iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Timothy Beal

GET UPDATES FROM Timothy Beal
 

BibliFact Roundup #2: Bible-n-Eggs with the President

Posted: 04/07/2012 9:00 am

"They welcomed the message very eagerly
and examined the scriptures every day
to see whether these things were so"

--Acts 17:11

As we make our way toward the 2012 elections, many feel tossed to and fro by often contradicting claims about what the Bible says on this or that political issue. Most people just don't know the Bible well enough to say whether these claims are right, wrong, correct, incorrect or a matter of interpretation. On top of that, political Bible talkers on the campaign trail rarely cite chapter and verse, making it tough for us to check them out for ourselves. The Bible is a powerful weapon that has been wielded for good and for ill throughout American history. How can we keep political Biblespeak honest? Inspired by PolitiFact.com, BibliFact roundups aim to do just that.

2012-04-06-Key325x325.jpg

Roundup #1: Bible-n-Eggs with the President

President Obama has been quite the biblical expositor at recent prayer breakfasts. Here are a few highlights worth checking out.

2012-04-06-whithouse20120404easter.jpg

"For like us, Jesus knew doubt. Like us, Jesus knew fear. In the garden of Gethsemane, with attackers closing in around him, Jesus told his disciples, 'My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.' He fell to his knees, pleading with his Father, saying, 'If it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.' And yet, in the end, he confronted his fear with words of humble surrender, saying, 'If it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.'" -- President Obama, Easter Prayer Breakfast, April 4, 2012

2012-04-06-02yesbut50.jpg Yes, these are quotations from the story of Jesus and his disciples in Gethsemane on the night of his arrest in the Gospel of Matthew (26:36-46). But, although Jesus in this story does express sorrow or anguish, does he experience doubt and fear? That's not clear. Moreover, in the president's recounting, it sounds like Jesus initially tries to get out of it but finally, "in the end," gives in, saying "may your will be done." In fact, Jesus offers the same prayer three times, each time asking that "this cup" be taken away but then insisting that God's will, not his, be done. So the anguish and the surrender are both there from the start.

Interesting that, here and elsewhere, President Obama quotes from the 1984 edition of the New International Version, which is by far the most popular translation among evangelical Christians (most liberals prefer the New Revised Standard Version).

"We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God's plan relative to us. But that's precisely when we should remember Christ's own doubts and eventually his own triumph. Jesus told us as much in the book of John, when he said, "In this world you will have trouble." I heard an amen. Let me repeat. "In this world, you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." -- President Obama, Easter Prayer Breakfast, April 4, 2012

2012-04-06-01yes50.jpg Yes, the president is quoting John 16:33, in which Jesus is speaking to his disciples. Less reassuringly, in the verse immediately preceding this one, Jesus tells them that the time is near when they will be scattered and will abandon him. If verse 33 sounds like Easter Sunday, verse 32 sounds more like Good Friday.

2012-04-06-nationalprayerbreakfastP020509PS0098w2.jpg

At the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2, the president drew from several different biblical passages to explain how his policy positions are rooted in his religious values. The one that is attracting the most attention, and that we will likely hear him repeat, is this:

"And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'"

2012-04-06-02yesbut50.jpg Yes, Jesus says this to his disciples in the Gospel of Luke (12:48). But he's not talking about taxes, money, or any sort of material wealth. Rather, he's talking about knowledge and responsibility. Jesus makes this statement after presenting a parable-like scenario in which a householder promotes one of his servants to be manager of the other servants. While the householder is away, however, that servant-manager shirks his responsibilities, beating the other servants and getting drunk. When the householder returns, he cuts the irresponsible servant to pieces. Jesus concludes that the one who knows what the householder wants - "unto whom much has been given" - and doesn't carry through deserves a far more severe punishment than the one who doesn't know any better.

This is the only biblical quotation in President Obama's prayer breakfast remarks that is not taken from the New International Version translation. In fact, it doesn't seem to match any particular translation. It is closest to the King James Version: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." But that could be a bit of a tongue-twister before your second cup of coffee in the morning.

 
 
 

Follow Timothy Beal on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@timothybeal

FOLLOW RELIGION
 
 
  • Comments
  • 127
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
06:00 PM on 04/09/2012
Just curious . . . how does one know which version of the bible "most liberals" prefer?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:32 AM on 04/08/2012
While BO might know a little about his bible, I just find it hard to believe that a man who would go to a church like that of Jeremiah Wright for twenty or so years is serious about anything religious.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neil20
12:24 AM on 04/08/2012
Here is some food for thought I wish to give President Obama this Easter.It's great that he quotes often from the Bible especially when he is sitting around hundreds of religious pundits. It's a moot question, no doubt, but still holds great relevance especially in the evangelically dominated political scene in America - Is America a truly Christian nation?
I don't really know the answer since Americans and American politicians have not shown any inclination to this. From the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945,to the carper bombing of Vietnam from 1965 -1970, carpet bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan at the start of this century, the greed of Big Oil giants who are encouraged to drill left, right and center across this nation for profit, profit and more profit, the drilling in the Arctic region, the destruction of forests and wildlife across the nation for greedy ranchers and farmers, the suppression of the freedom of women, the deprivation of contraceptives in AIDS infected nations across the world - the list carries on and on. I really wonder if America is a Christian nation after having killed over a million people throughout the world since the last several decades. It's just not good enough to preach. You have to show with actions and policies that America is truly a Christian nation. No matter how many Prayer Breakfasts presidents hold is Christ really present in those breakfasts or in this country for that matter?
11:28 PM on 04/07/2012
The only time you'll hear obama quoting from the bible, is an election year.
05:47 PM on 04/09/2012
That's not true.
11:23 PM on 04/07/2012
It's a sad fact that American politicians still have to suck up to the religious establishment, because the religious bloc controls millions of votes. But that doesn't make it right. Our nation's founders took great pains to separate our government from religion -- their deliberate ignoring of religion in the founding documents was shocking for that time -- and obviously intended for the "wall of separation" to be maintained. The founding documents contain only a few polite references to religion and then only in standard phrases such as "in the year of our Lord." The references to the "Creator" and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration actually were shocking departures from the standard "our Lord" reference and signaled that the Declaration's writers were Deists who didn't even believe in the divinity of Jesus, much less the other trappings of religion. The Constitution itself ignored religion altogether until it was mentioned in passing in the First Amendment. That dismissive attitude toward peddlers of the supernatural was unheard of in that era. Too bad most modern politicians don't show the same courage. Shame on Obama for his blatant pandering. Someday we will have a president with the guts to boot the religionists out of the White House and keep them out.
04:10 PM on 04/24/2012
Religion is an establishment, but faith is a worldview- and we all have one. We all have a lens through which we see the world and make decisions. It is ignorant to think that it is even possible to separate a persons faith from their ideas, values, and beliefs. If a person's worldview is Christian, Islamic, or Jewish based how is that any different than a person who says they have no religion and their worldview is based on a humanistic or natural view. Either way, your values are shaped by a belief system. Most likely your belief system (whether after studying a religious text or other studies) is based on research and self exploration to determine your personal view of the world. What should be avoided in politics is not banning all individuals with a certain worldview (such as religious) but rather we should avoid the toxic thought that one worldview is better than another. The essence of America is that we all come together, respecting our different worldviews, and seek to better the country together.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
big dubya
11:18 PM on 04/07/2012
I believe the quote, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." leaves everyone else in the cold.
10:22 PM on 04/07/2012
In our Democracy anyone's religion, or practice on none, shouldn't be a matter of state, but one of privacy.
09:57 PM on 04/07/2012
They should have just left the New Testament at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Since when did Paul of Tarsus speak for God? He didn't even claim he was speaking for God. How did the letters of Paul become the unquestioned word of Almighty God? Have you READ the letters of Paul? They're fantastic works of philosophy, by and large, but there are some weird non-sequitors here and there that have NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus. Paul was an odd man, and the convocation of early church leaders that decided on what writings to include in the "Bible" in the third century A.D. should have notated the letters of Paul with a giant footnote: "interesting stuff, but NOT the infallible words of God himself."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shankapotomus
08:53 PM on 04/07/2012
Key word, recent.
photo
JesusWasNicer
It takes an Atheist to truly appreciate Jesus
07:28 PM on 04/07/2012
Religious Faith will be around for a lot longer than it should because it offers something that Atheism doesn't; eternal life.

Hey! Sign me up I want some of that! I deserve eternal life!
10:00 PM on 04/07/2012
The word "eternal" speaks of life of a certain quality, not of a certain duration, just as the "kingdom of Heaven" refers to a quality of life here on earth, and not to an afterlife elsewhere. Read the gospels carefully.
10:51 PM on 04/07/2012
Such verbal tap-dancing. Eternal refers to time duration. Kingdom of heaven refers to a kingdom in heaven, a location. Sorry, you just can't define words as you see fit to make your religious fantasies seem more credible. If you religious folks decide to embrace superstition over reason, you are stuck with having to defend that superstition by using the standard definitions of words.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
KrautMan
Carpe jugulum
04:15 AM on 04/08/2012
Rofl. You might wanna discuss this with your co-christians.
05:27 PM on 04/07/2012
It's amusing how politicians have to pretend they take that stuff seriously. Really now, heaven help us if they *really* believed!
photo
michaelwg
Pro-Lifers call my Micro-bio a Person
04:05 PM on 04/07/2012
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”---Seneca
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet"---Napoleon
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Will do T.J, will do.
photo
michaelwg
Pro-Lifers call my Micro-bio a Person
03:49 PM on 04/07/2012
Christianity can be cured through sunshine, light jogging, and high doses of B vitamins. True story.
10:56 PM on 04/07/2012
You actually make a good point. Religion is most popular with people who are chronically fearful and anxious --often for good reason (war, poverty, disease, etc.). Religiosity and anxiety are closely linked, which is why politicians often use religion to appeal to voters. It's no coincidence that religion is least popular in Northern Europe and other places where strong government safety nets make life easier - and less anxious -- for most people.
04:26 PM on 04/24/2012
As a society develops individuals tend to depend more on their own reasoning and capabilities to provide for their security and answer questions about life. It is usually through life tragedies or difficult circumstances that people realize how fragile and vulnerable life really is and how little control they do in fact have over their life. This is why Jesus said it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter through the gates of heaven. It has nothing to do with this man's wealth, but rather that wealth and status are usually associated with increased self reliance. This is a good point that you made- but it really has nothing to do with evidence for or against God. More so it just shows a trend in human nature for when we are open to thinking of life outside of ourselves and what circumstances cause us to be more self reliant and self focused.
photo
michaelwg
Pro-Lifers call my Micro-bio a Person
03:48 PM on 04/07/2012
Dear God, please grant me an Atheist President. Amen.
P.S Irony.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheHandyman
Death...the last new experience you will ever have
06:56 PM on 04/07/2012
And a lot of Atheist judges would certainly help too!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
big dubya
11:20 PM on 04/07/2012
Would an agnostic do? What is unprovable remains unprovable.
photo
michaelwg
Pro-Lifers call my Micro-bio a Person
04:47 AM on 04/09/2012
fine by me.
jdwright62
Will the caterwauling never stop?
03:33 PM on 04/07/2012
On "yes, but" # 2, the President espouses his view of the cited scripture by saying, based on it meaning, "it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone."

The author quibbles about it but agrees that the cited scripture is about "knowledge and responsibility." Why would that not include, as it apparantly does for the President, the "responsibility" of those who have been blessed with much to take greater responsibility for those who have not been so richly blessed?

My own problem with the President's word is bit more secular and cynical. He says that the downtrodden should only be rewarded to the extent that they should not have to share the future burdens "alone," which means, no matter how you slice it, the already burdened will be even more burdened in the future. The question in politics is always how the burdens will be shared. The President's continual ambiguity and open-endedness on that point causes me to have serious doubts about his true level of commitment to the less fortunate.