Page 62 – CrossExamined

Rabbi Tovia Singer is an orthodox Jewish rabbi and the founder and director of Outreach Judaism. He is widely known for his counter-missionary polemics and his criticism of the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah (see his two volume set, Let’s Get Biblical: Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah? [i]). In a recent series of videos published on Rabbi Singer’s YouTube channel, he responds to remarks made by Professor R.L. Solberg following their recent debate in Nashville, Tennessee on whether Jesus is the promised Hebrew Messiah. In this and subsequent articles, I want to address some of the claims made by Rabbi Singer in this series of videos that I hold to be in error. In this article, I will address the most recent video in this series, which is provocatively titled, “Colossal contradictions in the Gospels!” In this video, Singer advances two supposed instances of contradiction between the gospel accounts, one relating to the timing of Jesus’ passion, and the other relating to the resurrection. Let us address both in turn.

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?

In the video, Tovia argues that John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, contrary to the synoptic gospels that have Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover. The motivation for this redaction on John’s part supposedly is that John wanted to have Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, when the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, since Jesus is thought by John to be the fulfilment of the imagery associated with the Passover lamb.

Rabbi Singer reads John 19:14 as indicating that it was the day of preparation for Passover. However, this is not a necessary translation of the genitive word for Passover, πάσχα and in fact English translations usually render this expression “day of preparation of the Passover.” In fact, this term (‘day of preparation’) is also used by Mark (15:42), who defines it as the day before the Sabbath. This accords with John 19:31, which says, “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.” Verse 42 also indicates the hurriedness of the burial of Jesus in a tomb that was close at hand, since it was the Jewish day of Preparation. Therefore, John concurs with Mark that Jesus’ death took place the day prior to the Sabbath. This is what he means by “preparation.” Though he adds that this Sabbath was a high day, this most probably means that it wasn’t any ordinary Sabbath day, but rather a Sabbath during the feast of unleavened bread — that is to say, it was a particularly special feast day.

Singer also misreads John 18:28, where the Jewish leaders are concerned about entering Pilate’s dwelling, lest they be defiled and thereby become unable to eat the Passover. According to Singer, this undermines the contention that the Passover Seder had already been consumed. Singer apparently misses that, supposing them to be concerned about the Passover Seder, their worry would make no sense since their defilement would expire at sundown (and they could partake of the meal after washing). Therefore, their worry must concern some meal other than the Seder. And, in fact, the initial Seder, or supper, that commences the Passover celebration is not the only ritual meal that is eaten during Passover. There is even another ritual meal, the chagigah (“food offering”), that is consumed during the following day. This is supported by Numbers 28:18-23, in which we read,

18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, 19 but offer a food offering, a burnt offering to the LORD: two bulls from the herd, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish; 20 also their grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a regular burnt offering.

Verse 18 indicates that the food offering was to be offered on the first day of unleavened bread (which would be the fifteenth of Nisan), the same day — as the Jews reckon days — that the Seder was consumed. Verse 23 indicates that these were to be offered in addition to the regular morning burnt offering, which implies that the Chagigah was eaten during the day time. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicates multiple times that the Jews used the term “Passover” to refer to the entirety of the feast of unleavened bread:

“As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 14.21
“As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 18.29
“And, indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover…” Josephus, Wars 2.10

Therefore, John’s account in fact dovetails perfectly with Mark’s. The concern of the chief priests could not have been about the initial Passover seder, since their defilement would have expired at sundown and, following washing, they would have been able to partake of the seder in the evening. The seder was already over, having been consumed the previous evening, and they must be concerned about some other meal in Passover, most likely the chagigah.

Rabbi Singer claims that John 13 does not concern a Passover seder. However, this again is false. We read in John 13:1-2:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper…

In Greek, the text does not say that the supper was before the feast. Rather, it says that before the feast, Jesus loved his disciples to the end. D.A. Carson notes rightly that “there is nothing in the words themselves to discourage us from taking the clause as an introduction to the footwashing only, and not to the discourses that follow the meal.” [ii]

Indeed, the most natural reading of the reference to the supper in John 13:2, in light of 13:1, is that the last supper was in fact the Passover meal. Craig Blomberg concurs [iii]:

Verse 1 thus stands as a headline over the entire passion narrative (cf. Ridderbos 1997: 452). Because Passover began with a supper-time meal as its most central ritual (and 1 Cor. 11:20 speaks of the Last Supper explicitly as a deipnon), to hear then that the supper was being served (v. 2) would naturally suggest that the Passover had begun (Ridderbos 1997: 455; cf. Michaels 1983: 230; Kleinknecht 1985: 370–371; Burge 2000: 365–367), not that this was some separate supper prior to the Passover (as for Casey 1996: 20–21). If there is still any doubt, as Cullen Story (1989: 317) explains, ‘The presence of Judas, Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal, Judas’ departure from the table (implicit in the Synoptics, explicit in John), the affirmation by Peter of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, and Jesus’ prediction of his denial—all of these circumstances together form solid lines of connection between the meal in John 13 and the Synoptic account of the holy supper.’ Almost certainly, then, John intended his audience to understand that he was beginning to describe events that took place on ‘Maundy Thursday’ night, as part of the Passover meal, just as they would already have learned in the oral kerygma.

Though Singer appeals to John 13:29 where some speculate that Judas has been charged with getting what they need for the feast, this argument doesn’t work either since the feast of unleavened bread continues for another week, which easily could be the meaning of the phrase ‘the feast’ in this context. One might object to this that, if there were indeed Passover night, the shops would not have remained open. However, as D.A. Carson notes [iv],

One might wonder, on these premises, why Jesus should send Judas out for purchases for a feast still twenty-four hours away. The next day would have left ample time. It is best to think of this taking place on the night of Passover, 15 Nisan. Judas was sent out (so the disciples thought) to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e. not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the ḥagigah), which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases (e.g. more unleavened bread) immediately. Purchases on that Thursday evening were in all likelihood possible, though inconvenient. The rabbinic authorities were in dispute on the matter (cf. Mishnah Pesahim 4:5). One could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (Mishnah Shabbath 23:1).

Another aspect of John 13:29, curiously omitted by Singer — which actually supports my contention that this meal was in fact the Passover seder — is the disciples’ speculation that Judas had been charged by Jesus to give something to the poor. Carson notes that “it was customary to give alms to the poor on Passover night, the temple gates being left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there. On any night other than Passover it is hard to imagine why the disciples might have thought Jesus was sending Judas out to give something to the poor: the next day would have done just as well.” [v]

In addition to the foregoing considerations, two undesigned coincidences confirm that the last supper in John 13 is the same meal as spoken of in the synoptic gospels. In the parallel account of the last supper in Luke 22:27, Jesus says, “For who is the greater, one who reclined at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” What does Jesus mean by this phrase, and to what could he be referring? When we turn over to John 13:4-5, we learn that Jesus on this same occasion gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood: “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…” This act (not reported by Luke) casually dovetails with Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:27 (not reported by John) that, though he is the greatest among them, he nonetheless acts as their servant. One may ask, however, why Jesus washes the disciples’ feet on this particular occasion. Luke 22:24 gives us a detail not supplied by John that provides us with some relevant background: “A dispute also arose among [the disciples], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” Luke, then, reports the occasion that gave rise to Jesus’ object lesson in servanthood, but not the object lesson itself. John reports the object lesson but not the occasion that gave rise to it. The accounts dovetail so casually and artlessly that it supports that these are in fact the same meal, and rooted in historical memory.

The Mary Magdalene Problem

Tovia also gives another alleged discrepancy regarding the resurrection accounts, where he points out that, according to Matthew, the women all met Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10), whereas in John it looks like Mary, in her report to Peter & the disciple whom Jesus loved, has no idea what had happened to Jesus’ body (John 20:1-2). One would predict, supposing those accounts to be both anchored in historical memory, that Mary must have left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the risen Jesus. Indeed, I can hardly see any other viable way of harmonizing those accounts. But this is precisely what is suggested by a close reading of John 20:2: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) where they have laid him.” The use of the plural verb there suggests that she had in fact left the larger group of women and that there had in fact been others with her (which comports with the synoptics). This harmonization is not owed to us by the text, supposing them to be in conflict, but the fact that the only viable harmonization is suggested by a close reading of John suggests that these accounts are in fact based on historical memory, being independent accounts that dovetail.

According to John, Mary Magdalene ran back immediately upon noticing the stone rolled away and surmising or seeing the tomb empty (there may have been one or two other women with her, we don’t know). Notice that Matthew does not say that the angel appeared to Mary Magdalene, but rather that he spoke to the women. Thus, it was the women other than Mary Magdalene who left the tomb together as described in Matthew and, while going to tell the disciples, saw Jesus on the way. Matthew says that plural women left the tomb and that “they” saw Jesus on the way but does not expressly say that Mary Magdalene was with them at that time. Again, he may just not have known that she had left the group already, but he does not explicitly say either way. John knew since he was one of the two disciples (along with Peter) to whom Mary Magdalene reported the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus.

We can pick up Mary Magdalene’s story as reported by John. She ran back to get Peter and John immediately upon seeing the stone rolled away. They came back to the tomb with or slightly ahead of her. By this time the rest of the women have already seen the angels and left. They may even be seeing Jesus on their own route back into the city while Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are on their way back to the tomb. It must be borne in mind that the old city of Jerusalem was a maze. There is no reason at all to expect that these groups would have run into each other. Mary Magdalene (as explained in John) still believes Jesus is dead at this point. She hangs around after Peter and John have looked at the tomb and left in puzzlement. She peers back into the tomb and the angels reveal themselves to her, but she does not understand. She turns around, grieved, and sees Jesus and has the dialogue with him of which we read in John 20. She then goes back to tell the disciples more about all of this. All this time she is not with the other women. When the other women have seen Jesus, they run and tell at least some of the disciples, though they might have to wait for Peter and John to get back from their tomb visit. Of course, we also do not know for sure that all of the disciples were staying together. The other women may actually have gone to see a different set of them in some different location.

Conclusion

In summary, though the alleged discrepancies offered by Rabbi Singer require some investigation to untangle, closer inspection — and more careful reading of the relevant texts — reveals the arguments to be unfounded. The solutions that I have offered to these challenges are not strained or forced harmonizations, but rather are suggested from within the texts themselves. As the nineteenth century Anglican scholar T.R. Birks once noted, “the very test of historical truth…is found in the substantial unity of the various narratives, their partial diversity, and the reconcilable nature of that diversity, when due allowance is made for the purpose of each writer, and the individual character of their separate works.” [vi]

Footnotes

[i] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014).

[ii] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 460.

[iii] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (England: Apollos, 2001), 187–188.

[iv] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 475.

[v] Ibid.,

[vi] T.R. Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidencce of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852), 269-271.

He Gets Us, But Do We Get Him? The Case for Criticizing False Teachers

Theology and Christian Apologetics

I once got an angry email from a lady who didn’t like the fact that I criticized a false teacher on our I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist podcast. “You shouldn’t criticize other Christians!” she scolded me.

Do you see the problem with this? There she was criticizing me, another Christian, while claiming you ought not criticize other Christians. To paraphrase Elon Musk, if irony could kill, she’d be dead right now.

Jesus Called Out False Teachers

Apparently, she never considered that Jesus spent much of his time criticizing the false teachings and practices of the religious politicians known as the Pharisees whose hearts were far from God. He also warned people who led young believers astray, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea (Matt. 18:6).”

Paul exposed five false teachers by name in his letters to Timothy. He warned that “the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3). He also told the Romans to “watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people” (Rom 16:17-18). Notice that the people causing divisions are not those defending the truth, but those who are introducing the false teachings.

In fact, every writer of the New Testament warned against false teachers at some point. Peter said that “false teachers” would introduce “destructive heresies” that “promise people freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity” (2 Pet. 2:1,19). John wrote, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1John 4:1). The writer of Hebrews told us to “not be carried away by strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9). Jude said we need to “contend for the faith” because “ungodly people… pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 3-5). James cautioned us about becoming teachers because teachers will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). And the list goes on.

In one sense the entire Bible is one long warning to avoid false teachings and practices. Yet, somehow, modern people are under the impression that it is a bigger sin to warn people of false teaching than to actually be a false teacher!

I say all this because my friend Natasha Crain has taken a bunch of online heat from some fellow Christians for pointing out 7 problems with the “He Gets Us” Campaign, which included two 30 second commercials during this year’s Super Bowl. When you read Natasha’s piece—which has been shared on social media over 26,000 times—you realize that the “He Gets Us” campaign ironically doesn’t get Jesus.

It’s not just that their 30 second commercials leave out the most important truth about Jesus (that could be forgiven—after all it’s only 30 seconds!). But their website misleads people into thinking that Jesus was just a really good man whose primary mission was to achieve social justice. There’s nothing prominent about Him being God or our Savior.

Social Justice Warrior or Savior of the World?

As Natasha observes, the head of the marketing firm behind the campaign explicitly said, “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” That’s why Jesus isn’t being highlighted as our substitute. He’s merely presented as a good example of “peace and love.” A motivational speaker. A social justice warrior.

But that wasn’t Christ’s mission. How do we know? Because he stated his primary mission explicitly. Here are just a few of several statements by Jesus:

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45).”
“The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10).
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17).
“Now my soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (Jn. 12:27).
“Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46)

As Greg Koukl observes in “The Legend of the Social Justice Jesus”, “For Jesus, salvation was not economic prosperity, equal distribution of goods, or sexual liberty without judgment or shame. Instead, salvation came through belief in him, bringing forgiveness of sins and eternal life.”

God didn’t add humanity to his deity and suffer a brutal death to make sure everyone uses the right pronouns. He came to be the ransom who pays for our sins.

Of course, Jesus wants us to love our neighbor, but that’s not a new teaching—it was already the stated policy of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18). Moreover, love in the Bible doesn’t mean approval as the “He Gets Us” campaign implies. Love seeks what’s best for people, and that requires us to oppose any evil a loved one wants to do. As Paul put it, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:6-7).

So contrary to the “He Gets Us” campaign, Jesus didn’t come to give some new ethical teaching. He came to be “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29)—the ultimate sacrifice that the Old Testament sacrificial system foreshadowed.

So What’s the Big Deal?

Ok, so “He Gets Us” doesn’t get Him. So what? What’s the big deal?

Natasha writes, “’He Gets Us’ has the potential to actually harm the public understanding of Jesus. People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.” I would like to amplify and illustrate this excellent point.

“People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.”
Natasha Crain

Imagine you see a commercial for a place you know nothing about called St. Jude’s. The commercial only speaks of the good food that they serve children. When you go to the website highlighted on the commercial, you only see more about the food. Their mission statement says nothing about St. Jude’s being a hospital or the fact that their mission is to treat and try to heal children with childhood cancer free of charge. They only push the food angle. You come away thinking this is some kind of restaurant that caters to kids.

Who would think that’s an accurate commercial? Of course, they must serve food to the children, but that’s not their primary mission—it’s not why they exist. While a commercial can’t give complete information, it should at least give accurate information.

Instead of informing people, such a commercial would be misinforming people. The people who saw that and the website would first have to unlearn the misinformation fed them before they would be open to learn what St. Jude’s is actually about. And that could be deadly. If you had a child with cancer, you could miss out on having your child cured for free at St. Jude’s hospital because their campaign obscured that life-saving mission.

There is a similar danger to the “He Gets Us” campaign. While there may be some good that comes of it—like spurring conversations about Jesus—it’s outweighed by the fact that many unbelievers will be misled into thinking that Jesus came just to make our lives better here. That his primary mission was to achieve social justice on this earth. People will have to unlearn that false teaching after being led astray by the campaign. They risk missing a free life-saving cure for their sins by the great physician. They risk missing eternal life.

If only Christians would act like Jesus and the apostles to correct the “smooth talk” that “deceives the minds of naïve people.” If only they would “contend for the faith” instead of buying into whatever “their itching ears want to hear.”

Wait, that’s exactly what Natasha has done. And yet some Christians are mad at her! They should go back and read their Bibles. Jesus and the apostles didn’t hold their tongues because their goal wasn’t to be “nice.” Their goal was to love people by warning them of harmful misinformation and replacing it with the truth just like Natasha has done. (For more, click here.)

He Gets Us. Why Don’t We Get Him? Plus Q&A

Podcast

Is it wrong to criticize other Christians when their beliefs and actions don’t line up with the Word of God? Many people think so. Just ask our friend Natasha Crain, who received a sack full of virtual hate mail for her recent blog post, which logically pointed out several issues and concerns with the $100 million “He Gets Us” advertising campaign that seemed to tickle the ears of many Christians. During the first half of this week’s podcast episode, Frank goes through several points Natasha outlines in her blog post and reminds listeners that Jesus Himself was pretty serious about correcting people (especially the religious leaders!) for leading others astray.

In the second half, he shares some insights from the 2023 Discovery Institute Science and Faith Conference in Dallas, along with his recent speaking engagement at Liberty University on the topic of legislating morality. He also takes the time to answer listener questions.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Natasha’s blog post: 7 Problems with the ‘He Gets Us’ Campaign

Why We Can’t NOT Legislate Morality: http://bit.ly/3YZ4NE7

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

Download Transcript

February 24, 2023/by Frank Turek

Trying to Make Sense of Evil and Suffering

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By: Justin Angelos

Have you ever been in the situation where you are trying to make sense of evil and suffering? At some point in a person’s life, there will be some sort of pain, or suffering, and some form of evil, either natural or moral evil. And then the question naturally arises, why? Why me? Why does God allow me to go through this? The question of evil and suffering can be a big stumbling block for people, in fact, this is why some people become atheists. In fact, atheists use evil and suffering as a weapon to discredit Christianity and say, there is no God. “How can an all-powerful all-loving God allow innocent people to suffer?” This is the type of question atheists will throw at theists.

Trying to Make Sense of the Origin of Moral and Natural Evil

Genesis chapter 3 gives us the origin of evil and suffering, 1. “Now the serpent said to the woman, did God really, you must not eat from any tree in the garden”? 2.” The woman said to the serpent, we may eat from the trees in the garden but, God did say, you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch, or you will die.” (Gen 3:2 NIV).

The serpent, casts doubt in eve’s mind, the serpent twists God’s word by saying, “you will certainly not die, for God knows that when you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, know good and evil.” (V4) Genesis 3:16 God said to the woman I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing, and your desire shall be for your husband. In Genesis 3:17, God tells Adam, “Cursed is the ground because of you.” As a result of Adam’s sin, God cursed the ground and removed His blessing upon the earth.

The problem of evil and suffering is not only a question for Christians but also a problem for every other worldview. I once heard someone say, “Atheism does not remove the pain, it just removes the hope.” Philosophers have been unable to prove that an all-powerful, all-loving God and the existence of evil are logically contradictory, as they are not mutually exclusive like a married bachelor or a squared circle, the purpose of this article is not to solve the logical or philosophical problem of evil but, hopefully, shed some light on why God might allow evil and suffering.

Trying to Make Sense of the Definition of Evil

First, evil is not a thing, evil is a privation of good, in other words, good and evil are not relational properties, and good does not depend on evil for its existence. We can have good without evil, but we cannot have evil without good. Think of evil like this, imagine a shiny new BMW convertible car with a V6 engine, now imagine that same car with rust all over it. you can have a BMW without the rust, but rust would not be possible without the existence of the BWM. So, evil is a corruption of what is good. Therefore, the existence of evil does not disprove God’s existence, therefore there must be some morally sufficient reasons why God would allow evil and suffering.[i]

Is All Suffering Bad?

I have concluded that not all suffering is a bad thing, there is a little girl who was born with a rare disease called CIPA, which is a disease in which the little girl cannot feel any pain at all. She can step on a thick rusty nail, and she would not feel a thing, this little girl is literally incapable of feeling any physical pain. At first one would think, “what a blessing” but, it is not a blessing at all. It is a life-threatening disease.

The morning prayer of this little girl’s mother is, “Dear God, please let my little girl feel pain.”[ii] Her mother pleads with God to let her daughter feel pain, the very thing we wish God would remove from our lives, is the very thing her mother is asking God for. I remember being in agony laying in the emergency room with my gallbladder in 2020 asking God, “please remove this pain” and here is a little girl’s mother, who is asking God for pain.

Leibniz and Lennox on Evil and Suffering

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asked, what the best possible world is, and out of all the possible worlds, which one is the best world God could have created? God could have created nothing at all, but the best possible world God could have created is a world in which free will exists, and the possibility to freely choose and to freely reject.[iii] In any possible world in which there is no free will, love can never truly exist because love, requires freedom, a man cannot force a woman to fall in love with him, she must freely decide to love him. When people choose to love and worship God, it is freely done out of genuine love for God. This is not possible if, we were to live in a world where all of humanity is determined.

Dr. John Lennox explains it this way, “could God have created a world without suffering? Yes, He could have, but you and I would not live in it because, it would empty the world of something most precious to our humanity, and that is the capacity to love, and our capacity to love, hinges on our capacity to choose.” [iv]

Trying to Make Sense of Evil and Suffering through the Cross

The unique thing about Christianity is—at the heart of the gospel message—is a Cross. And on that cross, God himself suffers incomprehensible evil and suffering. Which says that God has not remained distant from our human suffering.[v] Christianity offers you a Savior, a personal God, who has bled and suffered in our world.

This also says, that God does truly care about our suffering, and the Lord who suffered, rose from the dead conquering sin and death and offering us eternal life, and the beauty, and the joy that awaits, our suffering becomes irrelevant when standing in the presence of God himself, we may never have a comprehensive understanding of why, God allows suffering, but, There is a Savior, who has suffered in our world, and a Savior who truly does cares about our suffering, and we have a Savior who truly does understand our pain.

“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5 ESV)

Recommended reading on Evil and suffering: Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?

Footnotes

[i] Sean McDowell, Clay Jones, why does God allow suffering? (Biola apologetics MA lecture week 4 biola.edu, 2023)

[ii] Lance Cashion. “Why Pain Is Good.” Lance Cashion, May 1, 2013. https://revolutionofman.org/why-pain-is-good/.

[iii] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia. “Best of all possible worlds.” Encyclopedia Britannica, June 6, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/best-of-all-possible-worlds.

[iv] VeritasForum. “The Loud Absence: Where Is God in Suffering? | John Lennox at Harvard Medical School.” YouTube. YouTube, December 19, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPm6Y-pANYI.

[v] John Lennox, Where is God in Suffering?

Are You Defending THE Faith or YOUR Faith? (Part 2)

Podcast

Is redefining Christianity to fit the current trends and fashions a modern phenomenon or a tale as old as time? Join Frank on this midweek podcast episode as he continues to go through C.S. Lewis’ essay, ‘Christian Apologetics’ which can be found in the book, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. WARNING: You may be prompted to add more C.S. Lewis books to your reading list as a result of listening to this podcast!

Listen to Part 1 here: http://bit.ly/3I9qFFM

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

February 21, 2023/by Frank Turek

A Christian Apologist Responds to Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s Satanic Grammy Performance

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

If you watched the 2023 Grammys, then you probably saw Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s blasphemous pop hypnotic hit “Unholy.” This song has been buzzing. It has more than a hundred million views and earned a Grammy for “Best Pop Duo/Group Performance.”

Musically, it feels a bit like R&B meets belly dancing. Its Middle Eastern lilt and thumping rhythm lend a dark allure, as the lyrics spin a sordid tale of excess and adultery. One philandering husband neglects his wife and kids at home, sneaking out to a gender-bending strip club — “Body Shop.” Sung from the perspectives of the club’s prostitutes, the story is laced with luxury name brands, product shots for condoms, and vivid descriptions of sexual deviance.

Visually, the music video and live Grammy performance portray a kind of satanic drag cabaret, with the lead singers Sam Smith and Kim Petras as Satan and a stripper, respectively. In the video, the “Body Shop” translates into a speak-easy strip club in the backroom of an auto-body garage. The dancers crowding and piling on top of each other rub and writhe in ecstasy.

Allusions to kink and orgies abound. The story ends with the husband dying for his sins in a car crash, as the wife sheds her coat and wig to reveal she’s really a male stripper. At the Grammys, the story is streamlined. Kim Petras swoons and sings in a stripper cage. Pyrotechnics and red lighting create a hellish ambiance, as gender-bending demon dancers worship a devil-horned Sam Smith. This song has all the subtly of a jet engine.

Scrolling through social media, one can see a predictable partisan divide. Right wing pundits aired their grievances (rightfully so), as the left sang its praises, making sure to point out that Sam Smith is gay and gender queer, and Kim Petras is a transgender woman (male identifying as a woman).[i]

What should we make of this megahit?

With all the hype surrounding this song, it invites critique from several angles. We’ll consider some of the more obvious ones here. First, we’ll ask whether this is just an elaborate marketing ploy. Second, we’ll address whether it’s just art. Third, we’ll ask whether it’s satanic. In answering those three questions, we’ll cover a fourth angle, LGBTQ ideology. Lastly, we’ll ask what wisdom we can glean from this song. It’s clearly not just a song. It’s a symbol, perhaps even an anthem. And we do well not to downplay or exaggerate it. Instead, we can practice discernment and draw from it ministry insights into our cultural milieu.

Is this just a marketing ploy?

Behind the garish lights and red leather, it’s easy to see the machinations of marketing strategists. It has the feel of choreographed controversy, like a well-rehearsed dance number between left-wing libertines and right-wing moralists.

It’s been said that “all publicity, is good publicity.” By that measure, this song does not disappoint. It’s obviously meant to offend. It displays fire shows, hellish lighting, gender-bending kink, and burlesque aesthetics. But more than that, it’s blasphemy. The dance numbers are choreographed sexcapades punctuated by the Catholic sign of the cross (i.e., crossing oneself). This gesture connotes a blasphemous kind of sexual sacrament.

It would be too simplistic to dismiss this song as a gimmick, as mere shock-value. Sure, controversy draws crowds, but this song is more than that. It’s not just offensive. It’s transgressive. It’s an affront to Christianity, traditional marriage, monogamy, binary gender, heteronormativity, chastity, modesty. And it does all that with a wink and a smirk. They know what they’re doing. It’s supposed to upset people like you and me. It’s supposed to drive us to anger-blogging on social media, giving it free publicity at our expense. Meanwhile, we come off looking like puritanical luddites with no taste in music.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that marketing strategy is well underway. I just don’t think this song is reducible entirely to a marketing ploy. We cannot say it’s just orchestrated outrage, because if that’s all they wanted, they could have gotten a bigger response by putting Sam Smith in blackface with Kim Petras in a MAGA hat. Now that would have taken some real courage!

The point isn’t merely to offend. It’s to offend the right people. That is, offend the people on the right. “Unholy” is strategically marketed to offend the right people by celebrating irreverence, sex-positivity, and LGBTQ practice.[ii]

Is it just art?

Whatever else this song may be, it’s still art. And that might be its strongest defense. For those who see this song as a defiant strike against oppression and moral busybodies, this song sounds like artful indignation.

Historically speaking, music has often been a fulcrum for toppling authority and transgressing boundaries. Who can think of the Civil Rights Movement without the resonant refrain of “We Shall Overcome”? Or think of women’s equality without hearing Aretha Franklin demand “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.” (1967)? Communist Russia and East Berlin undoubtedly took a hit from the punk rock movement in the 1970’s and ’80’s. I like to think that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 to the tune of “We’re Not Gonna Take it!” (Twisted Sister, 1984). We could likewise note the cultural sway in Elvis’s hips, Liberace’s hats, Mick Jagger’s lips, and Ozzy’s bats. Music, if nothing else, is powerful. It has a long history of deliberately breaking cultural norms, for good or ill.

In that vein Sam Smith and Kim Petras are nothing new. They are challenging moral norms about marriage, family, and gender identity, and they’re framing it as an anti-religious dig at Christian conservatives. The question remains, however, is all that justified in the name of art?

That “art defense” might go something like this:

Premise 1: Art can be a justified way to break cultural mores.

Premise 2: This song is art.

Conclusion: Therefore, this song is justified in breaking cultural mores.

I won’t dispute premises one and two. I don’t need to. The argument is invalid. It has an undistributed middle term. Simply put, neither premise is talking about all art. “Art” is the undistributed term here. We can explain this fallacy with a question distributing the middle term: Is everything done in the name of art justified?

Clearly no. Art doesn’t justify murder, or rape, or animal sacrifice. Evil is still evil, even in artistic form. The same is true of misdemeanors and “poor taste.” Imagine if Smith and Petras used this song to come out as “trans-Black,” or to celebrate Christopher Columbus, or came out as pro-life? It’s hard to imagine their progressive supporters still saying, “It’s just art!”

In reality, this song was never just art. It’s also marketing, fashion, entertainment, and culture. It’s a commentary on family, identity, sexual ethics, and religion. And it’s a socio-political statement endorsing the LGBTQ movement. Sam Smith leaves no question about that. Speaking of his[iii] experience in this song, he says he felt “courageous to step into the queer joy of it all,” and “[i]t feels like emotional, sexual, and spiritual liberation.”[iv] The rest of the album (Gloria, 2023) reinforces that message. Yes, that messaging is framed in a piece of music. So, it can be artfully indirect. But the message still comes across loud and clear.

Is it Satanic?

If you’re thinking this is what Satanism looks like, however, you’re only half right. “Unholy” clearly uses hellish satanic imagery, but compared to modern-day Satanism, it’s a cartoon. The main streams of Satanism today deny the existence of any literal devil.[v] They’re atheistic. They deny any supernatural realm, along with all gods, angels, demons, and devils. Satanists today are more likely to be edgy, humanistic, liberal activists, with a serious authority complex.[vi] So it’s no surprise when the Satanists said of the Grammy performance, it was “alright,” “nothing particularly special,” and “red clothing, fire and devil horns…[are] all kind of passé now.”[vii]

But “Unholy” doesn’t need formal ties to Satanism to reflect the essence of Satanism, namely, radical autonomy.[viii] Variously identified with “self-determinism,” “pleasure-seeking,” the “left-hand path,” or even the “Witch’s Rede” (Do what thou wilt), this radical autonomy is the beating heart of Satanism. As one source explains, “Satanists emphasize being your true self, personal achievement and living life to the fullest….with one of the key [tenets] being individuals are their own Gods.”[ix] In that way, Smith and Petra’s “Unholy” is satanic. It’s just not unique, since Satanism absorbs almost the entire pop music industry.

What wisdom can we glean from “Unholy”?

“There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9),[x] and “Unholy” is no exception. We do well to expect incendiary ploys, sexual depravity, and even blasphemy from the entertainment industry. St. Peter foresees in the first century that “many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed…Those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority… have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed” (2 Peter 2:2,10,14).

Since we know it’s coming, we can “brace for impact.” We can be prepared. That may be as simple as turning the channel, skipping a track, or just unplugging. Most everyone could benefit from more classical music and less screen time. Avoidance isn’t everything. But it is an important step toward a deliberate discerning approach to media. We can’t afford to be passive recipients, swallowing whatever is fed to us.

Sometimes we need a media fast. Maybe get rid of your TV. Or unsubscribe from a music or streaming service. Or maybe avoid genres of music or shows that, for the most part, aren’t glorifying God. The rest of the time, when we’re not fasting, we should still be dieting. The bewildering mass of trash and distraction doesn’t deserve near as much attention as we give it.[xi] Our money, time, and attention are all votes of support. So, we do well to support only those causes that we believe in.

But what about Sam Smith and Kim Petras?

Those mega stars are probably not in your immediate sphere of influence. They aren’t likely your “neighbors” in that sense. We can still pray for them. If we love like Christ, we can find encouraging truths to say about them. We shouldn’t mock or insult them. They’re created in God’s image just like you and me (Gen 1:26–28). Even when we criticize their behavior, beliefs, or their music, we should still speak from a position of love and compassion.

Meanwhile, we have an abiding responsibility to live and love like Christ in our home and our communities and to guard our hearts (Prov. 4:23; Eph. 5; 1 Tim. 5; Titus 2). Guarding our hearts includes handling music and other media with the discernment of a dietician. To use St. Paul’s language, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil 4:8).

Footnotes

[i] Curtis M. Wong, “Sam Smith and Kim Petras Take Grammys to Hell with Fiery Performance of ‘Unholy,’ HuffPost Entertainment, February 5, 2023, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sam-smith-kim-petras-grammys-2023-unholy-performance_n_63e06afae4b01a4363956e2a; “Satanic Smith: Watch Pop Singer Go Full Satan During Grammy Performance,” Sean Hannity, February 6, 2023, https://hannity.com/media-room/satanic-smith-watch-pop-singer-go-full-satan-during-grammy-performance/; Derrick Clifton, “Sam Smith’s They/Them Pronoun Backlash Highlights an Ongoing Cultural Disconnect,” Think, September 19, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/sam-smith-s-they-them-pronoun-backlash-highlights-ongoing-cultural-ncna1056136.

[ii] “Sex positivity” is defined as a permissive and nonjudgmental attitude toward all consensual sexual expression and sexual behaviors, regarding all of it as healthy. For more on this, see Hillary Ferrer and Amy Davison, Mama Bear Apologetics: Guide to Sexuality (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2021), 131–48.

[iii] Sam Smith identifies with “they/them” pronouns. Sophie Lewis, “Sam Smith Announces Their Pronouns,” CBS News, September 13. 2019, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sam-smith-pronouns-sam-smith-announces-their-pronouns-are-they-them-2019-09-13/. With no disrespect intended, I refer to Smith in conventional “he/him” pronouns for the sake of clarity. Being an individual biological male, Smith is not a biologically neutral plurality as suggested by “they/them” pronouns.

[iv] Lea Veloso, “Unholy’ by Sam Smith and Kim Petras Lyrics Are ‘Liberating’ — Here’s How They Explore ‘Queer Joy,’” Stylecaster, February 5, 2023, accessed February 8, 2023 at https://stylecaster.com/unholy-sam-smith-kim-petras-lyrics/.

[v] See “Church of Satan vs. Satanic Temple,” The Satanic Temple (c.2014), accessed February 10, 2023 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/church-of-satan-vs-satanic-temple.

[vi] I explain this characterization in greater length in “Satanic Lessons on Religious Freedom: A Review of Hail Satan?” Christian Research Journal, October 28, 2019 at https://www.equip.org/articles/satanic-lessons-on-religious-freedom/.

[vii] “Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ ‘Unholy’ Grammy Act Underwhelms Satanists,” TMZ, February 8, 2023, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://www.tmz.com/2023/02/08/sam-smith-kim-petras-unholy-grammy-performance-church-satan-underwhelmed/.

[viii] “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple (2014), tenets 3-4, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us.

[ix] “Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ ‘Unholy’ Grammy Act Underwhelms Satanists,” TMZ (8 Feb 2023).

[x] All Scripture quotations are from the ESV.

[xi] I discuss a lot of examples in John D. Ferrer, “Sabrina the Teenage Anti-Christ,” Christian Research Journal, July 11, 2019 at: https://www.equip.org/articles/sabrina-the-teenage-anti-christ/.

Are You Defending THE Faith or YOUR Faith? (Part 1)

Podcast

What happens when “Christians” deny a core doctrine of Christianity? It seems that many people in our culture today are creating their own versions of the Christian faith based on their personal preferences and don’t care whether something is true or not. For them, it boils down to one simple question: “Is this going to work for me?”

In 1945, C.S. Lewis did a presentation for a group of Anglican ministers which later turned into an essay called ‘Christian Apologetics’. In it, Lewis makes clear that the Christian faith has certain boundaries, and if you decide to step outside of those boundaries, “you must change your profession.” On today’s podcast, Frank goes through different sections of the essay to illustrate the different lessons we can learn from Lewis’ musings today—even though he voiced them over 75 years ago!

In fact, there is so much to learn from this one essay that it wouldn’t fit into one episode, so be sure to watch out for Part 2 during the midweek podcast next week!

C.S. Lewis’ Book of Essays – God in the Dock: https://a.co/d/6VYrbYt

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

February 17, 2023/by Frank Turek

Are you having a hard time dealing with your doubts?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

Have you ever doubted what you believe as a Christian?

The truth is, we all have. Every Christian (including your pastor) has had doubts. Even legends like John the Baptist, John Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Charles Spurgeon, and Martin Luther all struggled with their own set of doubts.

Perhaps you doubt because you have a misconstrued understanding of God. Or maybe you doubt because you underwent a traumatic experience and have never recovered from it. Whatever the reason, you will constantly battle with doubt until you genuinely give it over to God.

However, many Christians don’t know what to do with their doubts. Some feel embarrassed to be questioning God’s love. At the same time, other Christians are confused by the number of challenges brought against Christianity.

Remember the disciple, Thomas? You know, the guy we refer to as “Doubting Thomas”? In John 20, we read that the disciples told Thomas that they had seen the resurrected Christ. Thomas responds by saying, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (20:25). However, Thomas has gotten a bad rap. Thomas wasn’t being defiant and rejecting the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. He was merely expressing his doubt on the fact that he personally hadn’t seen Jesus physically in his resurrected body.

So what did Thomas do?

He put forward some reasonable criteria if he was to believe. Thomas took the gruesome facts about the crucifixion and specified what sort of evidence he would need that lined up to the facts to convince him to believe. Thomas conveyed reasonable doubts in search of reasonable answers. And that’s precisely what Jesus gave to Thomas.

I’m reminded of what one young man told me after I spoke at an event in California. He said he decided to register for the event at the last minute because he felt God wanted him to go. The young man shared that his doubts consumed him so much that he didn’t know what to believe anymore. At this point in his life, the man stopped praying, reading the Bible and recently stopped attending church. But after hearing the case for Christianity and being around passionate Christians who listened to him and answered his questions, he told me he felt his doubts disappear.

So, if you have doubts, don’t think for a second that God won’t lead you to the answers you seek in your life. No matter how strong your doubts might be, God is faithful. He has given you the Spirit of truth to help you work out your doubts, just like He helped Thomas and the young man who came to the apologetic conference. Both men were struggling, questioning, and searching for answers. God didn’t leave them in a state of confusion but sent them the answers they needed to overcome their doubts and strengthen their faith in Jesus.

God will do the same for you. All you need to do is ask God for help and allow Him to guide you to the right mentors, Christian resources, and credible explanations that will sharpen your faith. Peter writes these inspirational words, “Make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

¿Nacemos todos siendo hijos de Dios?

Español

By Melissa Dougherty

Many believe that all human beings are born as children of God. Isn’t that true? I want to find out what the Bible says about this beautiful theological truth.

Spoiler alert : That’s true. But according to what the Bible says, we are not born as children of God. The belief that we are all children of God has no biblical support and has generated many theological errors. The Scriptures show us that we are all created by God, but we become children of God through spiritual adoption. However, at birth we all have the image of God. All human beings are valuable because we are creations of God, and He loves us. And it is because of that love that He became part of His creation to save us and redeem us. Because of this, it was necessary for Jesus to become incarnated. If we were all already born as children of God, there would be no reason for Jesus to have to die to redeem us and adopt us. What did He redeem us from or where did He get us from to be adopted? This is the terminology that the Bible constantly uses when speaking about the death of Jesus: He “redeemed” us, because we were “slaves” to sin, and we are “adopted” into His family.

I want to expand on this point. There are many passages in Scripture that speak to us of the new birth, of being adopted into God’s family, of being a new creation in Christ, and all of them clearly show what we were—slaves to sin—and what we are no longer when we are called children of God. To be born again means to be made anew, to go from being children of wrath to being adopted as children of God.

John 1:12-13 says, “But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God , to those who believe in his name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The bold is mine.

To be born of God means to be reborn spiritually.

Romans 8:14-17: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to return to fear, but you have received a Spirit of adoption as sons , by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father! ’ 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs […]” Bold is mine.

We become children of God when we are saved by being adopted into God’s family through our relationship with Jesus Christ. Galatians 4 also speaks to us about this. In chapter 3, Paul has explained that we are all children of God through faith in Jesus. It is our faith in Jesus that makes us his children. If we belong to Christ, then we are descendants of Abraham and as children, we are heirs . This is important because Paul puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that only the heir, the son, can receive the inheritance.

He exemplifies this by comparing someone who is a servant of the world to someone who is a child of God.

There are two categories.

At the beginning of chapter 4, Paul writes this:

Galatians 4:1-7 “I say then, that as long as the heir is a minor, he is no different from a servant, even though he be the owner of all things; 2 but is under guardians and tutors until the age appointed by the father. 3 So we also, when we were children, were subject to bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a servant, but a son ; and if a son, then an heir through God.” Bold is mine.

This is truly amazing, the promise God made to Abraham is our inheritance. We were slaves to the “elementary things” of the world. In verse 5 Paul says that Jesus purchased our freedom, for we were slaves of the law and of the world! And He adopted us .

This is explained in more detail in John chapter 3, where we find that Jesus did not come to condemn the world but to save the world, but people preferred darkness and rejected the light. Now, many of us know John 3:16 by heart, so we’ll start there:

John 3:16- “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Let’s continue reading, although, usually, many people don’t.

“ 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, so that his deeds will not be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be made manifest, that they have been done in God.”

This is important: people don’t understand what this passage is showing us, and that is that the world has already been condemned. People usually interpret it the other way around. They think that God is the one who condemns us, but that is not what John 3 says. Sin is what condemns us. And since we are all born into condemnation, we need to be saved from it.

If we are adopted into God’s family through Jesus, you must ask yourself what or who we were separated from if God is not already our Father. How could we be adopted into God’s family if we already belong to it from the moment we are born? To whom does the world belong? Who is our father?

In John 8 and 1 John, the Bible shows us that our father is the devil. That is why we need to be “born again” because we were born in condemnation for being children of the devil.

We are with the wrong father!

Galatians 3:22-25 says:

“But the Scripture has imprisoned all under sin , so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to all who believe. 23 And before faith came, we were kept under the law , being kept in custody until the faith which was later to be revealed. The bold is mine.

1 John 3:10 shows us the dualistic view of our condition. If we are not children of God, we are by default children of the devil.

1 John 3:10 “This is how you can tell the children of God and the children of the devil : Anyone who does not do what is right is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” Bold is mine.

Jesus calls the Pharisees children of the devil in John 8. In this passage the Pharisees are in a heated argument with Jesus, and claim to be heirs of Abraham, but Jesus puts them in their place when they make this claim.

John 8:39-44 “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye be children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. […] 41 Ye do the works of your father.” They said unto him, We were not born of fornication: we have one Father, that is, God. 42 Jesus saith unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth from God, and came from him; for I came not of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why understand ye not what I say? Because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye desire to do. […] The bold is mine.

Just as we are not literally “born” again, which is what Nicodemus was asking, we are not literally “born” children of the devil either. Rather, it is a spiritual bondage and a spiritual rebirth. If you are a child of God, it means that you have experienced the new spiritual birth, you have been born again, and you are saved.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian apologist best known for her YouTube channel where she features content from a former New-Ager . She holds two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education and another in Liberal Arts . She is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary .

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo
Edited by Monica Pirateque

Original Source: https://bit.ly/3nJvC1t

February 16, 2023/by Guest

Satan at the Grammy’s?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

J.R. Klein (Josh Klein)

The Grammy’s have long been a cultural symbol of transgression. The goal of the Grammy’s used to be to celebrate the best music artists in the world. It was an awards night. Or, at least, it used to be.

They have always been edgy and culturally progressive. For instance, in 1973 Helen Reddy thanked God for her award but referred to God as “she” while doing so.[i] The secular entertainment industry lends itself to this sort of subversive rhetoric.

But recently the Grammy’s have become more than a shocking cultural display while recognizing the best secular artists of the day. Long before 2023’s shocking performance by Sam Smith and Kim Petras[ii], they had shifted from shocking and transgressive to lewd and Satanic.

This is not a conspiratorial statement. You will hear no talk of Illuminati, MK Ultra, or Demon possession here, but what the Grammy’s has become, whether the people who are involved realize it or not, is a worship service to deeds of darkness and even Satan himself. This slide may have been overtly realized in 2023, but elements of Satanic worship have made their way into the Grammy’s for decades.

First, I want to explain what I mean by Satanic. I do not mean Occult, or the literal worship of Satan. There were, as far as I am aware, no literal virgin sacrifices or summoning of demons on February 5th. What I do mean is an unwitting plunge into the darkness of which the performers, actors, and producers are barely aware. As they dance in overtly Satanic gear they think they are shedding light on darkness through mockery, but they accomplish the opposite and open themselves up to demonic influence in the process.

Judge less, love more, they say,[iii] but love means affirmation in this realm. Reality pushes pack, love cannot affirm untruth.[iv]

I don't know who needs to hear this… But the Grammy's has been home to satanic rituals for years now, they're just bolder now.

— J.R. Klein (@JoshRKlein) February 7, 2023

The best trick Satan ever pulled was convincing the culture that he either does not exist or that following his ideals leads to power and pleasure without limits. Satan’s goal is not to be worshipped. He is not interested in that. His goal is simply to stop the worship of the one true God and destroy what is good. It could look overt, like it did on February 5^th, or, more often, it looks normal – the choice to commit to a sport over church, the choice to pursue a career at the expense of your marriage. Satan was once an angel of light, he understands how to deceive, but once the culture has bought the covert deceptions he will move in for the kill.

In John 10:10 Jesus gives us a behind the scenes look at Satan’s goals. He comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. A performance need not be invoking Satanic worship or summoning Demons to be considered a Satanic ritual – it need only be a full embrace of darkness, theft of light, death of good, and destruction of holiness.

Sam Smith’s performance accomplished all three in a single song. He declares darkness light, he mocks God’s created order (declaring himself as non-binary, and his co-performer is transgender), and he destroys holiness with a full-on plunge into radical self-autonomy and pleasure. The song he performs is literally entitled Unholy. It glorifies infidelity and promiscuity.

Once we recognize that Satanism, according to its forefathers Aleister Crowley and Anton Lavey, is not merely the worship of Satan, but first and foremost the worship of self we can begin to understand the influence it has had on the entertainment industry.

Perhaps another time we can do a deep dive into the history of both Crowley and Lavey, but suffice it to say that the modern Satanic movements are built on their ideology. Crowley was a much more religious figure than Lavey. Lavey[v] sought to popularize Satanism by tying it to an atheistic framework, Crowley[vi], on the other hand, bought into the spiritual realm. One strand of thought that extending from Crowley to influence the Laveyan popularization[vii] of Satanism, however, was a quote from Crowley himself, “Do What Thou Wilt.”[viii]

Lavey would often scoff at the idea that his group worshiped a literal Satan (as would Crowley to some degree) but that the Church of Satan stood for what Satan symbolized in Paradise Lost. A 17^th century poem by John Milton[ix]. Radical self-autonomy, including the ability to choose what is right and wrong rather than simply to recognize the difference between right and wrong, stood at the heart of Laveyan Satanism.

The irony of the Satanic church is, while their Satanic worship is supposedly tongue-in-cheek, their worship of self and desire to choose for themselves what is right and wrong is, in fact, the very same thing Satan used in the garden to entice Eve. In essence, they worship the literal Satan without even realizing that is what they are doing, and Satan would have it no other way.

So, what does this have to do with the Grammy’s?

Within the backdrop of this form of Satanism we find the rise of the modern entertainment industry. The worship of self-gratification and self-actualization transgresses the Christian belief of self-sacrifice and holy living (Matthew 16; Rom. 12, Col. 3:5-10). Whether intentional or not, the worship of self leads to deeds of darkness and the glorification thereof.

One need not perform a literal Black Mass to worship the Devil. Simply look in the mirror and whisper, “I am a god.”

The Grammy’s, in that sense, have been a bastion of Satanic ritual for decades. Hedonism, Paganism, and Satanism are mostly all sides of the same coin and rewards season in Hollywood, specifically the Grammy’s, has become a once-a-year ritual of worship that slips from naturalism to hedonism to Satanism in the blink of an eye.

But don’t take my word for it, CBS allegedly tweeted as much before the Grammy’s:

Gotta love @CBS openly admitting that they, alongside Sam Smith, "WORSHIP" (their words, not mine) the devil… #GRAMMYs pic.twitter.com/IDtb7O5ruX

— Shawn Farash (@Shawn_Farash) February 6, 2023

How quickly we forget that the last ten years have seen a steady increase of Satanic boldness at the Grammy’s. Smith’s performance was not new or edgy, it was simply more in a pattern of self-worship from the power brokers of the entertainment industry.

In 2012, Nicki Manaj performed a mock exorcism on stage[x]. The Washington Post was shocked. But the Post lauded Smith and Petras’ performance of Unholy only a decade later[xi] as one of the top four performances of the night.

In 2014, Katy Perry performed an enigmatic and dark song called Dark Horse. In the song she emerged from a crystal ball with shadowy figures summoning her to a black altar when a red cross appeared on her chest, she danced with a broom and ended the performance being burnt at the stake.[xii] Seemed a bit on the nose at the time, but 2023 takes the cake in that regard. This same year the Grammy’s held a mass “wedding ceremony” for gay couples as well, explicitly mocking a church service in the process[xiii].

In 2015, Madonna (who also introduced Smith in 2023) performed a song called Living for Love with background dancers clad in demonic garb[xiv].

In 2017, A pregnant Beyoncé performed what looked like an ode to her goddess-self giving birth to a child. But, again, you do not have to take my word for it[xv].

In 2019, a metal band called Ghost won a Grammy. The band is known for its Satanic imagery. Its lead man often dons clothing associated with the Occult and riddled with references to Satan, darkness, upside down crosses and demonic imagery[xvi]. Leading man Tobias Forge says this of their message:

“I think it’s sad that people are wasting their time thinking that we’re bad for people, when actually what we’re really trying to do is make people happy and make people feel good about themselves when they come to our show and have a good time.”

Do what thou wilt, one might say.

2021 and 2022 had similarly eerie performances, one by Post Malone[xvii] in which he was surrounded by darkly hooded monks as he wrestled with the hopelessness he felt in Hollywood’s grips and one by Lil Nas X who performed his song Montero that featured a lap dance on the devil in the music video.

These odes to darkness are not outright Wiccan ritual or Occult sacrifices, but they can often stand in for something just as insidious and more subversive. The point is the destruction of norms, reclaiming of a new morality, and recasting of darkness disguised as light. Make no mistake – the Devil smiles at such displays, not because he is worshipped but because that which is being worshipped is not, in fact, the one true God.

This brings us to the most recent spectacle. At the 2023 Grammy’s, self-proclaimed non-binary performer Sam Smith and transgender performer Kim Petras combined to present the most brazen tribute to modern day Satanism to date, with their presentation of the song Unholy.

Kim (born Tim), a transgender woman who had gender reassignment surgery at the age of 16[xviii] writhed around in a cage guarded by demonic strippers while Sam Smith gyrated with and performed with transgender strippers dressed in demonic costumes. The whole display lacked subtlety and imagination. You were seeing, in full display, a desire to embrace darkness for the very fact that reality is offensive to our fleshly desires. We can make our own reality, where gender is a matter of opinion and sexes can change through the miracle of modern medicine. We can choose for ourselves what is good and what is evil and be damned if you disagree.

Petras had this to say about the performance:

“I think a lot of people, honestly, have kind of labeled what I stand for and what Sam stands for as religiously not cool, and I personally grew up wondering about religion and wanting to be a part of it but slowly realizing it didn’t want me to be a part of it… So it’s a take on not being able to choose religion. And not being able to live the way that people might want you to live, because as a trans person I’m already not kind of wanted in religion. So we were doing a take on that and I was kind of hell-keeper Kim.”[xix]

There is a lot to break down in this quote. It gives a glimpse into the slippery slope from individual autonomy to the embrace of evil itself. At first glance one might empathize with the apparent ostracization of Petras, but the admission here is not that religion would not have him, it is that he would not have religion. Whatever god Petras would willingly serve must first bend the knee at his own self-actualization.

The Christian life, though, is about dying to self and rising with Christ, remade, a new creation (Matt. 16:24-26, Rom 12:1-3; 1 Cor. 6:19-20) and being transformed into obedience to truth which is Jesus himself. The problem was not that Kim could not choose religion, it is that religion, Christianity in particular, required a change in identity for Kim. It meant not looking inward for validation hope, or truth but looking upward.

Ironically, Kim’s own performance shows the truth of his commitment, the self-actualization into radical autonomy left him writhing in a cage, unfree, trapped in Hell. What promises as freedom is bondage but what looks like constraint is freedom (John 8:32; 10:10). Had Kim or Sam chosen Jesus they might find that they would not need to seek applause and shock to remain relevant, whole and fulfilled. Our culture’s promise that sexual pleasure is the highest pursuit, and victimhood the highest virtue only leads to hopelessness and irrelevance.

Is it worth it in the long run?

“Age does not matter to me… I’m never going to stop fully clubbing and loving gay clubs and going to them. That’s just who I am.”[xx]

Kim Petras

But what about when age does matter? What about when the fame fades? What then?

If the Enemy can keep us focused on the here and now rather than the there and then he has won half the battle. This game is endless, exhausting, and boring all at the same time. Always having to look for the next shocking display, the next transgressive cause to burn down the norms of history. It seems like a high calling because of the cultural plaudits, but it is meaningless and empty of value. There’s a reason Madonna, at 64, can’t let go of her 1980s self and must always insert herself into these moments.

The culture of transgression is fleeting, being a sex symbol only lasts for a few years before you are cast aside for the next and hottest new thing. The worship of self, pleasure, and identity only gives meaning for a short time, but it is long enough to waste a lifetime. Satan knows this and his desire to amplify this meaningless self-worship has eternal consequences.

So, what is the Christian’s response to things like this?

First, I believe our role is to expose the darkness for what it is (John 1:5) and to avoid loving what it stands for (1 John 2:15) but we must also pray for those that are mired in it to be exposed to the light. May they find true hope, peace, and purpose. I do not hate Sam Smith or Kim Petras, on the contrary, I love them deeply. I want them to know and understand the deep and abiding love that Christ has for them. I want them to experience a rest from their pursuit of relevance, acceptance, fame, and pleasure.

Our goal should be similar to what Jesus revealed to Paul as he was sent among the hedonistic and pagan nations of the gentiles:

“…To open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me (Acts:26:18).”

We must recognize, as Paul did, that the world is, whether they realize it or not, under the power of Satan. This sort of darkness, this worship of self, certainly opens individuals and cultures up to the influence of the spiritual realm. Satan is the prince of this world (Eph. 2:1-2) and they serve him whether they realize it or not. The enemy, however, is not Sam Smith or Kim Petras but the dark and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12).

We cannot be naïve about these things, but we also must not overreact out of fear either. We must be sober-minded and watchful (1 Peter 5:8) prepared to engage with the boldness of love and truth.

In the end though, we must remember that Satan’s greatest weapon against the church is not a dark cultural display at the Grammy’s but in false gospels, fear, and ineffectiveness. So while we ought to be aware of these things, we should be more concerned about our own churches, neighborhoods, and Bible studies lest we get distracted by things like the Grammy’s at the expense of real and true discipleship.