Benny Hinn on Pharaoh

Benny Hinn's Wack Theology

One of the most intriguing (and disappointing) themes of Israel's past that biblical authors emphasize is God's people's failure to fulfill the bottom line of the Abrahamic covenant--"I will bless all nations through you." Instead, they were what we call in modern terms "a bad testimony", and the pagans they encountered are ironically portrayed as more righteous in their dealings.

A perfect example of this is Abraham's encounter with Pharaoh in Genesis 12:10-20. To make a long story short, Abraham is afraid that Pharaoh will kill him and steal his wife Sarah, so he passes her off as his sister. Pharaoh brings Sarah into his household and loads Abraham down with gifts, but soon begins to suffer God's judgment in the form of diseases and discovers Abraham's cowardly lie. Sarah is returned to Abraham and the two leave Egypt with the gifts Pharaoh had given them.

In a recent broadcast on TBN, Benny Hinn retells this story, but check out his twisted and self-serving interpretation of the account:


For Benny, this story is turned around and used as an example of how God used Abraham's trickery of Pharaoh to bless Abraham, not an example of how Abraham's cowardice brought shame on God's name. Ultimately, Benny encourages the audience that "your Pharaoh is on the way to give you that money."

Benny Hinn's Wack Theology

One of the most intriguing (and disappointing) themes of Israel's past that biblical authors emphasize is God's people's failure to fulfill the bottom line of the Abrahamic covenant--"I will bless all nations through you." Instead, they were what we call in modern terms "a bad testimony", and the pagans they encountered are ironically portrayed as more righteous in their dealings.

A perfect example of this is Abraham's encounter with Pharaoh in Genesis 12:10-20. To make a long story short, Abraham is afraid that Pharaoh will kill him and steal his wife Sarah, so he passes her off as his sister. Pharaoh brings Sarah into his household and loads Abraham down with gifts, but soon begins to suffer God's judgment in the form of diseases and discovers Abraham's cowardly lie. Sarah is returned to Abraham and the two leave Egypt with the gifts Pharaoh had given them.

In a recent broadcast on TBN, Benny Hinn retells this story, but check out his twisted and self-serving interpretation of the account. For Benny, this story is turned around and used as an example of how God used Abraham's trickery of Pharaoh to bless Abraham, not an example of how Abraham's cowardice brought shame on God's name. Ultimately, Benny encourages the audience that "your Pharaoh is on the way to give you that money."

Invisible

I really dislike most contemporary Christian music ... for the same reason I dislike Joel Osteen sermons: there's no content. Andrew Peterson is an exception. From the time I heard his "Holy Is the Lord" on The Gathering several years ago, I felt like I was listening to another Rich Mullins, Keith Green or Derek Webb. His latest album, Resurrection Letters II is worth a download on iTunes, and my favorite track is "Invisible God." It explores the irony that we worship a God who is inaccessible to human senses, but whose works are unavoidable.

As a kid I can remember being warned by preachers to not have idols—you know, stuff like remote-control cars, Walkmen, girlfriends, etc.--basically anything I liked more than God. But is this what the Bible means when it talks about idolatry? It may be that, of all the Ten Commandments, the admonition against idolatry is one is the most difficult to contextualize to our pomo world.

What is the first major lapse into idolatry that we see of God's people?

"When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, 'Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' " (Exodus 32:1)

Strangely, Moses wasn't even the one going before them. God was, in the form of a cloud by day and a fiery pillar at night. Moses was following these dramatic manifestations just as the Israelites were. But divine epiphanies weren't enough. They needed a metal cow to get them to the Promised Land.

So, idolatry is not so much about loving something more than God as it is putting trust in something in the place of God--an insurance policy to protect me from ruin, good works to earn me a place in Heaven, a preacher to tell me how to live.

What set Yahweh apart from the gods of the pagans wasn’t so much what He was, but what He wasn't. The pagans had gods that they could see, touch, smell. The Jews had an invisible God who didn’t let them draw a picture of Him and whose name they wouldn’t even speak out loud. They worshiped a God who depended entirely on His works and His words to communicate His identity.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:16

Interestingly, God broke the rules several thousand years after the Exodus—and became visible for 33 short years, wrapping Himself in a very unlikely package that was overlooked by most who saw it. Nowadays, we celebrate that event by buying stuff they don't need for people we don't like with money we don't have.

But that's a post for another day ...

Invisible

I really dislike most contemporary Christian music ... for the same reason I dislike Joel Osteen sermons: there's no content. Andrew Peterson is an exception. From the time I heard his "Holy Is the Lord" on The Gathering several years ago, I felt like I was listening to another Rich Mullins, Keith Green or Derek Webb. His latest album, Resurrection Letters II is worth a download on iTunes, and my favorite track is "Invisible God." It explores the irony that we worship a God who is inaccessible to human senses, but whose works are unavoidable.

As a kid I can remember being warned by preachers to not have idols—you know, stuff like remote-control cars, Walkmen, girlfriends, etc.--basically anything I liked more than God. But is this what the Bible means when it talks about idolatry? It may be that, of all the Ten Commandments, the admonition against idolatry is one is the most difficult to contextualize to our pomo world.

What is the first major lapse into idolatry that we see of God's people?

"When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, 'Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' " (Exodus 32:1)

Strangely, Moses wasn't even the one going before them. God was, in the form of a cloud by day and a fiery pillar at night. Moses was following these dramatic manifestations just as the Israelites were. But divine epiphanies weren't enough. They needed a metal cow to get them to the Promised Land.

So, idolatry is not so much about loving something more than God as it is putting trust in something in the place of God--an insurance policy to protect me from ruin, good works to earn me a place in Heaven, a preacher to tell me how to live.

What set Yahweh apart from the gods of the pagans wasn’t so much what He was, but what He wasn't. The pagans had gods that they could see, touch, smell. The Jews had an invisible God who didn’t let them draw a picture of Him and whose name they wouldn’t even speak out loud. They worshiped a God who depended entirely on His works and His words to communicate His identity.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:16

Interestingly, God broke the rules several thousand years after the Exodus—and became visible for 33 short years, wrapping Himself in a very unlikely package that was overlooked by most who saw it. Nowadays, we celebrate that event by buying stuff they don't need for people we don't like with money we don't have.

But that's a post for another day ...

"Gay Mawwiage"

Because I'm too lazy to put together an actual essay on same-sex marriage, I'll just string together some general reflections on the topic that may or may not make sense:

The church has lost its leverage. Because of high rates of divorce/adultery/porn-addiction/scandal, the church has been lax in presenting a biblical model of marriage. Like the Israelites who appalled their Canaanite neighbors with their perversion and violence, it rings hollow when Christian leaders make lofty definitions of marriage to which they themselves don't seem to be able to adhere.

Marriage is about God. As a religious sacrament, the primary purpose of marriage is not to provide a context for sexual relations, to ensure the continuation of the human race, or to make sure that guys have someone on hand to keep them well groomed and fed. Marriage is primarily about God. It is a means through which we understand the Trinity and the relationship of Christ to the Church. It is a tool God uses to make us more like Him. As such, it is an agent of sanctification, a means of revelation, a model of reconciliation. Everything else is corollary.

There's no such thing as secular marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot be secular. This is not to say that a secular government may not allow couples or groups of people to enter into legal arrangements that share characteristics with marriage. Business partnerships, powers of attorney, adoption, civil unions all share some of the characteristics of marriage. But they are not marriage. Why? From a biblical perspective, marriage happens when a man and woman are joined together in a covenant relationship. It is something God does that may or may not be acknowledged by civil authorities or the church.

What business is it of theirs? If I accept the above statements, I must naturally ask why a secular civil government has any interest defining (or un-defining, for that matter) marriage. Frankly, it's none of their business, and the Florida and California ballot initiatives attempting to define marriage were intrusions of the state. It would appear that, out of fear, the church has validated this intrusion by lobbying for a constitutional definition of marriage. Granted, I understand the practical concerns, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?

So, what about "gay marriage"? Simultaneously, I must ask why secular gays are even interested in the sacrament of marriage--why are civil unions not enough? Just sayin' ...

"Gay Mawwiage"

Because I'm too lazy to put together an actual essay on same-sex marriage, I'll just string together some general reflections on the topic that may or may not make sense:

The church has lost its leverage. Because of high rates of divorce/adultery/porn-addiction/scandal, the church has been lax in presenting a biblical model of marriage. Like the Israelites who appalled their Canaanite neighbors with their perversion and violence, it rings hollow when Christian leaders make lofty definitions of marriage to which they themselves don't seem to be able to adhere.

Marriage is about God. As a religious sacrament, the primary purpose of marriage is not to provide a context for sexual relations, to ensure the continuation of the human race, or to make sure that guys have someone on hand to keep them well groomed and fed. Marriage is primarily about God. It is a means through which we understand the Trinity and the relationship of Christ to the Church. It is a tool God uses to make us more like Him. As such, it is an agent of sanctification, a means of revelation, a model of reconciliation. Everything else is corollary.

There's no such thing as secular marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot be secular. This is not to say that a secular government may not allow couples or groups of people to enter into legal arrangements that share characteristics with marriage. Business partnerships, powers of attorney, adoption, civil unions all share some of the characteristics of marriage. But they are not marriage. Why? From a biblical perspective, marriage happens when a man and woman are joined together in a covenant relationship. It is something God does that may or may not be acknowledged by civil authorities or the church.

What business is it of theirs? If I accept the above statements, I must naturally ask why a secular civil government has any interest defining (or un-defining, for that matter) marriage. Frankly, it's none of their business, and the Florida and California ballot initiatives attempting to define marriage were intrusions of the state. It would appear that, out of fear, the church has validated this intrusion by lobbying for a constitutional definition of marriage. Granted, I understand the practical concerns, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?

So, what about "gay marriage"? Simultaneously, I must ask why secular gays are even interested in the sacrament of marriage--why are civil unions not enough? Just sayin' ...

The Worst Generation

My grandparents' generation has justifiably been called "the greatest generation" for the immense sacrifices they made during World War II so that their children and grandchildren--and those of Europeans--could live in a free world. Men left good-paying jobs, enlisted in the military or were drafted. Kids collected scrap metal and wore unfashionable clothing. Women worked long hours in aircraft factories.

A column by New York Times' Thomas Friedman unwittingly reveals the striking contrast in the way the beneficiaries of these sacrifices (us) have addressed the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. "Never has one generation spent so much of its children’s wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it," Friedman writes.

In order to ensure a modicum of stability in our retirement and savings, in order to ensure that our way of life and consumption habits can be adequately satisfied in the present, this generation has passed on trillions of dollars of additional debt to our children and grandchildren.

"Since the last debate, John McCain and Barack Obama have unveiled broad ideas about how to restore the nation’s financial health. But they continue to suggest that this will be largely pain-free," Friedman writes. "McCain says giving everyone a tax cut will save the day; Obama tells us only the rich will have to pay to help us out of this hole. Neither is true. We are all going to have to pay ... "

The Worst Generation

My grandparents' generation has justifiably been called "the greatest generation" for the immense sacrifices they made during World War II so that their children and grandchildren--and those of Europeans--could live in a free world. Men left good-paying jobs, enlisted in the military or were drafted. Kids collected scrap metal and wore unfashionable clothing. Women worked long hours in aircraft factories.

A column by New York Times' Thomas Friedman unwittingly reveals the striking contrast in the way the beneficiaries of these sacrifices (us) have addressed the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. "Never has one generation spent so much of its children’s wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it," Friedman writes.

In order to ensure a modicum of stability in our retirement and savings, in order to ensure that our way of life and consumption habits can be adequately satisfied in the present, this generation has passed on trillions of dollars of additional debt to our children and grandchildren.

"Since the last debate, John McCain and Barack Obama have unveiled broad ideas about how to restore the nation’s financial health. But they continue to suggest that this will be largely pain-free," Friedman writes. "McCain says giving everyone a tax cut will save the day; Obama tells us only the rich will have to pay to help us out of this hole. Neither is true. We are all going to have to pay ... "