Last week we considered another example of how God’s word can be misrepresented and twisted to mean the opposite of what God intended—the protest folk song, “Turn! Turn! Turn!” While it’s catchy and inoffensive at the casual first listen, attention soon yields the realization that the singer, in his sanctimony, believes the greater part of his audience is insufficiently enlightened to desire peace, of all things, and must be directed by his moral betters in the…entertainment industry…to pursue what is good. This week, we’ll follow the same theme, using a different medium.

Fact, or Truth?

So far we have considered two songs that abused the Scriptures in order to insinuate the opposite of what they mean. What happens, when artists openly alter or add to God’s word, for artistic purposes?

Almost since the motion picture industry’s birth, religious material has represented a sizeable share of its output. In particular, adaptations of biblical stories have been common. Every last one of these is riddled with inaccuracies, of course, and religious commentators are keen to tell us about them! From Zipporah’s creative backstory in 1998’s The Prince of Egypt, to Jesus’ bar mitzvah in 1977’s Jesus of Nazareth, to the exploding golden calf in 1956’s The Ten Commandments, to the soap opera antics of 2014’s Noah, there’s always extrabiblical material in these presentations. If they become public sensations, you’ll find very serious-minded individuals denouncing their lack of faithfulness to the source material. In their view, this is blasphemy. For some reason, one never seems to hear such criticisms of a film like 1998’s Saving Private Ryan, which manufactures details as much as any biblical epic. In fact, it’s widely considered to be among the most accurate war films ever made! But some people create unattainable standards for anything religious.

On the other hand, it’s easy to go too far in the opposite direction. Ted Neeley, who portrayed Jesus in 1973’s Jesus Christ Superstar, recalled that Pope Paul VI told him, “I believe it will bring more people around the world to Christianity than anything ever has before.” One can at least hope that Neeley doesn’t understand Italian very well, and something was lost in translation. A similar folly is evident in the credulous idolatry of a select few who hold up artistic representations as basically revelations from God. This is the very problem the grumpy purists feared! Even though many of these adaptations are accompanied by disclaimers, to the effect that they are not intended as a replacement for reading the Bible, some people take what they like and cling to it, regardless of what the Author says. In fact, the Monty Python crew produced a movie mostly focused on mocking this very tendency, 1979’s cutting (but highly raunchy) Life of Brian, a parody of the “life of Christ” film genre. It’s a sad state of affairs, but anything you create is liable to be misused, if enough people get their hands on it. Nothing is foolproof, to a sufficiently talented fool.

So, how should Christians approach modern religious art, which largely consists of film and TV adaptations of biblical stories? A verse from last week helps: “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven” (Ec 3.1). If you keep them in their proper place, there’s no reason not to make good use of them. If you demand perfect adherence to the text, then, well, no one’s stopping you from reading your Bible! But it’s an impossible standard, for any artwork. We don’t know how a single one of these people looked or sounded; just by putting a face or a voice to Ruth or Barnabas, you’re adding extrabiblical details. You may say those details don’t matter; but the artists would say that, in a visual medium, they matter just as much as Simon the Zealot’s backstory, which likewise is not recorded in the Bible, but makes useful fodder for contemplation, and perhaps even edification. Art is supposed to affect us for the better, and its effectiveness is not limited to its words. When King Saul was tormented by a harmful spirit, “David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well” (1Sa 16.23).

Of course, this power can also be perverted into sensuality, as was the case with the later King Herod, who was so “pleased” by his step-daughter’s dance that he gave her as a reward the severed head of an innocent man he’d intended to keep alive (Mt 14.6ff). That’s making the art into an object of worship—an idol. But if we avoid that hazard, artistic depictions can be edifying, precisely because they are fantasies. We interpret reality all the time, but it’s limited in its scope. Art helps us to exercise our spiritual discernment by contemplating hypothetical situations. We can use Frodo, or Aslan, or Yoda, or Batman to make moral observations which, in turn, enable us to see the real world more clearly. These are the furthest thing from factual accounts, yet they help us to grasp truths.

Despite being largely fantasy, most of the biblical adaptations available today, from the absurdly irreverent Jesus Christ Superstar to the unsettlingly realistic The Passion of the Christ, contain well-crafted presentations of important spiritual insights. The same is true of The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and—yes—even Star Wars and Batman. If you want to know what really happened, read and study the Bible. If you want to understand heaven and earth better…well, read and study the Bible for that, too; but then give your powers of discernment a good workout, by observing and contemplating art.

Jeremy Nettles

*3/26/15 interview with Michael Heaton for Cleveland, OH newspaper The Plain Dealer

Last week we considered an example of how Satan can use God’s words to deceive and destroy. By making subtle alterations to the message or the context, he can tempt even those who earnestly desire to know and serve God, if they still harbor yearnings for the world’s acceptance. That example was a poem from Scripture, twisted and set to music in a popular song, then invited into the church by unwitting Christians. This week’s example follows a similar pattern, but instead remains in the cultural sphere, with greater reach than the obscure Rastafari disco.

An Atheist’s Hymn

In 1965, folk rock band The Byrds released a single called “Turn! Turn! Turn!” which Pete Seeger had composed in 1959. The Byrds’ version became a number-one hit in the US and performed very well worldwide. Before the 60s were complete, four more covers of the song had already seen commercial success. This song was on to something.

While it was credited to Pete Seeger above, that’s not the full story. The song is almost entirely taken from Ecclesiastes.

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:

a time to be born, and a time to die;

a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;

a time to kill, and a time to heal;

a time to break down, and a time to build up;

a time to weep, and a time to laugh;

a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;

a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

a time to seek, and a time to lose;

a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

a time to tear, and a time to sew;

a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

a time to love, and a time to hate;

a time for war, and a time for peace.

(Ecclesiastes 3.1-8)

Seeger used an older translation, of course, and reordered words where necessary to suit the meter, but not much more.

Well, isn’t that great? A popular—nay, several popular musicians acknowledged Solomon’s God-given wisdom, and caused the listening public to memorize a lengthy passage of the Bible! How uplifting! The problem is that it’s garbage. How can that be, when it’s the word of God? The key comes in the very few words added to God’s. In the first place, there’s the title: “Turn! Turn! Turn!” Perhaps this seems like a reference to the cyclical nature of human existence; but why the exclamation marks, and repetition? It is also sung, behind the more meaningful opening lyrics. But the more obvious point is at the end at the song. After the line, “a time for peace,” comes a final assessment: “I swear, it’s not too late!”

Not too late, for what? Well, “for peace.” It’s an anti-war protest song, urging the listener to “Turn!” from the present course. Due to his atheism, Seeger saw nothing beyond the physical realm. Amid the threat of nuclear war and global destruction, he preferred allowing oppressors to expand their realms, enslave, and kill more and more people, rather than risk war. One wonders why “a time for peace” appears to be the only line from the Bible that matters, to the exclusion of “a time to kill,” “a time to hate,” and “a time for war.” Perhaps the idea was that this time is for peace and not war; but if so, the claim is never examined, only asserted. On top of that, it’s worth noting that Seeger had originally protested against American involvement even in World War II—not until Pearl Harbor was bombed, but until his beloved Soviet Union was attacked by Hitler.

Even at the time, some others saw through the silliness. Satirist Tom Lehrer mocked,

It takes a certain amount of courage to get up in a coffeehouse or a college auditorium and come out in favor of the things that everybody else in the audience is against, like peace, and justice, and brotherhood, and so on.

(Tom Lehrer, “The Folk Song Army,” That Was the Year that Was, 1965, Warner Bros.)

Yet, the protest song movement in general, and this song in particular continued to have wide appeal, even today. The source of the lyrics is taken as evidence that the song is profound. If you poke around the internet you’ll find that nearly every reference to this song mentions the lyrics’ biblical origin, and most comments by random individuals do the same, in reverential tones. But the author had undercut the Scripture, by ignoring the inconvenient parts, and adding his own imbecilic commentary. The point of “Turn! Turn! Turn!” is very simple: war is bad. This message resonates, but it’s far too simplistic. As Solomon wrote, there is, in fact, “a time for war” (Ec 3.8). Far more serious thinkers than Seeger and his ilk have addressed the question of war. For example, Augustine of Hippo wrote, “Peace is not sought, in order to stir up war; rather, war is waged, in order to achieve peace” (Letters, 189.6).

§

Much like some Christians foolishly laid hold of a Rastafari abomination on the grounds that it was mostly from the Bible, many people—Christians, or not—to this day enjoy an avowed atheist’s misinterpretation of Solomon’s ode to the balance of life, and welcome an absurd message into their very souls, thinking it’s “the pure spiritual milk” of God’s word, which promotes salvation. But it’s a perversion, illustrating how gullible we can be. Even before the close of the first century, the Apostle John warned Christians,

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

(1 John 2.18)

God’s Word—both written and incarnate—has been misrepresented, altered, and turned into an idol countless times. Be careful whose interpretation you believe.

Jeremy Nettles

(part 1)

Those of you who carefully file these articles in triplicate and obsessively reread and memorize them may recall that this title is already somewhat spoken for—in the the 3^rd issue of Volume V, published in January 2024, entitled “How to ‘Test the Spirits.’” In that installment we considered a variety of tools to help us assess spiritual messengers and teachings, as the Bible says: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1Jn 4.1). But How? is not the only worthwhile question in this matter. There’s also Why? To answer this, over the next few weeks let’s consider some illustrations from the world of pop culture. Some are old, but easier to discern on account of their age and the demise of the cultural moments that begat them.

Rastafari Claptrap

In 1970 a Jamaican reggae band called The Melodians adapted Psalm 137 and set it to music. When this song was used in a movie two years later, both Rivers of Babylon and reggae music generally gained worldwide appeal. The better known recording came in 1978, from British disco group Boney M. It became a major hit. Soon enough, the song appeared in Alton Howard’s 1994 hymnal Songs of Faith and Praise, in an a cappella arrangement by David Sexton, an elusive figure who was apparently acquainted with Howard and developed for this hymnal many trite adaptations of popular songs utterly inappropriate for the assembly of the church.

“But wait,” you ask, “how can a Psalm possibly be inappropriate fare for worship?” In the first place, the tune itself presents an irreverent tone unsuited to the words of the Psalm, which is a bitter lamentation over the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel’s ensuing captivity in Babylon. But the music, while enough to condemn this poor excuse for a hymn on its own, is just the start.

You see, the words aren’t all from Psalm 137. One section, in both hymnal and reggae/disco versions, comes from a different Psalm:

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart

        be acceptable in your sight,

        O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

(Psalm 19.14)

Well, that’s no problem—although even by the hymnal’s 14^th printing in the year 2000, the editors had not yet discovered that this portion of the lyrics came from a different Psalm. They continued to erroneously ascribe these words to “Psalm 137” at the top of the page, showing that they didn’t know either Psalm very well, and didn’t bother to check. The misattribution isn’t a huge deal; but one of the other alterations certainly is! While the Psalm asks, “How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” (Psalm 137.4), the words in the hymnal follow the reggae song, instead: “How can we sing King Alpha’s song in a strange land?” The arranger and editor probably assumed this referred to John’s vision, in which “he who was seated on the throne” in heaven said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega” (Re 21.5-6). In fact, “King Alpha” referred to Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia, who—despite his own protests—is revered as either the incarnation of the living God Jah, or the second coming of Jesus Christ, or both, in the Rastafarian religion from which this Jamaican song was born.

Perhaps you begin to see the problem more clearly, now. In the context of the reggae song, Israel means the African diaspora, “Zion” means Ethiopia (or Africa more broadly), “Babylon” and “the wicked” mean white people, “captivity” refers to the Atlantic slave trade, and the references to Psalm 137 point toward its final, unsung lines,

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,

        blessed shall he be who repays you

        with what you have done to us!

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones

        and dashes them against the rock!

(Psalm 137.8-9)

Rastas believe nuclear war between white Westerners is inevitable, and will destroy Western hegemony in a Day of Judgment, ushering in a return to paradise—Africa—for the righteous, identified primarily by the color of their skin. This perversity is just the tip of the iceberg that is Rastafarianism.

But this would not be the first time apostates or charlatans tried to bend God’s word to suit their own purposes! The same thing has gone on since the Garden! Satan used God’s words—with a minor tweak, and a heap of half-true contextualization—to tempt Eve into eating the forbidden fruit. He also quoted Psalm 91, in tempting Jesus in the wilderness (this time without success). Satan’s abuse doesn’t spoil God’s word; the answer is never to cede scripture to the enemy. We should instead take it back, and put it in its proper context! Could this song be redeemed for “honorable use” (2Ti 2.21)? No—the song is intrinsically bad, and not worth the struggle. The Psalm is what we should reclaim.

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

(James 4.4)

Stories like this one demonstrate not only Christians’ too-frequent gullibility, but also our desire to fit in with the world. As soon as the world—represented in this case by a music and entertainment industry steeped in horrific immorality and godlessness—as soon as the world quotes the Bible, Christians fall over themselves to receive its approval and invite the world to a seat at Jesus’ table. We certainly ought to be welcoming toward the people of the world, but they—and we—must leave the world behind and take up with Christ, not bring worldliness to his table.

Jeremy Nettles

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(John 1.1)

The premier lexicon of New Testament Greek bears the unwieldy name, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. While this title certainly lets the reader know what to expect of its contents, the book is colloquially known as BDAG, an acronym for the names of its authors and editors, W. Bauer, F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. From this information you can already tell this book will be an incredibly dense, academically rigorous work capable of making most would-be scholars dizzy, and putting many of the rest to sleep. This is, in part, a self-referential illustration of the special power of words. On one hand, a few words can have an astonishing effect on people and events—

Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.

(James 3.4-5)

But on the other hand countless words can be expended in even a failed attempt to adequately explain fairly simple truths—

Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

(Ecclesiastes 12.12)

This is most apparent where the spiritual realm is concerned. Even if we possess a firm understanding of many true things, the job of articulating them to others is by no means easy! While we make sense of our thoughts using language, and express them to others by the same method, the words themselves don’t do justice to the full picture.

So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

(1 Corinthians 2.11-13)

In BDAG, the abovementioned lexicon, the entry for λόγος-logos-“word” fills three large pages with minuscule 9-point font. It uses approximately four thousand words to define the word, word—and to catalog appearances of each of its eleven distinct senses in the Bible and other pertinent Greek literature. Why must it be so complicated? Well, if you consult a sizeable English dictionary, you’ll find a similarly thorough explanation, although most likely lacking the literary references. In both languages, what seems like it ought to be among the simplest words to define, is actually used in a variety of ways.

The primary sense of λόγος-logos is, “a communication whereby the mind finds expression, word” (BDAG, p.599). The English sense is a bit different. Although we use word to describe a wide variety of more complex, multi-word expressions, it boils down to the smallest meaningful, self-contained linguistic element—a word. Perhaps this subtle distinction is why the Bible uses λόγος-logos to convey everything from “statement,” to “question,” to “message,” to “report,” to “instruction,” to “a speech,” to “gospel,” to “commandment,” to “subject,” to “book,” to “reckoning,” to “reason,” to “motive” (BDAG, pp.599-601). But there’s another prominent sense, the culmination of all the others: “the independent personified expression of God, the Logos” (p.601).

The Apostle John repeatedly identifies this Logos as Jesus. He is the personification of God’s Word, the expression of God’s mind, by which he has communicated his purposes to his creations. As Paul told us in the passage quoted above, only God’s Spirit comprehends his thoughts (1Co 2.11); but his point was that God has given us his Spirit, and therefore the ability to comprehend at least part of his mind! How do we express God’s thoughts to others? Using “words,” of course (v13)!

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

(Hebrews 11.3)

God’s Word has always been paramount. He spoke the universe into existence, and since then, while he has made ample use of visions, spirits, and silent providence, by far his most valuable and purposeful influence over man has been though his word. He spoke to Adam in the garden “saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat’” (Ge 2.16-17). He “said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.’” (12.1). From a burning bush, to Moses he “said, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’” (Ex 3.6). From Mount Sinai, to Israel “God spoke all these words, saying,

‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery’” (20.1). God promised to replace Moses with another prophet, saying, “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (De 18.18). Through countless prophets he kept his word, through one invoking yet another sense of λόγος-logos, “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord” (Is 1.18).

God has shared his Word with his people in many fashions, and over vast stretches of time; but in former days, our inherent limitations led to almost universal failure to comprehend the spiritual truths God communicated by his spoken word. But praise be to God, “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (He 1.1). Jesus is the perfect expression of the mind of God, his Word made flesh. Listen to him.

Jeremy Nettles

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

(James 3.13-18)

In last week’s article, we considered the attributes of earthly wisdom, especially its moral ambiguity. Earthly wisdom often agrees with heavenly wisdom, but it does so for the wrong reasons. For example, a wise atheist may well conclude that parents ought to nurture and provide for their children, but his reasons will have to do with an orderly society. That’s a genuine concern, but the real reasons are, first, that God commands it; and second, that children are entrusted to parents by God, the parent-child relationship mirrors an aspect of God’s relationship to man, and parents stand in the place of God for their children, so they are obligated to represent him faithfully, enact his will, and raise their children in genuine love. Earthly wisdom has no time for this. It is ultimately demonic (v15), not because it consciously serves Satan’s will, but because refusing to acknowledge the spiritual realm submits to Satan’s influence just as well. But what characterizes heavenly wisdom?

Pure

We generally think of purity as uniformity, and specifically a lack of contamination. In English it has pretty well always meant that, but the Greek word here thus translated, ἁγνή-hagnē, only takes the meaning, unadulterated, by an extension of its core sense. Originally it was almost synonymous with holy, and was used to describe God and the things that pertain to him. Dedication to God means behaving in a way that pleases him. This conduct is morally upright in and of itself, and someone who is truly devoted to serving God does not disobey him and call it righteousness. Our wisdom, likewise, should be from God, and not superseded by earthly principles when they suit our desires.

Peaceable

Heavenly wisdom seeks peace, rather than conflict. That doesn’t mean conflict is wrong, or even unwise. Paul wrote to the Romans, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Ro 12.18). This upholds the goal, but acknowledges that peace is not always possible, and may depends on others, who insist on strife. But the person who stirs up conflict does not have God’s wisdom.

Gentle

The word behind this is ἐπιεικής-epieikēs, which is tough to pin down. “Gentle” is a good translation, but built into this word is the notion that the “gentle” person has good reason not to be! Synonyms include indulgent and tolerant. As with the previous item, this doesn’t mean limitless toleration; but it does mean giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Open to Reason

If you never allow yourself to be persuaded, you’re not using heavenly wisdom. As usual, there’s a limit—this doesn’t mean being wishy-washy. The Bible often tells us to be steadfast! But that is about being firmly anchored in Christ, our foundation. When considering possible paths, or exercising judgment among—or even over—brothers, it’s important that they can reason with you.

Full of Mercy and Good Fruits

This seems self-explanatory; but what is mercy? In a theological sense, we usually think of mercy as withholding well-deserved punishment; and that’s fine, considering our relationship to God and the forgiveness he offers. But it’s not actually the way the word is normally used in the Bible. We can see its common usage in the lawyer’s response to the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus asked,

“Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.”

(Luke 10.36-37)

It’s important to show mercy in the narrow sense of forgiveness; but also in the broader sense, showing kindness to those in need. This exemplifies good fruit, which Jesus also admonishes us to bear.

Impartial

Earlier in the book James warned,

if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

(James 2.3-4)

You can see fleshly motivations for dividing people into favored and disfavored classes, but this is foreign to heavenly wisdom.

Sincere

Literally “without hypocrisy,” this means the outward conduct is a genuine reflection of the inner thoughts, and not an attempt to mask them. The person who has heavenly wisdom has no need for dishonesty, and his fruits speak well of him.

§

What is the result of heavenly wisdom? The surrounding verses give us the answer. The wise man has “good conduct” (v13) that leads to “a harvest of righteousness…sown in peace” (v18). Earthly wisdom, on the other hand, led to “disorder and every vile practice” (v16)! Which path will you follow?

Jeremy Nettles