not left us seed, We would have become like Sodom, and been made like Gomorrah

30 What then shall we say? That the nations, who were not aspiring toward covenant membership, have obtained covenant membership, but it is a covenant membership based on faith. 31 Israel, meanwhile, though eager for the law which defined the covenant, did not attain to the law. 32 Why not? Because they did not pursue it on the basis of faith, but as though it was on the basis of works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as the Bible says: Look: I am placing in Zion A stone that will make people stumble, A rock that will trip people up; And the one who believes in him Will never be put to shame.

10:1 My dear family, the longing of my heart, and my prayer to God on their behalf, is for their salvation. 2 I can testify on their behalf that they have a zeal for God; but it is not based on knowledge. 3 They were ignorant, you see, of God’s covenant faithfulness, and they were trying to establish a covenant status of their own; so they didn’t submit to God’s faithfulness. 4 The Messiah, you see, is the goal of the law, so that covenant membership may be available for all who believe.

5 Moses writes, you see, about the covenant membership defined by the law, that “the person who performs the law’s commands shall live in them.” 6 But the faith-based covenant membership puts it like this: “Don’t say in your heart, Who shall go up to heaven?” (in other words, to bring the Messiah down), 7 “or, Who shall go down into the depths?” (in other words, to bring the Messiah up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we proclaim);

9 because if you profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

10 Why? Because the way to covenant membership is by believing with the heart, and the way to salvation is by professing with the mouth. 11 The Bible says, you see, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich toward all who call upon him. 13 “All who call upon the name of the Lord,” you see, “will be saved.”

14 So how are they to call on someone when they haven’t believed in him? And how are they to believe if they don’t hear? And how will they hear without someone announcing it to them? 15 And how will people make that announcement unless they are sent? As the Bible says, “How beautiful are the feet of the ones who bring good news of good things.” 16 But not all obeyed the good news. Isaiah asks, you see, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing comes from the word of the Messiah.

18 This might make us ask, Did they not hear? But they certainly did: Their sound went out into all the world, And their words to the ends of the earth. 19 But I ask, did Israel not know? To begin with, Moses says, I will make you jealous with a non-nation; And stir you to anger with a foolish people. 20 Then Isaiah, greatly daring, puts it like this: I was found by those who were not looking for me; I became visible to those who were not asking for me. 21 But in respect of Israel he says, All day long I have stretched out my hands to a disbelieving and disagreeable people.

11:1 So I ask, has God abandoned his people? Certainly not! I myself am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham and the tribe of Benjamin. 2 “God has not abandoned his people,” the ones he chose in advance. Don’t you know what the Bible says in the passage about Elijah, describing how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Lord,” he says, “they have killed your prophets, they have thrown down your altars; I’m the only one left, and they are trying to kill me!” 4 But what is the reply from the divine word? “I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? Did Israel not obtain what it was looking for? Well, the chosen ones obtained it— but the rest were hardened, 8 as the Bible says: God gave them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that wouldn’t see, and ears that wouldn’t hear, Right down to this present day. 9 And David says, Let their table become a snare and a trap, And a stumbling block and a punishment for them; 10 Let their eyes be darkened so that they can’t see, And make their backs bend low forever. 11 So I ask, then: Have they tripped up in such a way as to fall completely? Certainly not! Rather, by their trespass, salvation has come to the nations, in order to make them jealous. 12 If their trespass means riches for the world, and their impoverishment means riches for the nations, how much more will their fullness mean! 13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Insofar as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I celebrate my particular ministry, 14 so that, if possible, I can make my “flesh” jealous, and save some of them. 15 If their casting away, you see, means reconciliation for the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 Take another illustration: if the first fruits are holy, so is the whole lump. And another: if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you— a wild olive tree!— were grafted in among them, and came to share in the root of the olive with its rich sap, 18 don’t boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember this: it isn’t you that supports the root, but the root that supports you. 19 I know what you’ll say next: “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 That’s all very well. They were broken off because of unbelief— but you stand firm by faith. Don’t get big ideas about it; instead, be afraid. 21 After all, if God didn’t spare the natural branches, there’s a strong possibility he won’t spare you. 22 Note carefully, then, that God is both kind and severe. He is severe to those who have fallen, but he is kind to you, provided you continue in his kindness— otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And they, too, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted back in. God is able, you see, to graft them back in. 24 For if you were cut out of what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will they, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. 25 My dear brothers and sisters, you mustn’t get the wrong idea and think too much of yourselves. That is why I don’t want you to remain in ignorance of this mystery: a hardening has come for a time upon Israel, until the fullness of the nations comes in. 26 That is how “all Israel shall be saved,” as the Bible says: The Deliverer will come from Zion, And will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 27 And this will be my covenant with them, Whenever I take away their sins. 28 As regards the good news, they are enemies— for your sake! But as regards God’s choice they are beloved because of the patriarchs. 29 God’s gifts and God’s call, you see, cannot be undone. 30 For just as you were once disobedient to God, but now have received mercy through their disobedience, 31 so they have now disbelieved as well, in order that, through the mercy which has come your way, they too may now receive mercy. 32 For God has shut up all people in disobedience, so that he may have mercy upon all.

33 O, the depth of the riches And the wisdom and knowledge of God! We cannot search his judgments; We cannot fathom his ways. 34 For “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has given him counsel? 35 Who has given a gift to him Which needs to be repaid?” 36 For from him, through him, and to him are all things. Glory to him forever! Amen.

How to study the Bible like a Black Belt in the digital age!

Hello Dojo readers!

We live in an age where the technology we carry around in our cell phones alone gives us more access to Biblical studies than every person in the entire history of mankind combined.

Think about that for a minute and let it sink in.

I'll wait.

…

…

…

It is simply staggering when you actually realize the implications of this basic fact of life in our digital age.

And while the rise of modern telecommunications has produced many new ways for evil and sin to flourish, it has also produced the ability to study and understand Inspired Scriptures in ways that are utterly revolutionary…and no, I’m not talking about those silly “Bible Code” approaches some people seem so fascinated by (spoiler alert: they’re bogus!).

In fact, one of the absolute most effective ways to study the Bible that I have ever found is also available absolutely free for any Christian in the world with internet access and a word-processing program. And that is what I want to share with you today. Because it’s the way I prepare for the Bible studies I lead when I really want to understand a book in Scripture as a whole and the flow of thought within it.

You see, the original Scriptures in their original languages did not have verse numbers.

They didn’t have chapter numbers.

They didn’t even have spaces between the letters originally!

Here’s an example of what a New Testament text looked like when it was first being circulated among the early churches:

ITWOULDREADLIKETHISTOTHEORIGINALAUDIENCEANDTHEYWOULDKNOWWHERETHEWORDSWERESUPPOSEDTOBEDIVIDEDBECAUSETHEYWEREUSEDTOREADINGTHISWAYANDBECAUSEMOSTOFTHETIMESCRIPTUREWASREADOUTLOUDRATHERTHANBYINDIVIDUALSANYWAY.

Now of course modern English (which of course you speak and/or read if you’re reading this post!) has things like spaces, punctuation and paragraph indentations, all of which help us determine the writer’s intended message. But sometimes, due to printing/cost constraints, it is not feasible to print the Scriptures for modern English readers in ways that make the bestsense literarily...that is, in terms of sentence structure, paragraphing, poetic structure, flow of thought, etc. In the past, many publishers would print each verse as a new paragraph for some translations (see the old KJV or NASB for example). With the demand for thinline and pocket-sized Bibles, publishers often use the two-column approach which allows more text per page…but rarely helps aid reflective, thoughtful, intuitive reading.

Furthermore, the presence of chapter and verse numbers in most printed Bible translations end up dominating the page (see the print version of the NET where each verse also includes the chapter number right beside it, for instance) and break the passage up in ways that the original Biblical authors never intended (such as the woefully ill-chosen chapter break between Genesis 1 and 2!). Many readers are also unaware that chapters weren't added to the Bible until the 1200s...and verse numbers came centuries later. Neither were part of the original Inspired texts.

On top of that, the decisions as to where paragraphs should begin and end are 100% made by the translators/editors/publishers of the various printed Bible translations rather than being part of the original Inspired text itself. Most of the time this doesn’t make a huge difference…but sometimes it most definitely does. Compare the paragraph break in 1Corinthians 14:33-34 in the NIV (2011) and original NIV (1984) for a great example of a paragraph break making all the difference in the world!

So with all of this in mind, one way in particular, which I have found to be TREMENDOUSLY helpful in really reading and studying the Bible in detail and understanding the literary flow of Scripture’s library of texts is by using a simple process that forces me to interact with the text in a way that no printed version ever could. I invite you to try it for yourself and see if you don’t gain so much more from ANY book of the Bible than you ever have before.

Step 1: Choose a translation

If you don’t have the ability to read or translate the text from its original language/s (Hebrew, Aramiac and/or Greek) then you’ll need to choose a translation that you can work with. There is no “best” or “most accurate” translation in modern English. EVERY translation is an interpretation. Period. Anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest or is ignorant of how Bible translation works in real life. For the purpose of study, I suggest choosing a translation that is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between word-for-word and thought-for-thought:

Fortunately, most English translations are available for FREE online! There are many places you can go, but I recommend in particular Bible Hub, Biblia.com, or Bible Gateway (Bible Gateway is nice because it has the RSV and NRSV, which many critical scholars prefer and which I grew up with being a good Methodist boy!)

Step 2: Choose a book of the Bible

This is based on whichever book you want to understand better or whichever one you are studying in small group, Sunday School or seminary/Bible college. For this example, I’m going to use the book of Jonah since I’m an OT guy and it’s one of my favorite books to teach.

Step 3: Open a blank word processor document

I’m not a hipster, so I’m using PC. But if you’re a Mac user, I’m sure you can find an equivalent to this step! For this example, I’m using Microsoft Word, but the open-source Word-like programs out there all do the same thing basically so it shouldn’t be a problem if you’re computer savvy enough to have found this blog in the first place!

Step 4: Copy the text of your Bible book

In your online Bible resource noted above, go to the first chapter of the book you’re studying and use your mouse/touchpad/touchscreen/whatever to highlight the entire text of the chapter. Then copy it by either selecting “copy” from the edit menu, right-clicking and selecting “copy” from the pop-up menu, or just hit “CTRL + C” (my preferred method).

Step 5: Paste the UNFORMATTED text into your blank document

This is the key to the whole process! Go to the Word document you’ve opened and paste the text into it. But make sure to paste the text UNFORMATTED. In Word, you do this by choosing “Paste Special” from the “Paste” menu at the top left of the screen. When you do this, it removes any text formatting and hyperlinks and paragraphing. If when you paste the text there are still paragraph breaks in the passage, just go through and delete them so that you are left with an unbroken block of text.

Step 6: Repeat for the remaining chapters of the book

Obviously if you’re studying 3John or Jude or Nahum this will be a very quick process! If, however, you’re studying Psalms, Jeremiah or Acts, then you may want to break this step up and do it for 5-10 chapters at a time. With Jonah, it’s just 4 chapters so it only takes a few minutes

Step 7: Save your Word file

Now that you have the entire text of the book in a single, unformatted word-processor file, save it to your computer/device with a filename that will let you identify it easily. For instance, I would save mine as “JONAH_TEXT.doc” or something like that.

Step 8: Add spaces, paragraphing, punctuation and notes

THIS is where the real payoff takes place! As you read through the text in your word document go through and begin adding your own formatting. Decide where the paragraphs begin and end and indent/space it accordingly. As you go, I recommend either deleting or making into superscripts the chapter and verse numbers. Delete any cross-references or footnotes you may have copied (though pay attention as you go to whether some of the footnotes are insightful or important and, if they are, note them either in the side margin or in brackets or some other way that you find helpful). Be sure to delete any paragraph headings or subject headings that your translation may have put in the text at the beginning of various passages (i.e. “Instructions about the Tabernacle” or “Jesus heals a blind man” etc.). These will tempt you to simply agree with the editors of that translation, rather than working out for yourself how the text flows.

I usually set up my Word document so that there is a good 2″ t0 3″ margin on one side of the page (usually the right, since I’m right handed). In that margin, I create a text box by selecting “Text box” from the “Insert Shape” menu and I use that for adding any notes, alternate translations, cross references, or quotes from commentaries I come across as I study the book. This is not a necessary step, but I find it especially helpful and recommend doing it if you can.

During this process of formatting the book on your own, you will likely be forced to make interpretive decisions that you would have never even thought about when reading a printed/formatted text. You may find that a train of thought runs all the way through a number of verses and they all belong to the same paragraph after all. Or you may find that a new thought beings in the middle of a verse and the text should be separated there instead. Or you may come across a list of things that are hard to keep in mind when read in paragraph format and so choose to put each one on a separate line to create a bullet-point/list feel that the text gives (this is especially helpful in genealogies!) and to see the importance of the number of items listed, which you might have otherwise missed (Hint: this is ESPECIALLY helpful in Matthew’s opening genealogy!).

The important thing is not that you get it “right”, but rather that you are forcing yourself to interact with the text at the literary level and really absorb its content and how to best present that in terms of reading clarity. You will find yourself reading and rereading a passage and perhaps realizing that it could legitimately be read two different ways depending on how it’s spaced/punctuated, etc. This is exactly what this type of studying is supposed to do! To get you to not just read the text…but to actually READ the text. To THINK THROUGH the text. ON YOUR OWN before consulting any commentaries, study guides or study Bible notes.

You won’t end up with a “perfect” formatted text. Rather, you’ll end up with a text that you have genuinely worked through and thought through and are so much more familiar with after having done so!

Step 9: Save your formatted book file

Once you’ve formatted your book of the Bible (or actually, have done so multiple times along the way so that you don’t accidentally lose your file due to a power outage or accidental keystroke or any of the other things that make us want to throw our computers across the room when they happen!) save it with a different name that distinguishes it from the unformatted version. For example “JONAH_EDITED.doc”. And if possible, save a copy of both versions on a flash drive or memory card as well! That way, you can share it with others or across multiple computers/devices.

Step 10: Use your new formatted digital book file alongside your various Bibles when studying or teaching

As you continue to study the book, you may find that you need to go back and re-edit parts of it. You may come across other translations that you think work better in certain passages of it. No translation is perfect and the beauty of this whole process is that with a simple cut-and-paste you can create study notes, alternate translations, insert footnotes, underline, highlight, make bold, or change font color in ways that help the text make better sense to you.

For example, when I was doing this with the book of Revelation, I found it helpful to put all of the quotes or references to passages in the Hebrew Bible in bold italics and to indent them. This allowed me to easily see just how much Revelation draws from the Old Testament and the frequency with which John does so. I also put in small parentheses beside each one the actual verse reference being alluded to or quoted. This allows me not only to easily identify which books John is quoting throughout, but it also helps to instill in my visual memory the passage in the OT that is being referenced each time I read it.

Or when doing this with the book of Romans, I would put spaces between each rhetorical section of the book so that I could more easily see when Paul is changing voice/character in his various diatribes throughout the letter. Of course there are points at which it is heavily debated whether or not he is speaking as himself or as a rhetorical interlocutor (nowhere more so than ch.7:14-25!), but that is part of what you learn as you continue to study the book throughout your life and further develop your Biblical-theological views.

When doing this with a book in the Hebrew Bible in particular, you are forced to note and figure out a way to better communicate visually the structure and patterns of Hebrew poetry (which is practically EVERYWHERE in the OT!). Many passages that are formatted in most translations as simple paragraphs are actually poetic. So, for example, on the 6th “yom” (day) of Genesis 1, when God creates “adam” (human), we come across the first poem in the Bible in v.27.

The tri-partite structure of the verse provides a MAJOR clue as to how we understand the concept of the “image of God” that might otherwise be missed by just reading it as a prose paragraph (I’ll let you study that verse on your own to find out what I’m talking about). In some books, such as the Song of Songs (aka. Song of Solomon) it is impossible in places to identify exactly who is speaking. This is when using different text colors can be especially helpful!

It also becomes very helpful in narrative portions of Scripture where there is dialogue. Instead of reading it all in a block paragraph, you can format the dialogue like modern English dialogue reads in novels or plays, thus more easily keeping track of who’s speaking and how the conversation is going.

Another really helpful thing this whole process allows is the ability to add punctuation. All punctuation in any Bible translation has been added by the translators…and often they don’t do justice to the tone of the text. There are times when an exclamation point (or three!!!) are needed to convey the force of the passage. There are times when USING ALL CAPS can help bring out the emphasis when the author seems to be “shouting” (in modern digital lingo). These are all things you can decide and add to your formatting to help bring out the meaning of the text.

And if you don’t have a tablet or mobile device that you can take with you to Bible study/Sunday School/class or wherever it is you want to read and study at the time, you can print out the word file and take it with you in a binder or notebook. That way you have something to scribble notes on, highlight, underline or whatever else you may want to write down, which you can then easily edit into your digital file when you get back to your computer.

“But what if I get it wrong?? Isn’t this “adding to” God’s Word??”

No.

You are not producing a translation to take the place of your Bible! You are doing an exercise in study…and it’s okay to be wrong when you’re studying! That’s part of the learning process. Part of the wrestling with God’s word that we are all called to do in whatever ways we’re able.

In the 1700s, John Wesley would read and reread Scripture in multiple languages and produce copious notes on nearly the entire Bible. I believe he would’ve been astounded and overjoyed if someone had given him the ability to format, copy and paste. I believe Bible readers throughout the millennia would be thrilled if they had the ability to digitally read, study and analyze the syntax and structure of the sacred texts in the ways we are able to now…even on our phones!

In the end, remember, the journey IS the destination. The purpose of this exercise is to get you to think through–to REASON through–the flow of the book as a whole. “Memory verses” are fine, but they don’t give you context. Doing the process I’ve suggested above is the single best way I have personally ever found to grasp the overall context–and thus the overall foundational teaching or “big idea”–of the various books that make up this library we call the Bible.

In fact, in our Disciple Dojo video study “Revelation: A Guided Tour of the Apocalypse” we've included in the workbook (which is available to download for free HERE!) the entire book of Revelation that I translated and then formatted, if you’d like to see an example.

I invite you to give it a try, Dojo readers, and see if it doesn’t deepen your understanding and appreciation of whatever book you choose to study next. I guarantee it will!

Blessings from the Dojo,

JM

'Black Money' and Old Testament laws

Hi Dojo readers,

As many of you know, over the past half-decade or so, I have spent time teaching leadership and Biblical interpretation seminars for Pastors in India. (You can see a few pics from my last trip, as well as some of the reasons we as a teaching team specifically go to that part of the country each year over on Talbot Davis’ blog ). My last trip was different than any previous visit however.

You see, the day we landed in Delhi (or night…I can’t even remember because my mind loses all ability to track time across so many time zones for 30 hours with no sleep!) we went over to the currency exchange counter to exchange our U.S. dollars for Indian rupees, as usual. I handed the man around $200 USD and received a fairly thick stack of R500 notes in return. For those who don’t know, they look like this:

So far, so good. We took our currency, proceeded through customs, and prepared for our final flight from Delhi to Bhubaneshwar, the capital city of Odisha/Orissa state.

After arriving safely in Bhubaneshwar, we went to our good friends’ house for dinner (which, thanks to Anju’s cooking skills, was amazing as always!). While we were eating, P.R. got a call and turned on the television. We watched as the Indian news channels were going nuts with a breaking announcement: As of midnight that night, all R500 and R1000 currency notes would no longer be legal tender!

It was a surprise announcement by Prime Minister Modi’s office and the country was completely blindsided! All Indian banks would be closed the following day for 24 hours, and every Indian (over a billion of them!) would be required to either deposit or exchange their old notes for new ones within the next 15 days. As of midnight, however, no businesses would be able to legally accept the old notes as payment for any goods or services. Only airports, hospitals, train stations, and a few other essential industries would be allowed to accept the old notes during the 15 day period of transition.

We were quite alarmed. The conferences we were there to speak at were being paid for largely (we had planned) using the old notes, and none of us had the new notes. Furthermore, since government ID was required to exchange the old notes at a bank, and we were foreigners, we did not know if we’d be able to get ours exchanged at all. It was somewhat tense that evening as P.R. and the Conference organizers scrambled to figure out what we would do.

All we knew was that a law had been given from on high that just didn’t make any sense to us cash-using Americans, particularly as foreigners in a foreign land! It seemed that Prime Minister Modi (who has not always been the best friend of Christians or other religious minorities, by the way) was opposed to cash or just trying to make life hard on his people across that massive land for no good reason.

However…

As we watched the news and asked questions about the situation to our hosts, we soon discovered the reason for the Prime Minister’s unexpected executive decision. You see, India has had problems with massive corruption as well as terrorist groups, both of which operate largely through the use of what they call “Black Money.” Black Money is what we in America would call “under the table” money. Cash that is used without any paper trail or government knowledge. Large amounts of cash flow throughout the Indian economy and it is common for illegal or unethical deals to be done through the use of Black Money. Terrorist organizations fund terror through large cash amounts, primarily in the country’s two largest denominations: R500 and R1000 notes. Businesses make corrupt, illegal, and untraceable deals worth fortunes using Black Money transactions. People report financial transactions at a certain rate, but then supplement them with large sums of unaccounted Black Money…thus avoiding paper trails, and taxes.

So, in an effort to fight this major problem in India, the government had new R2000 notes printed in secret and then made a surprise announcement that the old R500 and R1000 notes were now worthless as legal tender. The purpose of this move (whether it will turn out to have been a good idea or not remains to be seen!) was not simply to make Indians’ life miserable. Nor was it because the Prime Minister has a personal grudge against cash notes. Rather, it was to force the entire country to legally account for, deposit, and/or exchange all of their cash reserves so that Black Money would effectively be useless if not legally declared and accounted for…and of course taxed eventually!

So our entire trip was affected by this decision…because the entire country was affected by it. Here is what ATM lines looked like everywhere after the announcement was made, for those who may wonder what the big deal is. I took this pic in the Delhi airport on our way home:

Okay...but, you may be asking, what does any of this have to do with the Old Testament? Well…quite a lot, actually.

You see, when we read the Old Testament, particularly the Old Testament laws found in Torah (the first five books of the Bible), we find ourselves in a position similar to how the team felt as we watched the news that night around the table. We are confused, disoriented, and don’t often know what to make of such seemingly arbitrary or arcane demands by Israel’s lawgiver, God. And based upon our disposition toward this God we read about, we either give Him the benefit of the doubt concerning the laws of His we don’t understand, or we condemn Him as a barbaric, maniacal, bloodthirsty, genocidal, arbitrary demagogue created by ignorant desert-dwellers in order to keep people in bondage to fear and therefore in line with the ruling class of priests.

Yet, as with the case of Indian Black Money, knowing the background to the various laws found in the Old Testament can often shed tremendous light on them and the reasoning behind them. Once we put ourselves back into the world of 2nd millennium Israel encamped around the base of Mt. Sinai or on the plains of Moab, we start to see that the laws God gave his people have a remarkable concern overall for the poor, the marginalized, and the oppressed. They elevated people above property, and began to introduce a redemptive trajectory that, while temporary and only in effect so long as the Sinai Covenant remained in effect, would find their greater fulfillment in the life, death, resurrection, and Gospel ethic of the Messiah…and their ultimate culmination in the New Heavens and New Earth which the Prophets and Jesus Himself pointed us toward. Even the seeming bizarre food laws take on new meaning when put into the overall context of the Covenant at Sinai. [For more examples of this principle on a weekly basis, be sure to subscribe and listen to the Disciple Dojo podcast or follow along on our YouTube channel as we journey through the books of Torah together on a weekly basis.]

So next time you come across a law or commandment in the Old Testament, think about our initial confusion over our newly-illegal stack of rupee notes and then look for that piece of background context which might shed a little more light on the subject. If you are looking for a good place to start, I cannot recommend strongly enough THIS resource by who I consider the greatest living OT scholar on the planet, personally.

Blessings from the Dojo,

JM

Why does God hate shrimp?? (Understanding OT food laws)

Seriously...why does God hate porkchops or bacon-wrapped shrimp??

Can any food really be an "abomination"??

Why does the Bible say that bats are birds, when they are clearly mammals??

Why does the Bible teach that rabbits "chew the cud" when they are not ruminants and thus do not even have compartmentalized stomachs that produce cud to be chewed??

When Jesus and Paul declared that food was not "unclean", were they abolishing God's Word??

Christians don't follow OT dietary laws...so why do we care about following the other laws in the OT that we pick and choose to follow??

Why does God even care what people eat to begin with???

These are just a few of the questions people have when they first encounter the Biblical dietary laws of Leviticus 11 (and Deuteronomy 14). So it's important at the outset that we orient ourselves properly and understand these laws first in their original cultural context, and then through the lens of the later Prophets and ultimately through the Gospel of Israel's Messiah proclaimed in the New Testament...

[ps: If you enjoyed this teaching, be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel or podcast! It really helps us when you do!]

For further study on the food laws of the Old Testament see the following resources:

• Leviticus 1-16 (AYBC) - Jacob Milgrom

• The Book of Leviticus (NICOT) - Gordon Wenham

• Leviticus (NIB) - Walter Kaiser

• Leviticus (Interp) - Samuel Balentine

• Leviticus (TOTC) - R.K. Harrison

• Deuteronomy (UBCS) - Christopher Wright

• Old Testament Ethics for the People of God - Christopher Wright

• Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament - Christopher Wright

Is Jesus a copy of other pagan myths?

“Christianity is just a copy of older pagan religions! Jesus is just Mithra/Horus/Dionysus version 2.0 that Christians copied as the Gospels!”

I’ve heard this claim many times, and I imagine you have too, Dojo readers. If you watched the Bill Maher documentary “Religulous” or the internet film “Zeitgeist”, or spent any time on skeptic message boards or social media posts (often accompanied by a smug "stay woke!" or "Christianity DESTROYED in 5 mins!" type exhortation), then you’re quite familiar with this claim. Usually, people sharing it will assert the above claim as if it’s known historical fact and confidently list the things Christianity "copied" from various Mystery religions which predate it, such as the cult of Mithras, Osiris, Horus, or Attis/Adonis.

For instance, it is claimed, Mithraism taught that Mithras was:

• Born of a virgin

• Born in a cave

• Born on Dec. 25th

• Considered a great traveling teacher

• Had twelve disciples

• Promised his followers immortality

• Sacrificed himself for world peace

• Was buried in a tomb

• Rose again three days later

• Instituted a Eucharist

Now, that sounds pretty familiar doesn’t it? Or how about the supposed parallels between the Greek god of wine Dionysus and Jesus:

• He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.

• Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25th and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.

• He “rode in a triumphal procession on a donkey which carries him to meet his passion with crowds waving bundles of branches.

• He was a sacred king killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.

• Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th.

• He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine at the marriage of Dionysus and Ariadne.

• He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “only Begotten Son,” “Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” “Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.”

• He was identified with the Ram or Lamb.

• He was hung on a tree or crucified.

• Dionysus becomes the wine and is himself ‘poured out’ as an offering.

Or how about Attis:

• Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana.

• He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.

• His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.

• His priests were “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”

• He was both the Divine Son and the Father.

• On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.

• He descended into the underworld.

• After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as tradition held of Jesus) as the “Most High God.”

• He was pictured as being hung from a tree with the picture of a lamb at his feet and later his empty grave was found.

(Similar claims have been made for the Egyptian Mystery cults of Osiris and Horus as well.)

So what do we do with this? Is the “Jesus myth” merely a Judaized version of older pagan cults that just happened to win out in the end while they all faded into obscurity? Is it just another example of a primitive fairy-tale that was cobbled together from various strands of superstition throughout the Mediterranean? 

No, Dojo readers, it is not. The claim is the epitome of "fake news" (unlike so many uses of that term...this one ACTUALLY IS 100% false from a purely factual standpoint!).

The main reason we know this is because most of these ‘similarities’ post-date Christianity by over 100 years. In other words, any proposed “borrowing” of the motif of a dying and rising god-man went in the opposite direction if anything.

In his book, “The Case For the Real Jesus“, Lee strobel interviewed Michael Licona and Edwin Yamauchi (Yamauchi being one of the most proficient scholars of the ancient mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and Ancient Near East). They, along with numerous other actual antiquities scholars (some Christian, some not) all attest that while these alleged ‘parallels’ were in vogue between the 1890s and 1940s among some scholars, they have long since been discredited and dismissed by actual historians today. As one Scandinavian scholar notes:

“There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.” –T.N.D. Mettinger, “The Riddle of Resurrection” p.221 (Mettinger teaches at Lund University and is a member of the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities of Stockholm)

The reason such comparisons continue to circulate online and among the skeptic community is that since almost NO ONE ever bothers (or lacks the linguistic/cultural proficiency required) to go back to the original primary sources to investigate these claims, they simply get passed along as if they’re actually true.

They simply are not.

NONE of these mythical figures actually have the similarities claimed above. When you look at the actual texts which are supposedly the source of all this information you start to see really quickly, as Licona and Yamauchi point out in detail, that the similarities aren’t so similar after all.

For instance, according to the actual Egyptian texts, Osiris was killed by his brother Seth, put in a coffin and sunk to the bottom of the Nile but is revived by the goddess Isis. However, he is later killed and chopped into 14 pieces and scattered around the world. Isis then goes and finds 13 of the parts to give him a proper burial. But Osiris doesn’t come back to life, rather, he’s given the status of god of the underworld. Does that even remotely resemble the idea of Jesus’ bodily resurrection? No. But who’s going to take the time to investigate these claims by digging through Ancient Egyptian texts in a library?

Or what about Dionysus’ “virgin birth”? Well, actually it was taught that Zeus, disguised as a human, fell in love with Semele and impregnated her. Hera, Zeus’ wife, arranged to have Semele burned. Zeus rescued the unborn Dionysus and sewed him into his thigh until he was ready to be born. That’s not exactly the depiction we see in “Merry Christmas Charlie Brown” now, is it?

Albert Schweitzer (who was anything but an orthodox or evangelical Christian apologist) is noted as saying that popular writers made the mistake of taking various fragments of information and manufacturing ‘a kind of universal Mystery-religion which never actually existed, least of all in Paul’s day’.

Let’s look at Mithras as an example. When asked about the “parallels” between Mithras and Jesus, Yamauchi (who was a member of the Second Mythraic Congress in Tehran, Iran in 1975–a gathering of Mithraic scholars from around the world) clarifies the facts about Mithras:

Born of a virgin?
No, actually Mithras is said to have emerged fully grown from a rock, naked except for a Phrygian cap and holding a dagger and a torch.

Born in a cave?
No. See above. Later Mithraic sanctuaries were made to look like caves, but it should be noted that the New Testament doesn’t even teach that Jesus was born in a cave. There is no parallel here.

Born on Dec. 25?
Not a parallel because Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25th. The earliest Christians celebrated His birth on Jan.6th. The later tradition of Dec. 25th has to do with the winter solstice being chosen as the day to celebrate Christmas due to a tradition surrounding the likely time of his conception.

Considered a great traveling teacher? Had twelve disciples?
No. He was not known to be a teacher with disciples. He was a god.

Promised his followers immortality?
This is the hope of almost every religion!

Sacrificed himself for world peace?
No. He Didn’t sacrifice himself, he killed a bull in battle.

Was buried in a tomb? Rose again three days later?
There are no known references to Mithras’ death in any sources…thus there are also no references to any resurrection three days later from a tomb either.

Instituted a Eucharist?
Mithraism celebrated a common meal; but this is found in the 2nd century AD, long after Jesus celebrated Passover with His disciples.

Similar things can be seen when the other myths are looked at regarding the other god figures.

But the point is simply that all the “similarities” are actually huge generalizations, date more than a century after Jesus, or are simply bogus claims that haven’t been checked for accuracy. Yamauchi gives advice on how to not be deceived by all the stuff online we read regarding these similarities (which can be found just by Googling “Jesus” “Mithras” or similar searches):

“[These writers] don’t have the languages, they don’t study the original sources, they don’t pay attention to the dates, and they frequently quote ideas that were popular in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries but have already been refuted. Reputable and careful scholars like Carsten Colpe of Germany, Gunter Wagner of Switzerland, and Bruce Metzger of the United States have pointed out that, number one, the evidence for these supposed parallels is often very late, and number two, there are too many generalizations being made…be careful of articles on the web. Even though the internet is a quick and convenient source of information, it also perpetuatese outdated and disproved theories. Also check the credentials of the authors. Do they have the training and depth of knowledge to write authoritatively on these issues? And be sure to check the dates of the sources that are quoted. Are they relying on anachronistic claims or discredited scholars? And finally, be aware of the biases of many modern authors, who may clearly have an axe to grind.”

I definitely recommend reading the whole interview in Strobel’s book. Yamauchi has written extensively, but on this issue, “Persia and the Bible” is a good place to start.

Some authors, however, that still appeal to these discredited supposed-parallels (and therefore are worth knowing in case you see them referenced by someone in such discussions or recommended by skeptic friends) are:

• Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, “The Jesus Mysteries” and “The Laughing Jesus”

• Tom Harpur, “The Pagan Christ”

• Hugh J. Schonfield, “Those Incredible Christians”

• John H. Randall, “Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis”

• Tim Callahan “Secret Origins of the Bible”

Fortunately, Christian scholars aren’t the only ones who’ve started taking to task those who perpetuate these urban legends… even the skeptics of reddit have called out such sloppy claims, and have done so in meme format, of course: 

Stay woke, fam...

JM

Biblical thoughts on the Death Penatly debate

A few years ago during Presidential campaign season, two issues arose at around the same time which really got me thinking about the issue of Capital Punishment in our society, and more particularly, how Disciples of Jesus should view it.

The first was the rousing ovation that Texas Governor Rick Perry received during the Republican Primary debate after stating that he had ZERO reservations about the hundreds of people executed during his tenure as Governor (which I found very disturbing). The second was the controversy surrounding Troy Davis, who was executed in my birth-state of Georgia not long after. The controversy had arisen as a result not only of multiple witnesses changing their testimony, but also there being no actual physical evidence of Davis’ guilt.

In both instances, as well as countless others like them throughout our country's history, Christians have been divided on the issue--some praising capital punishment as the God-ordained right of a government to punish those guilty of the most heinous crime with ultimate temporal justice, and others pointing to Jesus’ own teachings on the need to “turn the other cheek” and “pray for those who persecute you” as in essence overturning the whole concept of capital punishment entirely in the age of the New Covenant. Who is right? Is there a consistent Biblical view when it comes to capital punishment? Or is the follower of Jesus left to simply pick their favorite proof-texts based on their political and/or emotional makeup?

I confess, Dojo readers, that I find myself somewhere in the middle on this issue.

Firstly, I do not believe that Jesus ANYWHERE overturned ANY spiritual truth contained in the Hebrew Scriptures (or “Old Testament”, as most Christians refer to it). Jesus came to FULFILL Torah, but not by ABOLISHING it:

 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” (Mat 5:17 NRSV)

So the Christian must take VERY seriously the purposes and teachings of the Hebrew Bible, even though as a Covenant it was completed by Jesus at His death and Resurrection. With Pentacost, the Mosaic Covenant ceased to be binding on God’s people as it came to its God-ordained completion and the New Covenant, marked by the giving of the Holy Spirit upon all God’s people, was inaugurated:

“The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt– a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
(Jer 31:31-33 NRSV)

Peter himself declares this to be the case in Acts 2, and the entire New Testament (which literally means “New Covenant”) is testimony to the fact that we live no under the Covenant of Sinai, but under the Covenant of Golgotha.

[For more on this basic fact of Christian theology, see my video: “Do Christians Keep the Ten Commandments?” which can be viewed HERE.]

However, everywhere in the New Testament, the Apostles and even Jesus Himself appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures as reflecting the nature and character of God, and cite it authoritatively even to those who were never under its Covenant (i.e. Romans, Galatians, etc.). The message is clear: We learn of God’s nature primarily through His self-revelation to His people in Scripture…and for the earliest Christians, that Scripture consisted only of the Old Testament.

Therefore, contrary to some claims by anti-death-penalty Christians, it is not callousness, bloodlust, or hatred that leads pro-death-penalty Christians to uphold capital punishment. Often, it stems from a desire to take God’s self-revelation through His Scriptures very seriously (without, as the common charge goes, taking it completely literally).

Jesus Himself upheld the nature of God and His Word to His people through upholding the Old Testament during His life. In fact, Jesus’ teachings pushed past the outward, surfacey, lip-service adherence to Torah that many of his contemporaries had adopted and called Israel back to observing the HEART of the Old Testament’s teachings. Jesus rightly recognized that the Spirit who Inspired the Old Testament was the same Spirit who was soon to be poured out on the New Covenant Israel–both Jews and Gentiles united in Jesus as Messiah–and He was preparing His people to live out the intention of Torah by placing it, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Joel had foretold, in their hearts and minds rather than on tablets of stone kept in a sanctuary ark.

Thus, nowhere do we find Jesus repudiating the Old Testament concept of the death penalty.

The most common passage used to argue that Jesus overturned the death penalty is John 8’s account of the woman caught in adultery, as popular Christian author/speaker Shane Claiborne recently did. However, there are a number of reasons NOT to see this as such:

First of all, and most importantly, the entire episode was NOT originally part of the Gospel of John. This always comes as a surprise, and to many a shock, when I teach on it in "Bible for the Rest of Us" [Coming Soon!!]. But go ahead, read the footnote in your Bible regarding John 7:53-8:11 for yourself. Even conservative and Evangelical scholars readily recognize that this passage is not part of the Gospel. For instance, the translator note on this passage in the NET Bible alerts the reader to this fact:

“This entire section, 7:53–8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel.”

So it is not legitimate theologically to build a doctrine based largely upon a passage of Scripture that is not, in fact, a passage of Scripture.

Secondly, even if John 8’s account of Jesus rescuing a condemned adulteress from the death penalty WERE Scripture, it still does not overturn the death penalty under Torah…precisely because the entire “trial” of the woman was a blatant violation of Torah itself! Here’s why:

1) According to Torah, in order for adultery to be punished, BOTH parties had to be present and on trial (Lev. 20:10)…yet in John 8, only the woman in brought to Jesus. There is no mention of the man whatsoever.

2) According to Torah, capital cases had to be tried by an official Judge of Israel (Deut. 25:1). This was a mob of religious laypersons bringing an accused person before an itinerant prophet/teacher. Nothing under Torah would allow such a “trial” to be valid.

3) Under Torah, a person could not be put to death except on the EYEWITNESS testimony of AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES (Num. 35:30, Deut. 17:6). Furthermore, witnesses in capital cases were liable to be punished with the same penalty the accused was being tried for if they were found to be lying. This is what the Commandment “You shall not bear false witness” actually means (rather than a blanket prohibition on lying in general). And under Torah, such eyewitnesses were to take an active part in administering the death penalty by ceremonially casting the first stone (Deut. 17:7). The fact that in this story all of the accuser dropped their stones and walked away shows that none of them bothered to press Jesus on the issue because none of them were in fact willing to stake their life on upholding Torah law.

However, I must again stress the fact that this entire account is NOT part of Scripture, and therefore we cannot read into it much detail either way.

The other line of argument Christians who oppose the death penalty often take is to quote Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount:

 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.”
(Mat 5:38-41 NRSV)

This is argued as clear proof that Jesus overturned the “eye for an eye” law of Torah (Exod. 21:23-24; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut.19:21). However, this is not an iron-clad prooftext by any means. Why not? Because Jesus is speaking about PERSONAL reaction to PERSONAL provocation or oppression by others. He is not speaking about the role of Israel’s government in administering Torah; He is speaking to Jews who are living under Roman occupation and suffer daily harassment and provocation, which leads to in-fighting, a vengeance mindset and all personal/family pride within an honor-and-shame society such as 1st century Palestine in fact was. At that time (and throughout history!) people would justify using all manner of retaliation against their enemies by appealing to the Lex Talionis (Law of retaliation, i.e. “eye for eye”) found in Torah…totally ignoring the fact that Torah’s “eye for eye” law was put there to LIMIT retaliation and CURB acts of vengeance. In the rest of the ancient Near East, it wasn’t “eye for eye”; it was “life for eye”! In other words, if you injure or insult me, I kill you and possibly your family!  In its original context, “eye for eye” was put in place to keep Israel from being a retaliatory, vengeance-based culture.

In fact, according to Torah, the primary purpose of the death penalty was prevention, not retaliation. Over and over we read that Israel was to use the death penalty (justly and never without 2 or more witnesses who staked their own lives on their testimony!) to demonstrate the seriousness of capital crimes, particularly premeditated murder (manslaughter did not carry a capital sentence) and to serve as a reminder that life is SO PRECIOUS that only God has the right to take it…and God authorized the government of Israel to act as His agent in carrying it out. And in his letter to the Roman Christians, Paul seems to imply (if not directly state!) that this is also a function God has granted even to pagan governments, so long as they are using it justly:

 “…rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them– taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”
(Rom 13:3-8 NRSV)

This is why, according to Scripture, one cannot properly call capital punishment “murder.”  The word “murder” is never used to describe capital punishment in the Bible. Thus modern Christians who oppose the death penalty for whatever reason should not give in to the temptation to deem all capital punishment as “murder”, no matter how rhetorically effective it may seem.

In fact, many Christians who support the death penalty in theory do so PRECISELY BECAUSE they believe in the sanctity of life. They point back to Genesis, back before Torah was even given, before there were even such a people as the Israelites, before Abraham was ever born…to the time of Noah. God flat-out declared:

 “For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.

Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;
for in his own image God made humankind.

And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it.””
(Gen 9:5-7 NRSV)

This is the very first mention of capital punishment in all of Scripture…and it comes at God’s command as a sign of how sacred and valued all human life is to be seen as.

In theory, the death penalty is God’s idea.

However…

I say all of this fully realizing that our society does not uphold the standards by which God originally intended capital punishment to be carried out. Torah ABHORS the idea of false witnesses, lack of eyewitness testimony, and corrupt or inept Judicial systems when it human life is on the line. God Himself takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked”…yet all too often proponents of capital punishment seem to delight in it!

In our society you never hear of rich, famous, or powerful people receiving the death penalty. It is neither consistent or fair in how it is applied. Furthermore, it is “sanitized” so that it becomes nothing more than a “medical procedure” that is done behind closed doors. A “problem” is swept away out of sight of all except a handful of witnesses. This is a far cry from any Biblical concept of capital punishment as having the purpose of acting as a deterrent to a watching society. Capital punishment is a HORRIBLE thing. It is ALWAYS a tragedy. It is NEVER supposed to be cheap, clean, or emotionally-uninvested. I have a feeling if capital punishment (as well as abortion!) were witnessed by more people in society, it would have FAR fewer supporters.

As mentioned before, with the arrival of the New Covenant, things did change in many respects. Thus, I can recognize that Spirit-filled followers of Jesus could oppose capital punishment altogether, and I respect their position. I am somewhat persuaded by the argument that restoration and reconciliation are what we should strive for at all costs.

But unlike many opponents of the death penalty, I cannot outright entirely condemn a practice that God Himself instituted, both before and under the Covenant at Sinai, and I reject sloppy Biblical interpretations that pit Jesus against the Hebrew Scriptures He upheld until His death and saw Himself as bringing to fulfillment. Jesus is “the Word made flesh”…thus we do Him a severe disservice when we suggest that He offers a “more Godly” teaching than what God Himself set forth for His People under the prior Covenant. The Old Testament may contain things that we have a hard time reconciling as Godly and in harmony with the message of Jesus…but Jesus Himself never hinted at having such difficulties Himself. Thus, we must remain very humble in how we approach the Old Testament. It is every bit as Inspired as any New Testament teaching, even the stuff printed in red letters!

In short, I see the purpose–the Biblical and Godly purpose–of the death penalty in a society…but I do not see any society, especially our American one, that practices it in a way that measures up to its intended standards of justice. Therefore, I oppose it in practice under our current system. And until our system is completely reformed, the death penalty is not a valid option.

All other arguments based on logistics, economic concerns or victims’ rights, while they may be compelling in many respects, must take a back seat to the issue of justice for the accused when life and death are at stake.

In cases of the death penalty, we can’t afford to get it wrong.

Yet as history has shown, sadly, we have gotten it wrong time and time again.

I welcome readers’ thoughts in the comments section below. Feel free to share, discuss, challenge or critique me on this. As I said at the outset, I’m not completely settled on the issue. I’m merely voicing where I stand in light of what I find in Scripture and what I see in our society.

JM

Groin-Grabbing Girls and Biblical Barbarism??

Hi Dojo readers,

Here is a question I received from a reader that many people have wondered about as they've read through the book of Deuteronomy:

Here's a tough one. What do you do with Deut 25: 11,12? How can chopping off a woman's hand ever be seen as a gracious gift, a shadow of the substance of Christ, or a moral response to the situation described? You would expect to read something like this in the Koran but I've read the Koran and I've never read anything there this brutal or sexist. I asked a Rabbi about this once and he couldn't come up with a good answer for me. And most Christian theologians I know are surprised when I show this verse to them. There are a few other verses like this in Deuteronomy that almost ruin the book for me. And I don't want them to. I'm not looking for "gotcha" verses. I just can't think of any situation where a woman deserves to be treated like this--particularly a woman who's intent is to protect her husband. And if this really is "the Word of God" it does indeed cause a problem for me in trying to reconcile this with the God revealed to me by Jesus in the gospels. This is a sincere question.

This is indeed, on the surface, a  groin-grabbingly bizarre passage (and yes, that was a Simpsons reference I just snuck in there!). So bizarre, in fact, that it even generated a video by an atheist group called "Hands Off."

Now that we've seen the strawman criticism of it, let's look at the actual passage in question, Deuteronomy 25:12, in three popular English translations:

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. (KJV)

If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity. (NRSV)

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (NIV)

In attempting to answer this reader's question I want to emphasize that the Bible is, first and foremost, an ancient literature library spanning nearly two millennia of writings by over 40 different authors on three different continents in three different languages throughout the rise and fall of many civilizations and kingdoms.

This is CRUCIAL for anyone, Christian or otherwise, to understand. Despite well-meaning claims we may have heard that since it's God's word, Scripture must be plain, clear, and easy for anyone to understand, that's simply NOT true. In fact, I'm constantly amazed at the lack of humility that is shown to the Biblical texts...and not by dismissive skeptics or antagonistic atheists; but rather, by Christians who are the most adamant about the Bible's divine Inspiration. Now don't get me wrong; I DO believe all Scripture is "God-breathed" (2Timothy 3:16-17) and thus divinely Inspired. I am thoroughly evangelical in this regard (though I believe any discussion of the Bible's authority and Inspiration MUST be nuanced carefully). But this does NOT mean that I believe all Scripture to be fully-understandable in all its detail and without legitimate difficulty or ambiguity in interpretation.

An honest apologist is one that admits the degree of difficulty some passages of Scripture impose upon modern readers who are FAR removed from the cultural and historical context in which they were given. And I believe this passage in Deuteronomy is a good example of the degree of caution needed when seeking to interpret the Bible. So, that being said, here is how I answered this reader's question "What do you do with Deuteronomy 25:11-12?"

----------

The question is indeed a good one. However, there are a few things worth noting about that particular passage (and Torah law in general):

1. Torah law consisted primarily of "case law", rather than exhaustive legislation (this is a big difference between modern and ancient Near East laws). Judges were given an example and then expected to extrapolate wisely from them when rendering judgment.

2. Torah law, within the patriarchal society of the ancient Near East, was astonishingly protective of women, children and immigrants. (For a fuller exploration of this than can be covered in a blog post, see Christopher Wright's phenomenal work "Old Testament Ethics for the People of God")

and most importantly...

3. This passage in particular is not nearly as clear as some translations lead people to believe.

The Hebrew literally reads as follows:

כִּי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים יַחְדָּו אִישׁ וְאָחִיו
וְקָרְבָה אֵשֶׁת הָאֶחָד לְהַצִּיל אֶת־אִישָׁהּ מִיַּד  מַכֵּהוּ
וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו׃
וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת־כַּפָּהּ לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ׃

"If (men/husbands) are (quarreling/striving) together a man and his brother
and the (woman/wife) of one draws near to (snatch/deliver) her (man/husband) from the hand of the one (beating/smiting/striking down) him
and she stretches out her hand and (seizes/makes firm/strengthens) his genitals
then you will (cut off/trim) her (palm/hollow/basin).
She will not be pitied in your eyes."

[The various Hebrew terms in used in this passage can have different meanings. I’ve provide some of them in parentheses above just to show the degree of ambiguity and interpretive decision translators must make when rendering this passage into English.]

Firstly, given the material that comes just before this passage (see below), it is worth noting that the quarrel or fight being discussed is between brothers, rather than random strangers. Whatever is going on here, it is most likely a family affair.

Also, even more importantly, the word translated "hand" (kaph) in v.12 is not the normal word used for "hand" (yad) in v.11. It's the word for "palm" or "hollow space" that's used to denote a number of things ranging from the hollow of a sling to a wash basin to a door handle (which also functions euphemistically in the Song of Songs).

In short, the translation of this passage is unclear and there is much conjecture about its exact meaning, even among Biblical Hebrew scholars. So whatever you hear someone teach regarding this passage, you must always hold with loose hands. The more knowledgeable they are about Hebrew translation, the more tentative they should be when declaring any particular interpretation as the correct one. Conversely, the more dogmatic they are in teaching on this passage, the less likely it is that they have a firm grasp of the original language and ancient Near East laws in general.

However, I think we can note a few points that help us make some sense of what's going on in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. 

For starters, right before this passage we find a discussion of the concept of Levirate Marriage, whereby the family line of a childless man who dies is carried on by his brother. The emphasis is on the priority and utter importance of bearing children to continue one’s family name and thus their continuation of enjoyment of the blessing promise God made to Abraham of many offspring, which was ratified Mt. Sinai. Bearing a child to carry on the family name was of the utmost importance in ancient Israel. This is a major cultural difference between modern Western culture and that of the ancient Hebrews, but it cannot be emphasized enough.

Therefore it is very likely (I would say almost certain) that the law regarding a wife grabbing the manhood of her brother-in-law during a fight has to do with a potential threat to his ability to father children, as well as his ability to fully participate in Israel’s Covenant worship. You see, Torah specifically prohibited a man with a ‘damaged package’ from not only serving as a Priest (if he was from the tribe of Levi; Lev. 17:17-20), but also from entering into the assembly of the Lord (regardless of what tribe he was from; Deut. 23:1) due to ceremonial uncleanness. And the fact that this command is accompanied by the “show no pity” phrase—which is normally elsewhere reserved for the most severe attacks on Covenant faithfulness among the Israelites (i.e. murder, idolatry, etc.)—tells us that whatever is going on in this case law, it is more than just a woman trying to prevent violence or simply acting in a crass or distasteful manner.

One view that I've found intriguing is that of scholar Lyle Eslinger. He contends that "kaph" in this passage is a euphemism for female genitalia, and the law therefore involves a bit of a wordplay on the concept of "hand." It is an example of the concept of Lex Talionis (law of retaliation) which refers to the "eye for an eye" practice in Torah, whereby the punishment is to match--but not exceed!--the crime. If this is indeed the case, then this passage is stating that if a woman intentionally tries to damage a man's genitals with her hand (which would not only risk making him sterile and unable to produce offspring to carry on the family name, but would also risk rendering him unable to enter the Assembly of the Lord due to Deut. 23:1's prohibition), then the punishment is that her "hand" will suffer the result that she intended to inflict upon him--that is, the cutting off or disfiguring of her labia as punishment for attempted disfigurement of his penis/scrotum. (Depending on your mindset, I'm guessing some of you are either cringing or giggling...or both...as you read the words "labia", "penis" and "scrotum" in a blog on the Bible!) For more on this proposal, see:  L. Eslinger, “The Case of the Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deuteronomy XXV 11-12”, Vetum Testamentum 31/3, 1981, pp.269-281.

Similar, but less cringe-worthy than the above interpretation, is that of Jerome Walsh who suggests that “kaph” refers euphemistically, not to the actual female genitalia, but to the groin area as a whole and the verb for “cut off” is to be translated as “trimmed/shaved.” If this is the case, it would be suggesting that the punishment for publicly shaming a man by attempting to damage his reproductive organ (upon which the very sign of the Covenant, circumcision, was borne) would be the public shaming of the offending wife of his opponent by symbolically desecrating her reproductive organ. This is due to the fact that the shaving of hair in Israel was most often a sign of mourning, humiliation or punishment. Ancient Hebrews were about as far from metrosexual as one can get, and grooming of body hair was not a mark of beauty as it was in surrounding cultures like Egypt. Thus, the punishment would be a court-ordered Brazilian wax! For Walsh’s argument, see:  J. Walsh, “You Shall Cut Off Her ... Palm? A Re-Examination of Deuteronomy 25:11-12”, Journal of Semitic Studies 49/1, 2004, pp. 47-58.

Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that either of these is what's going on in the passage. There are challenges to both views which raise some questions about their validity. But they are somewhat plausible and would fit into the category of Lex Talionis laws found elsewhere in Torah--and the purpose of Lex Talionis laws again was, ironically, to LIMIT the potential retributive violence against the accused. And in an honor-and-shame culture, attacking a man's genitals was symbolically (and literally, I guess!) an attack on his very manhood--and perhaps on his entire family's well-being.

Thus, even if it is the woman’s actual palm that was to be cut off (or perhaps cut/scarred), then it would still be an example of the Lex Talionis. In this case, as OT scholar Sandra Jacobs argues, it is a Talionis of Instrument—whereby the offending limb is what receives the punishment. Similar Middle Assyrian laws and have been documented and would provide a cultural legal analogue to Biblical law. [S. Jacobs, “Instrumental Talion in Deuteronomic Law”,  Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law, 16, 2010, pp.263-278]

If attacking the genitals of a man in the ancient world represented an assault on his procreative abilities, his standing in the community, his family name and his very manhood, then it is not hard to imagine that such an action would be met with vindictive violence by the man, his wife, or other family members in such an honor-and-shame culture...which would then potentially ignite a long-lasting blood-feud. This sounds very foreign to us, but in the world of the ancient Near East it would be unimaginable NOT to react in such a manner. Thus, by giving this example of case law in Deuteronomy, Moses is intending to LIMIT the retribution that can be enacted upon the woman, while at the same time recognizing and upholding the high value of sexuality, family, and Covenant which are all symbolized in various ways in the reproductive organs of men and women.

Of course we may find this utterly bizarre and even giggle-inducing (if you don’t believe me, try teaching it to a group of middle schoolers!) ...but this is a big reason why things like circumcision were established the way they were in the ancient world, and subsequently redefined and reinvested with new meaning by God among His Covenant People.

At the end of the day, this passage is admittedly unclear and perhaps bizarre to Christian readers two millennia removed from its original audience. And in modern societies where corporal punishment is a forgotten relic of the judicial past, it can indeed strike us as "cruel and unusual punishment." But it was one of the ways in which God entered into the culture of His people in their historical setting and chose to deal with them as a theocratic Covenant nation. Their purpose was to live among the pagan cultures surrounding them in such a way that God's distinctive relationship with them would draw watching gentiles back to Him. Therefore, it shouldn't be a surprise (or be seen as an obstacle to faith) that God would utilize certain forms of social and legal practices, albeit in a transformed or significantly-altered manner, in order to communicate to humanity throughout various stages of history. As for how Christians are to apply this passage today, that is a question that would be beyond the scope of this blog (though I discuss a basic approach in my video "Do Christians Keep the Ten Commandments??").

However, it is important for those of us who claim to be Jesus' Disciples to remember that Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is part of Torah, and according to Jesus and Paul and the author of Hebrews--despite taking into account the shift from Sinai to Golgotha; from Mosaic Covenant to Messianic Covenant--it remains God's Inspired Scripture for His people. We cannot "cut it off" from the pages of the Bible.

Blessings from the Dojo,

JM

Welcome to the new Dojo Blog!

Hello everyone!

We are excited to begin sharing blog posts from Disciple Dojo contributors once again. The Dojo Blog will be a virtual dojo for training and sharpening the mind as we grapple with thoughts, ideas, events, and issues covering a wide range of subjects. All comments and participation will be welcome and encouraged--as long as it's not spammy, needlessly antagonistic, or wantonly disrespectful (just like in a real dojo!). And of course by way of disclaimer, the opinions and viewpoints expressed in each post are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of Disciple Dojo or its Board of Directors on a given subject. 

Have fun, be challenged, and don't hesitate to enter into the discussions! 

JM Smith

Founder, Disciple Dojo