//This verse is about the birth of Jesus, of course. The story in Luke is that Jesus had to be born in the manger, because there was no room in the inn. There was no room because a decree from Caesar required all Jews to return to the city of their lineage for a tax census. Joseph, Jesus’ father, had to go to Bethlehem because he was of the lineage of David, who was a Bethlehemite.

Ever wonder how many Jews had to go to Bethlehem for this census? How many descendants of David would be alive after fifty generations? If they all lived, of course, it would number in the billions. But they didn’t; Wikipedia tells us that there were about 3.5 million Jews at the time of Jesus.

//Answer to today’s question: yes. Christianity was merely an offshoot of Judaism. It essentially was Judaism with one important claim: that the Messiah had arrived.

So long as there was a Temple in Jerusalem, Christians continued to visit there. It was at least a decade after the Temple was destroyed, and many decades after Jesus died, before the rift between Christians and Jews became severe enough for Jews to put the Christians out of the Synagogue. That is when writings began to crop up in the Bible that appear anti-Semitic.

Here are a few more verses that verify that the earliest Christians continued Temple worship:

One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. –Acts 3:1

The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. –Acts 5:12 (Solomon’s porch is part of the Temple)

But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.” –Acts 5:21

Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah. –Acts 5:42

//Ever wonder about this verse? What is it saying? That the fiery armies of the underworld cannot overcome the church?

Not likely. It’s actually sort of the opposite.

The word “hell” is a translation of the Greek word Hades, which in New Testament writings replaced the Hebrew concept of Sheol, so “hell”, here, should be understood as the realm of the dead. But the important thing to grasp is that, with very few exceptions, everybody went to Sheol/Hades/hell in the Old Testament! It was a holding place where you awaited resurrection; or, if you don’t believe in resurrection, it was where you slowly faded away into forgottenness.

Today’s verse is not saying that evil beings down in hell cannot prove victorious over the church, because in Hebrew thinking, there were no evil beings governing the underworld. Just dead people. Rather, it is saying something extraordinary, making a bold claim: that the gates of hell cannot keep the souls of believers from escaping back to the realm of the living … being resurrected again!

//Hades is the Greek word for the underworld, named after the god of the same name. It describes a dark, dreary, misty existence after death, down under the earth. Compare the above verse to this one:

What we see is that the Old Testament concept of Sheol, a dark void where the dead slowly faded away, has morphed under the influence of Hellenism into Hades, a  dwelling place ruled by the gods of the underworld. Here is a more poignant example, first from the Old Testament:

For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. –Psalm 16:10

And then from the New Testament:

For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. –Acts 2:27

Both of these words, of course, we think of today as hell. I’ve read several books about the evolution of ideas regarding hell, but the most fascinating for me is when I can trace the way ideas came about in the Bible itself.

Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.

//These three verses have long been the topic of speculation among Bible readers. What is the “weakness” which torments Paul? There have been many speculations, and one that seems common among other Liberal Christians, is the idea that Paul was a repressed gay. But that simply makes no sense to me. Whatever the weakness was, it was presented as a qualification for apostleship, a weakness to boast about. He doesn’t say what it is, but he clearly expects his audience to know what he’s talking about. It doesn’t sound like he repressed anything.

Instead, probably the most common assumption among Bible scholars is merely that Paul’s eyes were failing. This is not wild speculation; this guess is supported by a couple things Paul writes to the Galatians:

Paul presents big letters as sort of his “signature style,” as if to say, “see, this is how you know it is really me writing, because I have to write very large.” In another place, he writes:

Where, then, is your blessing of me now? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. –Galatians 4:15

//Readers of my book about John’s Gospel are aware of the many parallels between the opening story, of Jesus turning water into wine, and the ending story, Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. But I was recently made aware of another simple parallel … one of theological importance that I can’t believe I missed! It is these two words: I thirst.

At the marriage, Jesus is somewhat pressured into providing wine before his “hour came,” but nevertheless, the dialogue surrounding the first miracle in John sets the stage for the coming hour. This “hour,” repeated over and over in John’s Gospel, would arrive when Jesus rose into the air on the cross.

So, now, at the end of the Gospel story we finally come to Jesus’ “hour,” and what happens? Still, he hasn’t provided wine in abundance as promised by the prophets. Still, he hasn’t met the need of the thirsty. In fact, Jesus himself admits his thirst! The very last words of Jesus according to John’s Gospel, are an admission that he still thirsts! Did the prophecies fail?

I don’t think so. This verse follows quickly after Jesus’ death:

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. –John 19:34

Thus appears, finally, the fountain of wine promised by the prophets, and Jesus’ “hour” finally arrives in its fullness. A spring of abundance and hope opens from Jesus side and pours forth the saving blood of Jesus … the wine of the new era.

And the devil said unto [Jesus], All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

//In this verse, Satan makes a bold claim: that he has dominion over all the nations, and has the power to grant that position to Jesus. However, Matthew claims just the opposite in his gospel:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth –Matthew 28:18

So who is the big boss? Satan or Jesus?

It’s a trick question. The verse in Luke is at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry; the verse in Matthew is at the very end, after Jesus has been resurrected. The Gospel message is that Jesus overcame the world; Jesus proved victorious over evil, and over Satan.

Therefore, what used to belong to Satan now belongs to Jesus.

//Do you know what the sign of Jonah is? Most Bible readers are familiar with this scripture, from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The “sign of Jonah” is that Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale … like Jesus spent three days in the grave, right?

Well, you’re half right. Matthew would agree with you, but Luke would not. Luke’s explanation continues from today’s verse:

For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.—Luke 11:30.

Most bible scholars recognize that Matthew and Luke copied from a shared source (Q) as they wrote their gospels. Both of them include this saying. But Matthew, when he copied this story, had a different explanation for the “sign of Jonah”:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. –Matthew 12:40

This verse is inserted by Matthew in the middle of the discussion of Jonah and Nineveh. It is surely Matthew’s own interpretation, while Luke’s is more original…and more believable as well, if spoken by Jesus himself before he died.

So what is the original sign of Jonah? What does Jerusalem have to do with Nineveh?

As Luke explains, it is that Jonah preached repentance to a wicked city. In Nineveh’s case, the wicked city repented, and was saved. But in Jerusalem’s case, there was no repentance … and Jerusalem was not saved (a generation later, it was completely leveled by the Romans).

That, of course, is why Jesus wept over Jerusalem; he foresaw its future.

//In today’s verse, a few Pharisees who seemed sympathetic to Jesus approach him and warn him to escape from Jerusalem while he can.

This sympathy should not surprise us; indeed, we often find Jesus in the homes of Pharisees. Why would Pharisees welcome Jesus into their homes, and why would Jesus ever cross their threshold?

While the gospels tend to lump all Pharisees into one category, condemning them all, in truth the Pharisees could be quite diverse in their practice. Of the two primary schools of thought among Pharisees—followers of Hillel and followers of Shammai—the former group is actually very much like Jesus. Gentle, mild, in contrast to the more severe doctrine of Shammai. The latter group probably would be happy to see Jesus imprisoned; the former group were more likely friendly and appreciative of Jesus, welcoming him into their homes.

A broad brush just doesn’t do justice to the truth about people.

//Scholars argue about when certain religious feasts and rituals began among the Hebrews, and the Passover celebration is no exception. The Bible states that the first Passover was just before Israel escaped from Egypt, before there was ever a Hebrew presence in Palestine. But if this is so, the Passover holiday was long forgotten by the time of the kings in Israel.

We do know that the annual timing of the Passover grew out of a common harvest festival, celebrated by the Canaanites before Israel arrived in the land. The Passover celebration then piggybacked with the celebration of Unleavened Bread, culminating finally in the Feast of the Firstfruits after a week-long celebration. The observance of a harvest festival predates the Passover celebration in Israel … Israel merely made it grander, more meaningful.

Today’s verse provides a clue about when the Passover was first observed—or reinstated, after hundreds of years of no celebration—in Israel. It was in the time of King Josiah in the 7th century B.C.

//Not long ago, I got pulled into a conversation that grew quite heated, about whether homosexuality was a sin. This is such a critical topic in today’s Christian world that I thought I would just try to explain how a liberal Christian typically views it from a Biblical standpoint.

Most of us agree that homosexuality is listed as an abomination in the Holiness Code of Leviticus. That’s where this all stems from. It’s right there alongside being lame and blind.

The problem is, some Christians still tend to associate abomination with sin. It is an abomination to be lame, not a sin.* If you are born blind, you are an abomination before God, not a sinner. Yes, many in N.T. times believed this made you a sinner, but Jesus taught differently.

But the prophets objected. Isaiah, especially, dreamed of a day when a Messiah would come and make all men equal.  Being different wouldn’t mean being wrong. The lame would walk, the blind would see, the deaf would hear. Great signs and wonders would happen, and God would rule in righteousness from that day onward.

A liberal Christian believes the New Testament is serious when it proclaims that that day has arrived. The Messiah has come, with signs and wonders. Whether you believe Jesus literally changed or healed the lame, the blind, the homosexuals, whatever, is somewhat irrelevant, because he didn’t get ’em all…there are lots of blind people today.

But if you believe the Bible, that age has begun. There is no longer segregation, no abomination as the Holiness Code taught, and all people may share together in the age of God’s rule.

Therefore, it’s hard for me to imagine anything more anti-Jesus than the division this topic is causing. If I may be blunt (I rarely allow myself the pleasure, here, so indulge me) the “righteousness” of the overly conservative is the righteousness of the Pharisees, still playing Temple-God, still dividing people into two halves…the acceptable and the unacceptable.

*The Bible does not specifically list the blind and lame as abominations, it merely associates them as such. The word abomination, while it sounds horrid in today’s language, described a number of seemingly innocuous differences and imperfections throughout Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

//I often quote verses from the Old Testament prophets to highlight their expectation of the new age. We are told, for example, that in that day, bread and wine will be plentiful. In this verse, the wine is said to be so plentiful that it flows down the mountains.

But I had never paid attention to just how big the bumper crops of grain would be! Amos says the reaping will be so plentiful that when the plowman comes by the next year to till the fields, the reapers will still be gathering from the last harvest!

Such was the dream the prophets held for the reign of the Messiah. This reign of God was never to be fulfilled up in heaven, but in a replenishing of this earth.

//It’s been a week since my last post. I’ve been relaxing on a camping trip; perhaps the first time I’ve missed two or more days in a row since the blog began. So let’s fire things up again with a controversial topic.

I am often asked how I can endorse other religions as a possible path to God. Isn’t the scripture clear that only Jesus can save? Today’s verse is probably the most quoted argument, but another verse in Acts may be even more clear (Peter is speaking of Jesus):

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. –Acts 4:12

So pluralism must be a colossal mistake, right? But as a liberal Christian, I just don’t read it that way. We need to be cautious about reading verses in the shadow of traditional Christian dogma. These verses were written in an age when Christians could see no other hope of “salvation.” The Jews wanted a savior, someone to set right the world’s wrongs, and along came Jesus. Having rejected him, what other savior could they expect? Who else, in that day and age, was bringing to the Jews a message of compassion and hope?

Early Christians could see no one else on the horizon. These verses were written in a dark age when the Teacher of Righteousness, a man sent from God, had just been crucified. The verses were a cry to the rejecting world to see in Jesus the only way, for no one else in the world seemed to understand God as Jesus did.

Two thousand years later, I think we’ve found many more wonderful examples of how to live a godly life, from many different flavors of religion. What was true 2,000 years ago is no longer true today.

//Sometimes we, in our sheltered age, have a hard time relating to the parables of Jesus. Here is one that is often misread.

Jesus asks a question: Which of you shepherds wouldn’t leave 99 sheep behind the go and find one?

The answer, of course, is none of them would be so foolish. Leaving 99 sheep in the wilderness is utter madness! No shepherd having any business sense at all would take that risk.

Having left the crowd with a good laugh, Jesus then explains that that is precisely what God does!

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

The ninety and nine “just” persons, Jesus explains, hold no interest for God. His joy is only in the one who, becoming “lost,” finally recognizes his frailty and turns to God for help.

This is a parable about accepting the sinner, while shunning the self-righteous Pharisees.

//This is the sort of Bible verse that leaves me puzzled. Surely, it’s a mythical reference, an ancient story collected and included in the Bible, but where does it come from? Are we really supposed to believe that the writer of Genesis was suggesting that all the tent-dwellers around him descended from Jabal, and all those who play pipes descended from Jubal?

Here’s the really odd thing about Jabal and Jubal: These two brothers lived before Noah, so they must have died in the flood. They couldn’t be the ancestors of anyone.

//King David dreamed of building a house for God, but God declined the offer, awarding that privilege to David’s son, Solomon. Instead, God built David a “house” … that is, a dynasty.

A FEW scholars are skeptical, considering David’s kingdom to be mythical, or at least very small. No archaeological record has ever been found referring to King David.

That is, until 1993. Then, during an excavation in Tel Dan in northern Israel, archaeologists uncovered several fragments of a stele dating to the 9th century BCE. In it, an unnamed king (probably Hazael) of Aram-Damascus boasts about victories over Israel and Israel’s ally … the “House of David.” While the stele’s authenticity has been established, scholars continue to debate its translation, specifically the meaning of the “house of David.”

Here is the translated text:

1. [ ]…[ ] and cut [ ]
2. [ ] my father went up [ ] he fought at […]
3. And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. Now the king of I[s]/rael had penetrated
4. into my father’s land before. [But then] Hadad made me king,
5. And Hadad marched before me. So I went forth from [the] seven[…]/s
6. of my rule, and I killed [seve]nty kin[gs] who had harnessed thou[sands of cha]/riots
7. and thousands of cavalry. [And I killed …]ram son of […]
8. the king of Israel, and I killed […]yahu son of [… the ki]/ng of
9. the House of David. And I made [their towns into ruins and turned]
10. their land into [a desolation …]
11. others and […Then…became ki]/ng
12. over Is[rael…And I laid]
13. siege against […]