Genesis 15:15, Gathered to My People, I of II

Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 1 comment

And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

//That’s God’s promise to Abraham, regarding his ultimate end. God promised a long, good life, after which he would “go to his fathers.” And that’s what happened ten chapters later:

Genesis 25:8, Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.

Often the statement is made that the Old Testament authors did not believe in a resurrection. This appears to be true; there’s little hint about any idea of resurrection (bodily or otherwise) until the book of Daniel, penned in the Maccabean period, about 165 BC. Nor did Old Testament authors dream of living in heaven with God. Heaven was reserved for heavenly beings; not people. Abraham’s reward for obedience, like Job’s, was on earth, while he still lived, after which he went “to his people” … wherever that is.

But Abraham’s “people” would soon develop higher expectations than earthly reward. The mistreatment of Jews in the Maccabean period spurred the rise of a belief in reward after death. If bad things happened to good people on earth, with no hint of justice, then reward must apparently come later, right? This sort of thinking is natural: In 1997 a Gallop poll in America reported that 72% of Americans believe in heaven. That’s 1997, when unemployment hit a 28-year low and the Dow reached 7,000. Who needed heaven? Ten years later, the poll was repeated. After 9-11 and a serious recession, belief in heaven had risen nine points to 81%. Thankfully, we imagine, a better life awaits.

Comin’ for to carry me hommmmme. More on this topic on a couple days, when we’ll learn about Abraham’s “people” that preceded him in death.

Nehemiah 2:19, the Bible’s only named Arab

Posted on Friday, July 8, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn.

//Today’s verse is the only named Arab in the Bible. Will you let me evoke my right as a book reviewer to quote from David Plotz’s Good Book again?

“When Geshem the Arab and his cronies hear that Nehemiah is rebuilding the wall, they ‘mocked and ridiculed’ him. Nehemiah responds by saying: ‘the God of heaven is the one who will give us success, and we His servants are going to start building; but you have no share or claim or historic right in Jerusalem.’ In what can be seen as a darkly humorous divine joke, the only Arab in the Bible turns out to be (1) an enemy of the Jews and (2) at odds with them over who should control Jerusalem. It’s 2,500 years later: Has anything changed?”

I’ve told you thrice, now: Go get David’s insightful book. Here it is again: http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/06/book-review-good-book.html

Revelation 2:13, The Throne of Satan

Posted on Wednesday, July 6, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

I know where you live–where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city–where Satan lives.

//Ever wonder where Satan lives? Here it is, in black and white, in a message to the church of Pergamum, one of the seven cities of Asia Minor. As Rome had apparently become the center of Satan’s activity in the West, Pergamum had become the “throne” of the East.

Pergamum, according to John of Patmos, was far from perfect. They had some among them who “held to the teaching of Balaam,” an Old Testament character known for corrupting Israel by promoting idol worship. Pergamum also had some who “held to the teaching of the Nicolaitans,” known for their deviant sexual practices and, again, for idolatry. But of the greatest idolatry of all, worshipping the throne of Satan, Pergamum’s record remains unblemished.

What exactly was this throne of Satan in Revelation? Some have wondered if it referred to the great throne-like altar in Pergamum to Zeus, a massive structure originally built in the second century B.C. Given that Zeus is the father of Apollo, that Nero Caesar often portrayed himself in the divine image of Apollo, and that Nero Caesar is, by nearly every historical-critical account of Revelation, the original Beast of the Sea, it all comes together, once more displaying John’s fondness for parody. As Jesus, the Lamb, is named the Son of God, Nero, the Beast, is named the son of Satan.

2 Samuel 14:25, Absalom’s Hair

Posted on Monday, July 4, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

In all Israel there was not a man so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the top of his head to the sole of his foot there was no blemish in him.

//What a specimen, that Absalom! So gorgeous was he that he sometimes had to cut his hair, because it grew so long and heavy. The locks of hair from each cutting weighed two hundred shekels (about five pounds).

Such a man deserves to be king, or so Absalom imagined. Rebellious, he turned against his father David, God’s anointed king. And that’s where divine justice caught up with him.

Fleeing the men of David on a mule, his dazzling hair caught on the branch of a tree, and the mule kept going without him. Dangling alive from the tree branch, David’s men caught up with him and killed him.

Surely, it’s from this story that we derive the common saying: “Hair today, gone tomorrow.”

Revelation 5:7, The Scroll with Seven Seals

Posted on Saturday, July 2, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 3 comments

[Jesus] came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

//In Revelation, Jesus is the only person found worthy to open a mysterious scroll. Sealed seven times over, it obviously hides a great secret. In heaven, Jesus removes the seals one-by-one, initiating a sort of countdown; after each seal, our attention is drawn to the earth, where battles and famines and natural disasters occur.

Have you ever wondered where this scroll came from? Let’s see if we can uncover its roots and learn what it says.

My best guess is that Revelation’s scroll comes from the book of Daniel. A fiery angel from heaven interpreted Daniel’s visions of horned beasts and great kings to foretell how the world would end, but God told Daniel to seal up his story until the end of days.

After its seals are removed one-by-one, we seem to lose track of the scroll, but it surfaces again in chapter 10 of Revelation. There, a mighty angel stands holding a little scroll, now open. He plants his fight foot on the sea and his left foot on the land. Daniel’s mighty angel actually stands towering over a river; Revelation has perhaps tweaked this image to mimic the Caesars, who were sometimes portrayed standing over land and sea, bringing prosperity to the land and peace to the seas.

Now in Revelation, the angel swears there will be no more delay, and his speech rumbles like the seven thunders of heaven. But John is told not to write down in Revelation what the angel says; he is ordered to take the scroll and swallow it. And that’s the last we hear of it.

Oh, so close! Daniel’s end-of-the-world scenario remains a mystery still.

John 20:28, “My Lord and My God”

Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 3 comments

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

//Several passages in John’s Gospel we know are not original, but were added sometime later. John’s Gospel, though a personal favorite, may be the book in the Bible that has changed most since its original composition. This naturally invites a bit of skepticism about any passage which doesn’t seem to fit the theology or pattern of the rest of the book.

Here is an example. Near the end of the Gospel, the risen Jesus magically appears to his followers in a locked room, where he bestows peace upon them.  But the scene seems to happen twice, in the same house, with the same message of peace, as if two versions of the appearance story are presented side-by-side.

In the second story, Thomas becomes a guinea pig, his unbelief providing opportunity for a dramatic proof of the resurrection. Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” We all know Thomas’ response: He pronounces Jesus his “Lord and God.”

This “touching” opportunity contradicts the words of Jesus to Mary just a few verses earlier. So does Jesus’ pronouncement, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed” contradict Johannine theology, where “seeing” is never meant literally. According to John, one “sees” Jesus by being born again. But if this second story is a later redaction, what prompted its inclusion? Is it merely there to reinforce the doctrine of a corporeal resurrection body? Or is there something more to the passage?

Possibly, a clue to the story’s addition may be seen in the competition between Christianity and the cult of Caesar worship. Domitian had recently declared himself divine, and began to demand the title “Lord and God.” The Christian response, then, may have been to emphasize Jesus in that role.

2 Kings 9:30, The evils of makeup

Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 3 comments

Then Jehu went to Jezreel. When Jezebel heard about it, she painted her eyes, arranged her hair and looked out of a window.

//In this story, Jehu rebels against Israel’s king Jorum and goes on a murdering rampage, protesting the “many whoredoms and sorceries” of Jorum’s mother, Jezebel. Jehu nails King Jorum with an arrow and chucks his corpse aside. Then he charges after Judah’s king Ahaziah, and murders him, too. Finally, he marches to Jezebel’s palace.

It becomes a Rapunzel theme with a twist. The damsel (Jezebel) slathers on the makeup, gets her hair all ready, and peeks out the window. She asks if her handsome prince has come in peace. But Jehu instead hollers up at the window, asking if anyone else is up there. “Two or three eunuchs” peek out, and the prince doesn’t take time to climb up her hair for a rescue; he tells the eunuchs to just toss her out the window.

Unfortunately, the story ends badly. She “spatters” on the ground and is trampled under horses. Then, she’s eaten by dogs.

Don’t feed badly, it’s apparently what she deserves. Jezebel was the first biblical character to wear makeup, and the act is implicitly linked to her “whoredom.” To this day, some Christian denominations continue to associate makeup with the harlotry of Jezebel.

Matthew 22:44, God the Son? Part IV of IV

Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 1 comment

“The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.”

//These are the words of David, as quoted by Matthew. It means, “God said unto David.”

Matthew loves to quote scripture. But Matthew was writing in Greek, quoting the Greek translation of the Old Testament’s original Hebrew. The Hebrew rendition makes a distinction between the divine name of LORD (Hebrew: Yahweh) and the lesser title Lord (Hebrew: adown). “Yahweh said unto adown.” But Matthew uses the same Greek word, kyrios, for both: Kyrios said unto my kyrios. English translators, to help clear things up, have substituted LORD (capital letters for God) and Lord (lower case letters for lordship).

Here’s another one. Deuteronomy 6:16 says, Ye shall not tempt the LORD (Hebrew: Yahweh) your God. When Matthew quotes the verse in Greek, it becomes Thou shalt not tempt the Lord (Greek: kyrios) thy God. It’s left as a lowercase Lord in the English translation, because no distinction is necessary. We know it means God.

Now we come to the argument most often put forth by Trinitarians hoping to prove the Bible’s consistency: Lord, like LORD, can apparently mean God. Matthew calls God and Jesus both kyrios, as did the Septuagint before him (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), so, Trinitarians reason, God and Jesus must be the same. The Greek word kyrios, they explain, was revered so much that it was used by first century Jews exclusively in replacement of Yahweh.

Except that this is not so. Today’s verse shows clearly that kyrios can mean either Yahweh or adown. We cannot assume that where Matthew uses kyrios, he means the divine name of God. Nor can we assume that Matthew’s willingness to call God by the lesser word kyrios implies that when he calls Jesus kyrios he then means Jesus is God. It just doesn’t work that way. The “divine name” argument serves only to complicate the simple message of Matthew, and with this final Trinitarian protest debunked, it leaves us with absolutely no reason to ever believe Matthew shared the high Christology of John.

Jesus is God? John says yes. But it never crossed Matthew’s mind.

Matthew 1:21-23, God the Son? Part III of IV

Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

//Matthew loves to quote scripture. Jesus wasn’t named Emmanuel, but that doesn’t matter: If Isaiah had prophesied a child named Fred Flintstone, I suspect Matthew would have found a way to tie that name in, so badly does he wish to show Jesus as the fulfillment of scripture.

Continuing  the theme of the last two posts, we’re discussing the title God the Son (which was never used in the Bible), and whether or not Matthew shared John’s vision that Jesus was God incarnate. Some readers point to today’s verse as evidence of Jesus being God, but it really proves little. “God with us” doesn’t mean “I am God”…if it did, no other person on earth would be named Emmanuel. More likely, Matthew imagined Emmanuel to mean something along the lines of, “I am bringing the Kingdom of God to you.” Matthew, in fact, explains precisely how he relates the name Emmanuel to the name Jesus in today’s verse:  “for he shall save his people from their sins.” And in Matthew’s version, this is done without God, who forsook Jesus on the cross. Bluntly put: to Matthew, Emmanuel could be pretty much anybody except God.

Sometimes the loudest argument is one from silence. If Matthew wanted to convey that Jesus is God, he could have said so simply, as John did. But Matthew never once refers to Jesus as God. Not once, despite ample opportunities throughout the Gospel to do so. As I said, Matthew dearly loves to quote the prophets. If he wanted to portray Jesus as God, here is a very powerful verse, a missed opportunity, from Matthew’s favorite prophet, Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Wow! Could any prophecy in the Bible be more useful to a theology of God incarnate? Problem is, Matthew wants absolutely nothing to do with it. It doesn’t match Matthew’s beliefs. Instead, he goes with the biteless Emmanuel prophecy, turning Jesus’ birth into a miracle story, and the theology of God creating a Son by impregnating a virgin.

Jesus is God? John says yes. But it never crossed Matthew’s mind.

Matthew 19:17, God the Son? Part II of IV

Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good.”

//We continue our discussion of the Christology of Matthew. In this verse, Jesus denies that he is God. You’ve probably heard it said that Jesus was somehow telling this man that since he (Jesus) was good, he had to be God. Very unlikely. The rule of thumb is, keep it simple. If it helps, try inserting another name to help decipher the meaning of the verse without bias. What would the verse mean if anybody besides Jesus said it?

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Paul replied. “There is only One who is good.”

Now the meaning of the verse comes across clearly. But this is not the only verse in Matthew in which Jesus is distanced from God. Here are a couple more:

26:64, “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Might One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Given Jesus’ words in 22:44, it is clear that “the Mighty One” is God. Jesus and God sit side by side.

27:46, “About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”–which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Matthew portrays Jesus as someone who can be forsaken by God. That would be quite a trick if Jesus was God. Matthew repeatedly shows Jesus and God (not “the Father”) as separate entities. God has to come down out of heaven to form a Son. God has to come down out of heaven to bless this Son at his baptism. God departs from his Son at the cross. God sits beside his Son when they rule. The God of Matthew is not “everywhere,” he is located in space, as is Jesus. They are separate beings, in separate locations.

All through the book of Matthew “the Father” is interchangeable with “God,” but “the Son” is not. You cannot replace “the Son” with “God” or vice versa without introducing syntactical tongue twisters that leave poor Jesus talking to himself, sitting beside himself, praying to himself, forsaking himself. Contrast Matthew’s primitive understanding with the Gospel of John. In John there are no such problems, because in John the Son interacts not with God but with the Father. In John, both the Father and the Son are identified as God, but this never gets in the way of the separate identities of Father and Son.

Jesus is God? John says yes. But it never crossed Matthew’s mind.

Matthew 1:18, God the Son? Part I of IV

Posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

//In several past blog posts, I introduced the high Christology of John’s Gospel. In that Gospel, Jesus is presented clearly as God. On the other side of the spectrum, however, is Matthew’s Gospel. These two gospels–Matthew and John–build upon some of the same building blocks, but have gone two different directions. Nowhere is this more evident than in their differing Christology.

We’ve discussed John, so over the course of several posts, I’d like to discuss Matthew’s take on who Jesus is. The conclusion, each time, will be that it never crossed Matthew’s mind that Jesus is God.

In preparing for this discussion, I urge you to recognize that all of the Gospels were written anonymously. All were written between 40 and 70 years after Jesus died, by men who had most likely never seen Jesus. All were written in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic tongue. It is important for this study to divorce yourself from the assumption that the authors of Matthew and John sat together at the feet of Jesus, learning the same doctrine.

Let’s begin with Matthew’s greatest contribution to Christian theology. It is this: Jesus is God’s son. Now, this doesn’t sound very astounding at first. Every Gospel writer calls Jesus the Son of God, and so does Paul, the earliest Christian writer. But how might this phrase have been meant by other writers? In the century of Christ, there were two common understandings of how this phrase was meant in the Old Testament:

[1] A minor deity or angel. The “sons of God” procreated with the daughters of men in Genesis, and the “sons of God” traversed the earth in Job.

[2] One ordained by God, such as the kings of Israel.

Matthew rejects both of these meanings, and falls back on legends of gods mating with humans. Such legends were common in the Hellenistic world, and can even be read in the Bible: See Genesis 6:4. To Matthew, “Son of God” means precisely what it sounds like. Matthew quotes from the Septuagint, rather than the original Hebrew, to show that a “virgin” (instead of just a young maiden) will conceive and bear a son. Matthew’s particular contribution here is very important: He is dogmatic that Mary was impregnated not by Joseph, but by God Himself. She was found with child of the Holy Ghost, and that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Now we see just how astounding Matthew’s claim is! Matthew insists that Jesus is more than the expected Messiah. He is–gasp–the very offspring of God! When Matthew uses the phrase “Son of God,” he in no way implies “God the Son.” Contrary to John, Matthew gives no hint that Jesus existed before birth. God, in spirit form, came down from heaven, impregnated Mary, and formed a half-human-half-god offspring. Jesus.

Jesus is God? John says yes. But it never crossed Matthew’s mind.

Numbers 5:29-30, Got a Cheating Wife?

Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 1 comment

This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her.

//Here’s a sure-fire solution for all you guys who wonder if your wife has been cheating. It’s called the “Law of Jealousy,” and it comes straight from the mouth of God to Moses, so you know it will work.

First, get your wife to a priest. Be sure to bring a half gallon of barley flour as a “jealousy offering.”

The priest will help her stand trial before God. He’ll put some holy water in a clay jar and mix in some dust from the floor. He’ll let her hair down, so she looks the part of a prostitute. While she holds your half gallon of barley flour as an offering to God, the priest will stand in front of her with the dirty water. He’ll put her under oath and promise no harm will come if she has been faithful to you. On the other hand, if she has been unfaithful, a curse will be upon her; her abdomen will swell and her womb will shrivel. As she watches solemnly, the priest will write this curse on a piece of leather, and “wash it off” into the bitter water.

Then, the priest will take your barley flour from her hands and carry it to the altar. A handful of it is burned in sacrifice while your wife drinks the curse.

If she has been faithful, she’ll be unharmed and still be able to have children.

Exodus 12:40-41, How long was Israel in Egypt?

Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 4 comments

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.

//430 years Israel lived in Egypt. To the very day, it says. Sounds pretty precise. Let’s add things up, and see if we agree.

Genesis 46:7-11 starts the story, telling how Jacob took all his family, including grandchildren, into Egypt. One of these grandchildren making the trip was Kohath.

In Exodus 6:18-20, Kohath has a son named Amram, and we learn Kohath lived 133 years. Then Amram has a son named Moses. Amram lived 137 years.

Exodus 7:7 tell us Moses was 80 years old when he confronted Pharoah. They left Egypt shortly thereafter.

Suppose Kohath entered Egypt as a newborn. Suppose further that Kohath conceived Amram from his deathbed, and Amram conceived Moses from his deathbed. That still leaves us with a maximum possible number of years of 133 + 137 + 80 = 350 years that Israel lived in Egypt.

430 years to the day? Anyone see where my math is wrong?

Mark 8:6, One Miracle Feeding or Two?

Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 23 comments

And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people.

//In my opinion, the story of Jesus feeding the multitude with loaves and fishes has a distinct aura of historicity about it. It is the central “sign” of John’s Gospel, and it relates directly to the anticipation of a Messiah who would initiate an age of plenty. It is mentioned in all four gospels … in fact, in Mark and Matthew, the story is told twice!

Which makes one wonder: Did Jesus feed the multitude twice, or are we reading two different interpretations of the same event? Matthew’s Gospel is recognized as an update of Mark with a new theological direction; 90% of the verses in Mark find their way into Matthew, many almost word for word. So, it’s probably not significant that Matthew sides with Mark about the event happening twice.

Luke also wrote his gospel with the book of Mark open in front of him. But Luke appears to have had more sources of the Christ story available to him than Matthew, and is less concerned about occasionally disagreeing with Mark. Luke presents only one miracle feeding.

John’s Gospel, the most independent of the four, again relates the story only once.

So, then, to determine whether there were one or two miracle feedings, we’re left with analyzing Mark. The two events in Mark (one in chapter 6, the other in chapter 8) have varying details: Jesus feeds 5,000 the first time, 4,000 the second time. He uses five loaves and two fishes the first time, and seven loaves and a few fishes the second time. He gathers twelve baskets of leftovers the first time, seven the second time. But the only fundamental differences in the story are the numbers, which surely derive from some theological significance in both stories, though scholars continue to argue about their meanings.

Would it be helpful to discuss the setting surrounding each story? This is where it gets interesting.

  1. After both feedings, the meaning is misunderstood.
  2. After the first feeding, Jesus crosses the sea to Bethsaida. After the second, he crosses to Dalmanutha, and a few verses later moves on to Bethsaida.
  3. After both feedings, Jesus finds himself in a contest with the Pharisees.
  4. After the first feeding, Jesus heals a deaf man with spittle. After the second feeding, Jesus heals a blind man with spittle.

What do you think? Are these really two separate events, or two stories Mark has collected of the same event?

Luke 6:20, The Beatitudes in Luke

Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 4 comments

Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

//Everyone is familiar with the beatitudes in Matthew, that wonderful collection of “blesseds” from the sermon on the Mount. They provide wonderful encouragement for our spiritual needs.

But did you know that Luke preserves a record of the beatitudes as well? Bible scholars sometimes call Luke 6:17-49 the Sermon on the Plain. It’s basically the same scene and drawn from the same source as Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. But in Luke’s version, the sayings are very down to earth, not meant in a spiritual way at all. In Luke, we’re not dealing with the poor in spirit, we’re dealing with the poor. We’re not dealing with those who hunger after justice, but with those who are truly hungry. It’s not about those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, but simply all who are persecuted. Luke is not about spiritual needs, but about real life. In Luke, Jesus is concerned about those with empty stomachs, the real have-nots, the people who are weeping now.

Luke’s Gospel has a different flavor from the beginning. Consider the parable of Lazarus, the poor beggar sitting outside the gates of the rich man. This is not a story about right and wrong, but about haves and have-nots. The have-nots will be rewarded in the age to come, while the haves already have their reward. According to Luke, the only proper use of wealth is to give it to the poor.  Where Matthew says, “do not lay up for yourselves treasure on earth,” Luke is very specific in relating the same passage: “Sell your possessions and give alms.”

Is the Lukan version a more original peek into the true humanitarian ministry of Jesus? Here are Luke’s beatitudes:

Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.

Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

Blessed are you when people hate and persecute you … for behold, your reward is great in heaven.

Revelation 1:1, Revelation’s Purpose

Posted on Friday, June 10, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 3 comments

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.

//My recent review of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran sparked a discussion of whether there are similar “hate texts” in the New Testament. I couldn’t provide any examples except the obvious: the vengeance promised in the book of Revelation. Nothing in the Koran compares to the level of gruesome bloodshed in Revelation, yet more Muslims are incited into a holy war than Christians. How is it that the Koran’s hate texts are so much more effective than the Bible’s?

Could it be that Revelation’s dreams are just too bloody and extraordinary for modern Christians to relate, and the book is largely ignored? Revelation was probably written shortly after the war of 70 A.D., meant as encouragement to Christians under Roman oppression. Judean Christians would have been especially demoralized at the time, having suffered both the loss of family members and dislocation from their homeland and Temple.

Don’t worry, says Revelation, Jesus hasn’t forgotten you, he is coming back pronto to help you slaughter all the unbelievers and to restore your beloved Jerusalem to even greater grandeur. The irony is that Revelation was never needed; you might even say it failed miserably. Christianity quickly grew into a peaceful religion as Christians instead came to terms with their lot in life.

Yet, even without violent scripture (other than the misunderstood Revelation), Christians have embarked on multiple holy crusades through the centuries. Today, they seem to have outgrown the phase. Islam, too, appears to be slowly outgrowing its current violent phase. This begs the question:  Can a religion’s holy book influence its believers toward bloodshed, or is violence a matter of environment rather than religion? I’ll be the first to admit that religious extremism is a complex problem, and I don’t have answers. What do you think?

Numbers 31:17-18, Texts of Terror

Posted on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

//As instructed by a vengeful God, Israel destroyed Midian. The men of Midian were killed in battle, the cities burned, the women and children taken as plunder. But when the officers of the Israelite army returned with their plunder, Moses was displeased; God apparently did not yet feel vindicated. Moses therefore gave instruction to murder the women and children as well, keeping only the young virgins as sex slaves.

While I am no fan of the “texts of terror” within the Bible, they do need to be trotted out every once in a while, and read to those who believe the Bible is superior in moral teaching to, say, the Koran. The Bible, while truly an inspirational book that has spiritually fed millions for millennia, is too human (or inhuman) to be touted as perfect. The title of today’s blog post comes from feminist theologian Phyllis Trible’s book of the same name. It examines four Old Testament women who experienced terrible abuse: Hagar, Tamar, the woman of Judges 19, and the daughter of Jephthah. The primary cause is the social understanding of the day of women as property, and of these four, one story is particularly gruesome, so let’s dig into that one. A Levite’s unnamed concubine is unfaithful; she leaves him and returns home to her father. The Levite goes after her, and stays in the home of her father. While there, the house is accosted by thugs:

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.

Commentary is unnecessary. OK, I’m done with my obligatory reminder of the occasional inhumane instruction in the Bible. Back to more inspirational and instructive stories tomorrow.

Revelation 22:15, No Dogs In Heaven

Posted on Monday, June 6, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 3 comments

Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

//I may be committing blogicide with this verse, but here goes.

According to Revelation, the doors of the New Jerusalem are closed to “dogs.” And what is a dog? It’s a derogatory label for a male prostitute, so named in antiquity because of the coupling method of men with men.

Don’t believe me? The New Jerusalem, in Revelation, replaces the Temple. It becomes the new House of God atop Mount Zion. Revelation’s teaching comes directly from the Old Testament, in a text responding to Israel’s ungodly acceptance of Temple prostitutes:

Deuteronomy 23:18—Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God.

I’ll leave you to decide what to make of this.

John 8:3-6, What Did Jesus Write on the Ground?

Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 2 comments

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

//A few days back, I discussed the Sermon on the Mount as a new Law, replacing the old Law Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. I’d like to return to that theme for this story.

Today’s story of an adulteress caught in the act is not original to John’s Gospel. Although it appears to have been well known among early Christians, it was not part of the original Gospel. Its placement in chapter eight interrupts the flow of thought, slicing the Tabernacles motif in half. The earliest manuscripts of John don’t have this story, and in later manuscripts its position is not fixed; it sometimes appears here, but it is sometimes placed after verse 7:36, 7:44, or even in the gospel of Luke. Nor is the language Johannine.

It is, however a beautiful Christian story, with an interesting mystery. The question the story leaves unanswered, and which has titillated Bible scholars for two millennia, is this: When Jesus stooped and wrote on the ground, what was he writing?

The “teachers and Pharisees” were correct, of course. Deuteronomy chapter 22 describes the death penalty. The Law was clear, written on stone tablets and given to Moses: You shall not commit adultery. This Law was written by God’s own finger upon those tablets. Perhaps this provides a clue to what Jesus was writing more than a millennia later. Was God rewriting His Law, again with His own finger? The new Law reads as such:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

2 Peter 1:16, Cunningly Devised Fables

Posted on Thursday, June 2, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

//This verse carries a certain irony, since it was definitely not written by an “eyewitness.” An unknown author, writing perhaps 40 years after Peter died, wrote in Peter’s name and soundly criticized any interpretation of the Jesus story other than one of stark literalism. For nearly 18 centuries afterward, Christians accepted a literal interpretation of the Bible without question. Critical analysis was discouraged, and dissenters were cautious about expressing opposing views. Even in post-Enlightenment years, new strands of fundamentalist Christianity surfaced, and literalism dominated Bible scholarship. Then, in the 20th century, a plethora of critical scholars began to question the Bible’s historical authenticity, interpreting many of its stories allegorically rather than literally. Books such as Esther and Jonah were recognized as non-historical, the virgin birth stories understood as parables, and so on. What brought about this new trend, and was it bad thing?

I’d like to emphasize that this new scholarship is not the result of trendy skepticism. It is rooted in several new developments in the 19th and 20th centuries that forced us to read the Bible differently. Some examples:

1. In the early 19th century, we learned to decipher cuneiform. It took time to conquer the various vocabularies, but by the end of that century we could accurately read Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian records. Suddenly, the Bible was no longer our only readable record of the past. For the first time, we knew whether a biblical writer was writing real history, or using historical details as a backdrop for fiction or parable.

2. In the early 20th century, the discovery of Ugarit tablets made a tremendous impact on biblical studies. Now, we could read Canaanite literature, including poetry that proved nearly identical to Hebrew writings. Many of the Psalms are nearly word for word copies of earlier Canaanite poetry, borrowed from songs that were probably sung to the Canaanite god Baal. We began to recognize more fully the impact of neighboring nations on the development of Judaism.

3. More recently, the Dead Sea Scrolls have given us Hebrew texts as much as 1,000 years earlier than any we had before. We’re no longer forced to read apocryphal books such as Jubilees and Enoch in Greek or Ethiopic translations, and can go directly back to the original Hebrew, as we learn about the period and beliefs from which  Christianity emerged. Likewise, the discovery of papyri fragments of New Testament books several hundreds of years earlier than our earliest codices, pointed us closer to the original New Testament wording and meaning.

These literary findings are supplemented by scientific developments and archaeological discoveries, as both of these fields also flourished. We have convincingly verified many Biblical claims, while disproving other Biblical passages just as convincingly. Only if we continue to bury our heads in the sand can we continue to read the Bible as we used to. The last century has irrevocably changed the way we understand Christianity.

Page 41 of 46« First...3940414243...Last »