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.


JM Smith (M.Div, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) is the founder of, 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 color-coded the corresponding sections of the chiasm and indented them as well. 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:

greek text.jpg


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,, 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.

digital study 1.jpg


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).

digital study 2.jpg


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.

digital study 3.jpg


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.

digital study 4.jpg


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??”


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,


'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.


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,


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 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:

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.


  • He descended into the underworld.


  • 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...


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:

(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:

(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:


(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.


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.


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)


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 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,


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! 

BJJ BandW.jpg

JM Smith

Founder, Disciple Dojo