So why is John making a point of saying nobody has ever heard of a miracle like this? Is he purposefully discrediting Vespasian? I doubt it. He’s merely making a point, elevating the healing of Jesus to the level of a messianic sign.

You see, there are no stories in the Old Testament about healing a blind man. Therefore, in early Judaism, a saying cropped up that when a blind person did miraculously receive sight, one would know the Messiah had come. John is claiming that role for Jesus; not Vespasian or any other.

Many scholars think that the second letter to the Corinthians is actually two letters. They surmise that two letters have been combined into one epistle for our Bible, and that they are out of order. 2 Corinthians 10-13 is a fragment of a different letter, the so-called “severe letter.”

The order of letters to Corinth in this theory becomes:

1. Paul’s first letter is described in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, of which we have no copy.

2. 1 Corinthians is then written in AD 54-55 from Ephesus to address issues which had arisen since he left there.

3. 2 Corinthians 10-13 is a forceful, stinging letter that perhaps follows on the heel of the frustrating visit described in 2 Corinthians 2:1.

4. After hearing some good news from Titus, Paul writes 1 Corinthians 1-9 with some relief. Not all is roses yet, but things are improving, and Paul makes another visit shortly after penning this letter.

//It’s fun sometimes to trace back the origin of words. Take this word “barbarian.” It means a savage, or uncivilized person, right?

In Paul’s time, Greeks did indeed look down their noses at non-Greeks (well, except for Romans, who were at the top of the pecking order.) In fact, the world seemed to them divided into two categories: Greeks and non-Greeks, or “barbarians.” The Greeks thought themselves well-educated with a polished rhetoric, and coined this word barbarian to describe the uncultured speech of others, according to how it sounded to Greek ears–“bar … bar … bar”.

In today’s verse, Paul is critiquing those who speak in tongues (meaning an unknown tongue), saying they should instead make every effort to be understood … rather than sounding like a barbarian.

Or is that what he says? Read these verses in just about any other translation, and Paul’s passion comes alive. Ever with a flair for the dramatic, what Paul is really saying is that if these teachers are so keen on circumcision, he wishes they would let the knife slip and dismember themselves! Here are a few more descriptive translations:

//Wrapping up this discussion of the parousia, let’s now turn to the final book of the Bible: Revelation.

//Yesterday, I explained that in Paul’s understanding, the parousia didn’t mean flying up to heaven forever. It meant meeting and greeting Jesus in the air, welcoming him down to earth.

Paul, when he speaks of meeting Jesus in the air, is using the language and metaphors of a royal visit. Backing up one verse from yesterday’s topic, we read this:

Here, Jesus descends with the sound of a trumpet, just as would happen with the return of a king to his city. The trumpet is blown to alert the watchman on the wall that the king was returning. The cry goes up to “lift up your gates so that the glorious king may come in” (see today’s verse from the Psalms).

The watchman, after identifying the visitor, would open the gates to allow the welcoming party out to greet the king. This is precisely what Paul describes with his parousia.

We’ll wrap up tomorrow by examining whether this understanding of the parousia meets the description given in Revelation.

Paul’s words do appear severe. I cannot explain it with complete confidence, but we can make a guess at what was going on. This command is given in the context of instruction to those who speak in tongues and prophesy. The verses actually appear a bit out of place, hard to fit within the context. What does permitting women to speak have to do with prophesying?

Remember, Paul is writing to Gentiles, in a Gentile land. These women appear to be interrupting the service by asking questions, but why would Gentile women be asking questions during the time of prophesy?

Because that’s what Gentiles did when they went to visit the nearby oracle of Delphi. Prophets were seen as providing a consulting service, so that’s where you went to ask fundamental questions about life: Who should I marry? Will I escape poverty? How long will my daughter be sick?

Maybe these women simply assumed that Christian prophecy worked like Greek prophecy. Paul tells them to shut up and ask those sorts of questions to their husband at home.

//While I’m not a proponent of trying to harmonize scripture, sometimes it’s interested to do so and see where a story leads. Here’s a case where it takes three Gospels to arrive at an explanation for why the stone was rolled away from the tomb.

If, as the Gospel of John asserts, Jesus was able to walk through doors or walls in his resurrection body (see John 20:19), why do you suppose the stone was rolled away? Surely Jesus needed no help escaping, right?

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. –Matthew 28:2

So the angel(s) who opened the tomb arrived after Jesus had already made his exit. One could conclude that the stone was not rolled away so that Jesus could escape, but so that witnesses could enter and verify his resurrection.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Let’s compare humans to other animals for a moment. Believers in God tend to place humans in a separate category altogether, sort of like a human kingdom above the animal kingdom, often with the explanation that “humans have been given a soul.” Nonbelievers, in contrast, tend toward reductionism and point to the evidence of evolution, claiming that humans are nothing more than primates with the organ in the top of our head gone wild.

Both positions have merit. This oversized brain DOES make humans different from animals, and one area of difference is in the study of altruistic behavior. Here is what evolutionary psychologist Frans de Waal has to say:

“Animals at times do exhibit what appears to be moral behavior, but this behavior does not necessarily rest on deliberations of the kind we engage in. It is hard to believe that animals weigh their own interests against the rights of others, that they develop a vision of the greater good of society, or that they feel lifelong guilt about something they should not have done. To communicate intentions and feelings is one thing; to clarify what is right, and why, and what is wrong, and why, is quite something else. Animals are no moral philosophers.”

Are you able to disagree? I doubt it. Humans are different, in that our brains have evolved to the point of comprehending morals. I wonder: is it fair to say that that moment in evolution was the moment, in today’s verse, where “man became a living soul?”

//While it’s not quite as clear here in Luke as it is in Matthew, today’s verses appear to be saying that God—in the form of the Holy Spirit—will come down and impregnate Mary. Many Christians read this quite literally, interpreting the title “Son of God” to mean the literal offspring of God and Mary—a god impregnating a human. So, let’s carry this further. When did the act occur?

A clue may be hidden a few verses later in what scholars title the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55). The story is this:

Told by an angel that Mary will indeed bear a child, and needn’t worry about being a virgin because God himself will impregnate her, she hustles off to see her pregnant cousin Elizabeth near Jerusalem. There, at God’s city, the Spirit comes over Elizabeth, her own baby leaps in her womb, and she exclaims loudly to Mary: “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Is this not likely the moment the Spirit “overshadows” Mary as well?

Mary confirms this in the midst of her Magnificat, with these words: “From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Since she is blessed “henceforth,” it seems likely that in Luke’s telling, the conception—as promised by the angel a few verses earlier—occurs at that moment.

//I’m sometimes accused of overstating the effect of the Jerusalem war of 66-70 CE on early Christianity and the writing of Christian scripture. Perhaps I do overstate the war, but I doubt it. Most of the New Testament was written in the shadow of this horrible war, including all four of the Gospels and certainly the book of Revelation. Most Christians of the first century were absolutely convinced that God was intervening in history, and that the end times had arrived.

I suspect the Gospel of Mark was written just before the end of the war. The gospels of Matthew and Luke followed a decade or so after the war. John’s Gospel was perhaps 20-30 years after the war, after the excitement of the first century died down a little, and as a result you won’t find the same emphasis in John’s Gospel about Jesus returning to set things right.

Of these four gospels, the most fascinating argument for dating is in regards to the book of Mark. Was it written just before, during, or just after the war? Most scholars fall into the “just after” category, sometimes pointing to Mark’s description of the Temple destruction. How, they reason, could Mark have possibly guessed it would fall?

My own opinion is that Mark did indeed see destruction coming! Perhaps Jesus did as well, forty years earlier! In today’s verse (quoted from the New Living Translation for its emphasis), Mark inserts a little parenthetical message, “Reader, pay attention!” Why would he do this, if he were not making a plea to Christians to abandon Jerusalem and head for the hills? Jesus said the temple would fall, Mark insists, and scripture tells us what to do about it! Get out of here while you can! Indeed, many Christians seem to have done just that, leaving Jerusalem and heading to Pella to survive the war.

This fulfilled prediction and the rescue of Judean Christians may have secured Mark’s reputation, sealing this gospel as perhaps the most influential book in the Bible for the emergence of Christianity. Later Christians, of course, came to appreciate other gospels more than the bare-bones Mark, but the timing and influence of this one book with its apocalyptic claim should not be underestimated.

Yesterday, I discussed the tradition that a companion of Paul named Luke wrote Luke-Acts, and presented a couple of possibilities from the writings of Paul. These two possible Luke’s are written as Loukion in Greek. But there is another Greek name, Loukan, which may be a better fit. Try these verses on for size:

And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Loukan, my fellow workers. –Philemon 24

Our dear friend Loukan, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.–Colossians 4:14

The book of Philemon is universally accepted as an authentic Pauline writing, and though Colossians is not, the similarity in Greek spelling and the connection to Demas is compelling. Have we found our man?

In favor of this selection is the “scientific” preface to Luke’s Gospel in 1:1-4, which does indeed sound like a doctor, and the various “we passages” in Acts (see 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27-28) which implies the author was an eyewitness companion of Paul.

In the end, we’ll never know, but it’s easy to see how the early church fathers put the pieces together, concluding that a man named Luke wrote this anonymous work.

But who is this Luke? There are several possibilities in the New Testament. Today’s verse provides one possibility. It would make Luke a Jewish Christian. Another Lucius in the Bible appears in Acts 13:1:

Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Loukion of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. –Acts 13:1

This Luke hails from Cyrene. These two possible Luke’s are written as Loukion in Greek. But there is another Greek name, Loukan, which may be a better fit. We’ll discuss this one tomorrow.

//I recently came across an absolutely fascinating discovery in the Gospel of Mark, provided by Ched Myers (Binding the Strong Man, 1988, pp 390-392). Mark, in presenting the evidence of Jesus’ God-given authority, repeats five themes three times, during what may be considered the three most important events in the life of Jesus. This little chart is worth studying, I promise!

//The doctrine of the Ascension is fascinating to me. Before we get to this verse in Acts, let’s review what the earlier Gospels have to say on the topic.

Mark tells us that some women went to the Tomb on Sunday and found it empty. They ran away afraid, and told no one. That is how the original Gospel ends (verses 16:9 through the end of the book are not original to the Gospel, and were added later). So where did he go?

Matthew tells us that Jesus was seen by several people after he resurrected, but makes it clear that he doesn’t go anywhere. Jesus says, in the last verse of the book, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Indeed, that is the promise the Jews held dear of their coming Messiah: that he would stay and rule the earth “forever” (meaning, as long as the age of God’s rule).

But Jesus did seem to go missing! So, Luke reasons, Jesus had to leave at some point. In typical fashion, Luke the historian cannot leave this as a mystery. He dates the departure of Jesus to 40 days after the resurrection, and presents a visible ascension to make it clear that Jesus is no longer a historical figure. Luke’s theology, remember, is that “the kingdom is neither here nor there, but within you.” So, Jesus is free to take his leave.

And from this writer we get our doctrine of ascension!

//It’s clear from the context of John’s prologue that the “Word” in today’s verse refers to Jesus. John explicitly claims something extraordinary: Jesus is God.

What makes John think this is so, when this claim differs so much from the Synoptic Gospels, which all present Jesus and God as two distinct beings? Well, here is some wild speculation for you.

In my latest book, I suggest that the Beloved Disciple of John’s Gospel and Lazarus are the same person. Lazarus is also spoken of as the one Jesus loves. This is no new revelation; Ben Witherington III, for example, has long argued that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple, and that the Beloved Disciple wrote John’s Gospel.

Which leads to the wild speculation part. Lazarus, you recall, was raised by Jesus from the dead. This was no mere resuscitation, mind you; Lazarus had been dead for four days, and his body stank. In Jewish tradition, the spirit departs the body after three days, finally resigned to the fact that the body cannot be revived. Thus Lazarus was dead as a doornail, the spirit long gone, when Jesus shows up to resurrect him … and John’s Gospel makes a point of proving this.

So … perhaps the author of John’s Gospel, having died and met with God, had a bit of insider knowledge about who Jesus really was?

Ya never know.