Does the Bible Endorse Slavery? (II)

download

One of the common charges levied against the Bible is that, since the New Testament writers exhorted slaves to obey their masters in the Roman social system, the Bible actually approves of slavery and has contributed to inhumanity and oppression.

First of all, the atheist has no moral or logical ground to stand on to condemn slavery. If our actions are determined by random collisions of molecules in our brain – as many atheists believe – then slavery cannot be morally wrong. It would be an expression of natural selection.

Unbelievers vainly boast that humans, not God, put an end to slavery in America while the slave traders justified their dehumanization with some Bible verses. The fact is, the abolitionists were Christians, and they appealed to the Bible to support their anti-slavery stance.

The chancellor of Protestant University, William Wilson, stated that slavery was “at war with the image of God in which man was created” as it treats other humans as less than human as God created him and lowering the person to property.

On the other hand, the biblical texts the pro-slavery advocates were able to cobble together were weak, astutely wrenched and tortured paths.

These men were simply a bunch of wicked, racist and bigoted folks who used the Bible to rationalize their atrocities. That didn’t mean the Bible was really on their side.

Even the most well intentioned religious text can be misinterpreted and misused by people for their own advantage. Interestingly, the Western slave masters and modern atheists are united in their absurd misinterpretation and mutilation of the Bible. They approach the Book the same way a butcher approaches a hog!

It’s not enough for skeptics of all stripes to quote some extracted Bible verses (often to “prove” their preconceived notions), we must examine the complete testimony and see the big picture.

Of course, the dogmatic Bible hater will derisively dismiss this, but once their false assertions are refuted, their propaganda collapses into a pile of pixie dust.

The following texts are often quoted to “prove” that the NT upholds slavery:

“Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord” (Colossians 3:22).

Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ” (Ephesians 6:5)

Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative” (Titus 2:9).

1. Jesus Christ had already pointed to the mission of freedom from all forms of slavery: spiritual, mental and physical. Quoting Isaiah 61:1-2, He declared:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed (Lk. 4:18).

The practical application of this verse is what led to the elucidation of freedom and the denunciation of forms of slavery.

2. The church was born into an already existing secular social world. Christianity didn’t come with a social reform programme for Israel and Rome, because that is not how the kingdom of God – which is inward, rather than geographical – works.

Therefore, when apostle Paul exhorts slaves within the Roman systems to behave themselves, he is not promoting or advocating the situation they were in, but was calling for good conduct while in such an already existing predicament in the hopes that their masters would see such good conduct and convert to Christianity and be saved (Titus 2:10). It was for the benefit of people’s eternal salvation.

3. The apostles weren’t revolutionaries and the early Christians were minorites. The older religions within the Roman Empire (Heathenism, Mystery Religions, State religion) should have borne a higher responsibility of emancipation of slaves because they had greater political might.

As for Eph. 6:5 what did unbelievers expect Paul to say? Should he incite Christian slaves to defy their Roman masters? What do they think happened to insubordinate slaves under Roman law? Did they even bother to think that far?

Under Roman law, a runaway slave was often mercilessly dealt with:

“He could be scourged branded, mutilated, or fitted with a metal collar, perhaps even be crucified, thrown to beasts, or killed. (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon, Doubleday Publishing, 2000, p. 28).

I am sure that if the NT had admonished Christian slaves to rebel against their Roman masters, modern atheists would still find a way to gripe over that. If believers walked by the Tiber, cynics would still say they walked because they couldn’t swim.

4. Paul exhorts slave masters to treat their slaves well. He commands those who are slave masters in this existing social system to be good to and not threaten their slaves.

Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your hearts. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free” (Eph. 6:6-8)

5. Paul affirmed freedom over slavery

Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so” (1 Cor. 7:21).

Gleason Archer has shown that while Paul exhorted slaves to obey their masters, he said that slaves should do do all in their ability to purchase their own freedom. (Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982, p. 87).

6. The Bible does not support Slave and Master casses

Slavery runs on the cultural machinery of racial, political, religious and social-economic superiority. But the Bible elevates man as created in the image of God and affirms the equality of all men. This conflicts with the idea behind slavery.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).

Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1)

Here, apostle Paul affirms both slaves and masters are equal having a true master in heaven, and that masters on earth must not mistreat their slaves.

7. The Bible condemns slavery and the slave trade

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

Notice that slavery is included in the list of vices here and slave traders are grouped together with murderers and ungodly people.

In Revelation 18:10-13 Babylon is rebuked and judged in the context of trafficking slaves and greedily making wealth with merchants:

And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore … cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and slaves, that is, human souls.”

Most unbelievers are fond of selectively citing bible passages and neglecting cross-references, hence giving a distorted picture. And the most arrogant part is how they believe they know the Bible more than Christians who have spent the whole of their lives studying it.

Advertisements

Does the Bible Endorse Slavery? (I)

download

Whenever the topic of Islam-approved slavery is brought up by a Christian, a typical tu quoque (“you too”) response of Islam’s apologists is to point to some places in the Bible where slavery is allegedly endorsed – a response that ignores the fact that Christianity predates Islam by 6 centuries.

Slavery-in-the-bible also constitutes one of the garden variety arguments used by Atheists to virulently attack the God of the Bible. The “glue” binding both groups of Bible bashers – Muslims and atheists – is the dollop of emotional blackmail infused into their (mis)perception of slavery.

Whenever biblical slavery is mentioned by such people, it is often deployed to incite an emotional reaction connected with the racist slavery of the American south in the 18th and 19th centuries, or other brutal instances of slavery in the ancient world.

However, to read such concepts into Old Testament Israelite servanthood or the foreign slavery which the Bible permits, would be absolutely inaccurate and deceptive.

In this article, the stark differences between OT servanthood and American chattel slavery will be highlighted and passages often used by Bible haters will be explained. In the next article, we will examine passages pertaining to slavery in the New Testament.

1. It might interest skeptics to know that the terms “slave” and “master” used in the OT are not the best translations of Hebrew words ‘ebed and ‘adon. The word ‘ebed simply means “employee” or “servant” and should not be translated “slave.”

Old Testament scholar, John Goldingay, noted that “there is nothing inherently lowly or undignified about being an ‘ebed.” Instead it was an honourable and dignified term” (John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, Intervarsity, 2009, Vol. 3, p. 460).

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT notes that ebed can refer to “servant of a household” and cites Exodus 21:2 which will still be examined later in this piece.

Mounce’s Dictionary also defines the word as a “servant.” An ‘adon in Hebrew was a “boss” or “employer” in these contexts and “master” is a bit too strong of a translation.

2. The language used in the OT hardly suggests slavery, but rather a formal contractual agreement to be fulfilled. They were more of debt-servanthood arrangements.

When a family incurred debt or experienced a disaster, such as crop failure, an individual could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (that is, “sell” himself) to work in the household of another and pay off his debt. This is stated in Lev. 25:47 “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself.”

A scholar explains:

“Even when the terms buy, sell or acquire are used for servants/employees, they don’t mean the person in question is ‘just property’ . . .  Rather, these are formal contractual agreements, which is what we find in the Old Testament servanthood/employee arrangements. One example of this contracted employer/employee relationship was Jacob’s working for Laban for seven years so that he might marry his daughter Rachel.” (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Baker Books, 2011, p. 125).

3. In addition to what was clarified above, indentured servitude existed primarily as a means of debt payment. These employees lived with and worked for a family for economic sustenance (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:1, 12).

It was like enlisting in the army where you forgo certain freedoms you had as a civilian to enjoy compensatory benefits. The OT affirms God ordained servitude for people as a means of survival when all other means were exhausted.

4. OT slavery was never chattel slavery like the American South was. Indentured servants had certain rights and protections accorded to them by the Mosaic law:

“The ancient Hebrews as a people knew slavery in their Egyptian bondage (Exod. 1:10-14; 5:5-14), from which they eventually were led to be free people under Moses (Exod. 12:37-42). Because of that experience, Mosaic legislation developed certain rules about the keeping of slaves: ‘Remember that once you were salves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; that is why I give you this order today’ (Deut. 15:15; cf. Lev. 25:42-45, 55).

“Even though slavery as a social and economic institution was recognized in ancient Israel, there was a clear attempt to humanize it in a way that set Israel apart from its neighbors. The social and economic structure of ancient Palestine was not, therefore, built on slavery, as it often was in other contemporary cultures and lands.” (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon, Doubleday, 2000, p. 29).

This stands in contrast to American slavery. The agrarian economy of the old South was labour-intensive. Slaves were used as an easy source of cheap, mass labour.

5. OT servants were more like live-in butlers or nannies. They did not walk around with chains around their neck, enduring racism, or being worked to death like in the old South. Lifelong slavery was even forbidden.

Deuteronomy 15:16 shows servants often truly loved the leaders of the household and thought of them as family. Leviticus 25:53 says such servants were to be treated as men “hired from year to year” not “rule[d] over ruthlessly.” According to a reference work:

“Slaves were afforded a degree of legal protection in Israel. The Covenant Code stipulated three basic measures: beating a slave to death would necessitate an unspecified punishment (Ex. 21:30); if a master permanently injured a slave, release of the slave was required (21:26f.); and masters were required to provide the sabbath rest for their slaves (23:12) …

“Besides these general regulations, the law afforded Hebrew slaves further protections. They could be held for only six years (Ex. 21:2ff.; Dt. 15:12; but see Lev. 25:39f.). The Deuteronomic Code further stipulated that the master would have to provide the freedman with animals, grain, and wine (Dt. 15:13f.). They were not returnable to foreign owners if they succeeded in running away (23:15f.)…” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Goeffrey Bromiley, Eerdmans, 1988, Vol. 4, p. 541).

All of these facts destroy the emotional reaction atheists wish to evoke in people when telling them that “the bible endorses slavery.” It’s simple mindedness to meld narratives of slavery in history with this biblical servitude.

On Exodus and Slavery

A favourite passage Bible bashers use to play up their card is Exodus 21:20-21

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”

Notice that according to verse 20, the murder of servants is strongly prohibited and was punishable by death. Of course, unbelievers often ignore this truth because it doesn’t go with the grand plan.

In vs. 21, the boss is given the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t intend to murder the servant but was disciplining him for doing some moral wrong he wasn’t supposed to. In that case the boss would not be put to death since it would be ruled accidental.

This didn’t mean bosses should discipline their servants so cruelly that they died after two days or that this was somehow endorsed. That’s not what the text is saying.

It’s simply saying if such an accidental death occurs after a disciplinary punishment, the boss did not deserve death. Life for a life applied only when there was a wilful intent to murder.

God didn’t allow physical abuse of servants. If an employer’s disciplining his servant resulted in immediate death, that employer (“master”) was to be put to death for murder (Exo. 21:20) – unlike other ancient Near Eastern codes (see Christopher Wright, Old Testament Ethics and the People of God, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2006, p. 292).

Infact, Babylon’s Hammurabi’s Code permitted the master to cut off his disobedient slave’s ear.

Some skeptics gripe over the end of vs. 21 which says, “for the slave is his money,” a remark that seems to suggest the servant was his master’s property. Such distortion of the text to fit the narrative of the bible basher is understandable. We call them skeptics for a reason.

The Hebrew doesn’t say “the slave is his money.” What it says is, “that is his money.” Ancient Near East scholar, Harry Hoffner, has shown in his work, Slavery and Ancient Slavery in Haiti and Israel, that based on the context of Exodus 21:18-19 the text should be rendered, “the fee is his money” in the sense that the fee the boss would pay for medical treatment for the soon-to-die injured servant was money.

From its Hebrew context, the text is saying that the death was accidental and the boss tried to save the servant by paying for medical treatment thus, the boss should not be executed since his punishment or “fee” for this tragic accidental death was money he paid in trying to save the servant.

Finally, another “troubling passage” is Exodus 21:7-11 which makes mention of a man selling his daughter as an ‘amah, rendered “slave” or “servant.”

Here is what an Old Testament scholar has to say:

“This paricope pertains to a girl who is sold by her father, not for slavery, but for marriage. Nonetheless, she is designated a ‘servant’ (‘amah, v. 7). Should the terms of marriage not be fulfilled, it is to be considered a breach of contract, and the purchaser must allow the girl to be redeemed; she must not be sold outside that family (v. 8). Always she must be treated as a daughter or a free-born woman, or the forfeiture clause will be invoked” (Walter Kaiser, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan, 1990, Vol. 2, p. 430).

Once the entire historical and linguistical context of the passage is grasped, the shrill assertions of the critic evaporate into thin air.

Sadly, in their seething rage to attack the Bible, unbelievers never pause to consider that the “50 bad bible verses” they cite (usually gleaned from a village atheist) consist of misinterpreted texts, context butchered, idioms or meanings of words vastly misunderstood, rudimentary, elementary exegetical and hermeneutical principles spat upon and scornfully dismissed.

An Exchange on Unbroken Racism and Rebecca Yoder’s Heresies

download.jpeg

After my previous post on Unbroken Racism, Fanaticism and Paranoia, one of Rebecca Yoder’s loyal fans named SaintAdama, responded on Facebook and I replied to his comments. Eventually, it thinned out to a monologue (just as I predicted).

I particularly welcomed his critique because he’s a guy who follows my page and appears to be knowledgeable.

Aside that, he will be the first individual to come to Rebecca Yoder’s defense since 2016 when I began to openly expose the pair on this blog.

His words appear in blue.

Well, I have personally read about 4 of Rebecca Brown’s books and I do not see anything wrong with them. Though I am yet to read unbroken curses. I think you may be over reacting.

I have a copy of “He came to set the captives free” here. Please can you mention the pages where she refer to the African-American couple as Mr and Mrs Black or Negro? Let me check it.

If you don’t see anything wrong with any aspect of her book, then you need to check your discerning level. Even back then when I was her loyal fan, I found some of her stories hard to relate to.

If you have not read Unbroken Curses, then you can’t be saying I’m overreacting.

The part you asked for is in chapter 19 titled Straight Talk To Those Who Want to Come Out of the Occult. It’s also available online.

***

[Responding to another commenter]:

No! She is not too conscious of demonic activities. I think anyone who is not called into a ministry as she is called will find it hard to understand her.

She is called into HARD CORE spiritual warfare. This involves intense battle with demonic forces and in this battle, you would need to be able to discern spirits and that is why one of the gift of the Holy Spirit is DISCERNMENT … I have found her teachings to be scripturally sound.

You see SaintAdama, I will appeal to you to apply that discernment you speak of.

I once read about a case of a food vendor in the streets of New York who sold a bagel and cream cheese sandwich with a cockroach in it. Would it kill his customer? No, but it will cause problems.

Imagine someone telling that customer to ignore the bug in his food and focus on its sweet taste. That’s the issue with false teachings. Not all of them kill, because they are often mixed up with ice cream.

To be clear, Rebecca Brown had some things right. I can even say that she got a clearer perspective of certain issues than some pastors. But that doesn’t mean everything she taught is true or biblical.

In fact, I have stated it over and over that I will not recommend her book for any new Christian because they also contain some damaging statements, misinterpreted bible verses, contradictions, fictitious claims, demonic obsession and full-blown paranoia.

I still remember the level of mistrust her book, Becoming a Vessel of Honor put in my heart at the age of 16.

I have documented these in my previous post and a three-part series and this [latest] one.

Read it first, check out what is being discussed, then we can dialogue. Let’s not be closed minded. Otherwise, what will be achieved will be a mutual monologue.

Her book: Becoming a vessel did not put any mistrust in my heart. I agree with you that her book should not be recommended for a New Christian because her books are certainly not for baby Christians. They are for the matured who are capable of handling strong bones and deep things.

***

I read the post twice to actually understand what the fault is. But I have not read her book titled: Unbroken Curses. The ones I have read are : Becoming a vessel of honor (in the master’s service), Prepare for War, He came to set the Captives free and Standing on the rock. These are the four of her books that I have read so far. And presently I have the last 3 of them listed in the house here.

If I am to judge by the quotes extracted from her book (Unbroken curses) as given in the post, personally I didn’t see anything wrong with what she said about Africa except that she did say all of it. What I mean by “she didn’t say all of it” is that she seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Western powers are also complicit in many of the violence and wars that have ravaged the black continent.

Apart from that, I do not see how wrong she is in saying that the whole continent of Africa is Characterised by tribal warfare

Absolutely wrong. The vast majority of North Africa was conquered by Arabs. The southern region and several other countries were held in the tight grip of colonial powers. The people had to fight to be free.

that each tribe is consequently ruled by demon gods

Such as? Let’s start with Nigeria. It has no less than 200 ethnic groups. Please, tell me the demon gods controlling each one and how you came to realize this marvelous truth.

because the people of Africa have never broken away from the sins of their forefathers

That’s completely untrue. And you as an African ought to be more informed about your own continent than a sequestered Westerner writing from the Ozarks mountains of Arkansas.

Can you compare the level of idolatry in any state in Nigeria with what was described 50, 60 or 100 years ago when the colonialists first landed on our shores?

How many pagan shrines are still standing and being patronized? How many adherents of paganism do we have in South Western Nigeria alone?

that the whole history of Africa has been incessant warfare and massacres among tribes

Unfortunately, that statement trades on the ignorance of folks who assume Africa is a country rather than a continent.

Can you speak of the whole history of Nigeria alone and conclude it’s of tribal warfare? No. Then you can’t speak for the whole of Africa consisting of many countries.

The sins of the fore fathers which she claim the Africans have not broken from is simply IDOLATRY. Is this not true?

Not at all. That’s why you ought to have read the book first or read the [post] carefully. She said sins (plural). She referred to them as “demon worship and hatred and warfare” (p. 32).

I argue that such sins are also in the West, East, North and South of the world. Why are they not dying like flies like “cursed” Africa? Are you following my gist? Please do.

I know how rampant the worshipping of idols were in my hometown before the light of Christianity came to my land.

Yes. Which gives a lie to the statement that “The people of Africa have never broken away from the sins of their forefathers.”

And how can there be CHRONIC IDOLATRY in the land without that land becoming a STRONG-HOLD of demonic entities? How?

That’s a question for her and her fans. You already said there isn’t any more chronic idolatry even in your home town, so tell me how we are still being wasted by our tribal gods – even regarding African Americans in the U.S.

Every land given to idolatry becomes heavily infested with demonic presence. The idols our fore fathers worshipped were actually demon gods.

The same goes for America, Europe and Oceania. So no Westerner should reduce idolatry to Africa when it was well established in every ancient culture.

In some place, apart from tribal gods, there are also clan gods and also family gods right down to personal or individual gods. Each tribe, each clan, each family, each person have his/her own idol which represent demon gods.

Well, I don’t see them. We know people used to cleave to them, but that is no longer the case as you admitted earlier. So let’s educate ignorant non-Africans who still view us with the eyes of the past.

Did you know that Islamic insurgency played a big part in the war in Somalia which Rebecca Brown was referring to? So how is that also the work of African tribal gods when Allah has dominated the public space?

So what Rebecca said about tribal gods is true.

Not true, as I have shown. She doesn’t blame the pagan gods of Wicca, Masonry or New Age movement for violence among the white race, why did she feel convenient to do the same for Africans?

Is the Jesus that saved us different from the Jesus that saved the whites?

As I type, if you go to some parts of Nigeria now, you find tribal war going on. I heard that the Urhobos and Itshekiri don’t interact, always fighting.

And that’s somehow the fault of tribal gods? No? Could those fights be due to communal land dispute? Political clashes? Religious intolerance? Conflicting traditions? Bitter competition? Is war always monocausal and pinned to idols?

One of Nigerias biggest problem is tribalism. So what she said about tribal wars is also true.

No, you are conflating two different things. Tribalism is a real problem, but not tribal warfare.

When was the last time thousands of Igbo fought and killed thousands of Hausa? Do the Yoruba murder Fulani in wars? What about the Bini and Nupe, do you hear them chanting war songs?

We might be intolerant, to a degree, but not in the way Rebecca characterizes us. White-on-white murders also occur in her America but people don’t attribute it to the clash of pagan deities. Why?

One thing we need to understand is that the idols worshipped by ancestors are demon gods and demons are not peace makers but war mongers. They can trigger war anytime, anywhere, ANYHOW.

But since we have broken with many of those idols, discarded their corpus and many of their servants have turned to the Lord Jesus, their influences (should) have diminished. Rebecca Brown is out of touch and irrational.

If the ancestors of a particular tribe have dedicated the whole tribe in their service to an idol (demon god), you can be sure that that demon has a legal right to keep operating in that tribe down the line of generation and every curse associated with that also follows.

So that’s why blacks are killing blacks in America. Very interesting. Whatever happened to redemption.

Curses are simply negative demonic effects and influences.

Agreed.

Let us put aside racial bias and be honest with our selves.

I’m afraid, that’s a message the Yoders may need to have tattooed on their foreheads.

Personally, I think the reason why the African continent is backward in terms of development and prominence has to do with the Curse Noah placed on Canaan the son of Ham.

That was what some racist western preachers said, but they are wrong. You are a well-read guy, I don’t expect you to fall for that hogwash.

We know that the Sons of Noah are the ancestor of every nation in the world today. And I believe that Africans descended from Canaan.

No. Africans have never descended from Canaan.

So it doesn’t surprise me that Africans are behind the Europeans and Asians im terms of development and advancement.

But many of the Asians are more devoted to idols than us.

Could it be that we have vision-less leaders and myopic followers? Could it be selfishness? Corruption? Faulty structures? Injustice? Please don’t let’s spiritualize what humans have caused with their own hands

Some will argue that Africans were once upon a time dominating the world. That is true. But what happen that Africa now seem to be perpetually relegated to the background?

Of course, when folks share Rebecca Brown’s unbalanced thinking that idols of centuries ago are still holding us back in spite of decades of persistent spiritual warfare, they will keep being relegated to the background.

I wonder if you are even aware of current scales of development in Rwanda, Kenya and South Africa. Their tribal gods are not strong enough, I guess.

Yes, the Europeans came and did this and that and colonised and over took. Whether what they did was good or bad, is inconsequential. What matters now is that Africa has been conquered and dominated for so long. That is the effect of a curse.

Well, African leaders are the ones conquering and dominating their own people. Mugabe and Omar Al-Bashar are two recent examples.

Since 2008, out of 13 heads of state who have died in office, 10 are Africans. Our joke of a democracy allows leaders to sit tight in office as if it’s an autocracy, loot the treasury and eventually die in a foreign hospital. But no, let’s blame those nasty curses on Ham.

***

Do you mean to tell me that demons, principalities and powers do not influence the daily life and affairs of a person or group of people? Is that what you are saying?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. They influence the lives of the unsaved, but that’s not the original argument made in Rebecca’s book which is the point of dispute.

She said both Christians and non-Christians are dying in Africa because of the sins of their forefathers.

That tribal gods are wasting us because they are controlling us here and abroad. That is part of what I’m objecting to.

By the way, you can tag me in the previous posts which you want me to read. Let me read and know what misinterpreted bible verses, contradictions, fictitous claims, paranoia and demonic obssessions you are talking about. Thanks.

Here they are: one|two|three|four

The content of the first article you shared looks so familiar. I have seen it on Google search results when I was looking for Rebecca Brown’s book.

When I saw it, I thought, well, Satan is not going to sit around and do nothing against Rebecca for taking his captives.

Satan will unleash the might of his forces both humans and spirit against anyone who threatens his domain. And there are many ways he does that.

Whenever I see all such criticism against her, I recall that her books has challenged me to draw much closer to God and to be extremely serious with my relationship with God.

She challenges me to study my bible more, pray more…etc. And on that note, I mark her as a true servant of God.

What you just said now is the argument people use to protect a false teacher they have come to love and become loyal to.

If you replaced the word “Rebecca” with “Rev. King” and a host of them, nothing would change in your comment.

To those who follow Ellen White, Charles Russell, Joseph Smith or Norman Vincent Pearl, every question levied against their teachings or bad actions – no matter how rational, biblical or factual – is dismissed as an attack from Satan.

He/she has rescued captives from Satan, so he must stand up and use people (including yours truly) and spirits to discredit him/her.

If this is your best answer to all that has been presented, then that’s fine. But I’m somewhat disappointed. I know you are more keen than that.

But let me say, Rebecca Brown’s books helped me too … but that doesn’t make Rebecca a true servant of God. Why? Because even a bad person can show you the right way. Yes, her books still did much damage.

We know of people who have been rescued from their past life of crime by Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and even Santeria. But does that make those religious groups true? No!

I started to question her ethics when I found out that there’s nothing really new in the good she wrote. She too, read Christian books and gave out what she had gleaned from them.

See, the name of Jesus will always work; the Word of God will always work even if the vessel is apostate.

Nothing Rebecca and Daniel wrote makes them “experts”. Most of their stories have been discredited biblically and factually.

If they are telling the truth, let them come out and defend themselves, but first apologize for those glaring lies and false accusations against their critics.

It’s not Satan that’s trying to stop Rebecca and Daniel Yoder. It’s Christians who want the truth and nothing but the truth who are putting off her books (even Jack Chick who worked with her did, after seeing the evidence mounting).

I pray you too realize what I did.

The biblical test that we may use to catch false teachers is clearly stated in the bible and emphasized by Rebecca Brown.

1 John 4:1, “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.”

The sure test for any spirit or prophet is in their testimony or teaching about Jesus. If you apply the test to Jehovah’s witness, they will fail. If you apply it to RCC, they will fail. If you apply it to Santeria, Mormon etc they will all fail.

But Rebecca passes it.

Sighs. This isn’t working. This guy parrots Rebecca Brown too much to reason through this exchange.

He doesn’t realize that the “criterion” Rebecca gave was self-serving. I pointed out in one of the posts linked to above that the real test of a true spirit or prophet is the harmony of their teachings with Scripture.

He dismissed all the arguments I presented and skipped over the many problems with his hero’s life and teaching. There’s no way to go with this.