Christianity often fails at love, yet many cling to Jesus for hope. One jarring tale is his encounter with a Canaanite woman, where he appears dismissive and insulting, igniting turmoil for those who strive for inclusivity. However, a fresh translation reveals a deeper, considerate dialogue, exposing cultural misinterpretations. Ultimately, Jesus embodies a radical love that transcends boundaries, challenging believers to confront and reconcile with their own practices versus the true nature of compassion.

The passage in Romans 13 about submitting to authorities is often misunderstood as blind obedience. However, when read in context with Romans 12, which emphasizes love for others, and considering the historical and social context, it becomes clear that the passage is not advocating unquestioning obedience, but rather a pragmatic and subversive form of resistance against oppressive authorities through nonviolent love and endurance. This reinterpretation challenges the traditional understanding of the passage and highlights the importance of love in promoting well-being for all.

The Liberation & Inclusion Translation's version of 1 Timothy 2 emphasizes gentleness, respect, and liberation for all, challenging traditional interpretations of male and female roles. It also discusses Eve's liberation from oppression and the significance of Mary's obedience. It encourages women being empowered to learn and grow without harassment, challenges patriarchal dominance, and promotes equal dignity and participation for women. It ultimately emphasizes God's desire for liberation and truth for all people, mediated through Christ.

The passage in Romans 7:15-24 can be seen through the lens of externalization, a common therapeutic concept. Paul separates his core self from the parts of him that follow a different set of values, similar to the therapeutic approach of separating a person from their problematic behaviors. This perspective encourages addressing the real issue, meeting legitimate needs in ways that don't cause harm, and seeking community support for healing and finding better solutions.

Josiah Hawthorne's question, dissecting the meaning of "all" and "many" in biblical context is intriguing. Romans 5 illustrates how Adam's actions impacted "all" and "many," with Jesus counteracting the verdict for "all" and "many." Examining similar usage by Jesus and Paul reveals a synonymous connotation, suggesting the message of liberation might in fact be for more people than we've often been told.

Easter celebrates the renewal of life amidst scarcity and anxiety. It signifies overcoming lifelessness with generosity and peace. This is reflected in biblical passages emphasizing unity, inclusion, and the promise of generosity for all. The emphasis is on Christ's faithfulness as a gift leading to universal inclusion. The message is clear: love and inclusion are paramount, and the promise of abundance is to be shared with all, fostering a culture of love and life for everyone. This is the essence of Easter and the Christian message.

The religious leaders didn't want Jesus dead for claiming to be God, but for threatening political power and status. Jesus' responses and actions were seen as political challenges, leading to his crucifixion. The events of Holy Week speak to resistance against political oppression and the struggle for liberation.

Mark 12:38-13:2 is about more than a sweet old lady giving generously. Jesus criticizes those who exploit and oppress the poor, illustrating with the widow's selfless offering. The disciples' observation about the temple's funding indicates the burden on ordinary people for extravagant projects. This urges reflection on societal power dynamics and challenges simplistic messages about charitable giving.

What if Romans 1 doesn’t criticize what or whom you’ve been told it does? We just published our episode of Found in Translation about Romans 1:24-32, and it was so rewarding to dismantle the anti-LGBTQ propaganda that has managed to infiltrate so much Christian teaching. And we didn’t have to do it by dismissing the text as outdated or irrelevant. We did it by surfacing what it actually has to say that’s liberating and healing. What would you do?

There's something off in the translation of Mark 9:35. Why do most translations read 'must' instead of 'will'? It impacts how we see what Jesus is saying about serving others and Christlike leadership. Jesus aims for full inclusion and mutual support, rejecting ego-driven hierarchy.

I'm noticing in my translation work on Mark 7, the impact of the shift from ‘defiled’ to ‘unconsecrated’ and how traditional translations are harmful. Jesus' criticism is about how people treat each other, not religious codes. The LIT emphasizes social and systemic issues, while the ESV focuses on individual piety. The overall message is about prioritizing people over virtue signaling.