Matthew 8:5-7, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part VI of VIII

Posted on Thursday, July 3, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 4 comments

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

//Question 4 of 5: What did Jesus think about same-sex partners?

I promised that today I’d discuss what Jesus himself has to say about homosexuality. The answer is…

Nothing. Jesus has nothing to say at all. Yet there is one event which might actually shed light on how Jesus felt. It is in Matthew 8:5-13, and in Luke 7:1-10, where Jesus heals a centurion’s servant who is dying. The Greek word used for “servant” is “pais.”

According to some Bible scholars, this word pais almost always had a sexual connotation. Others say only sometimes. It also hints that the centurion’s “servant” was a youth. In any case, it leaves open the real possibility that the centurion’s servant was his young lover.

“Pais” may be the root word of pederasty, a word discussed earlier, but a twist … a “beloved” youth. The youth is also described in this story as highly-valued. Was it pure love, rather than a sex-slave relationship? Is that why the centurion was so desperate that the young man be healed? Is that why Jesus had no words of rebuke?

This is admittedly not a strong argument, since it relies on a deeper study of Biblical Greek than I am capable of, yet if there is any hint at all in scripture about how Jesus felt about same-sex relationships, this is it. No condemnation, only respect and compassion.

1 Corinthians 7:25, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part V of VIII

Posted on Wednesday, July 2, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.

//Question 3 of 5: Did Paul mean for us to take this anti-gay teaching (1) literally, (2) in our day today, and (3) as the words of Jesus? Even if we believe that Paul was teaching against homosexual sex in general, should we take his words literally and at face value? Read today’s verse again, written by Paul.

So Paul himself cautioned us about believing that he was speaking for Jesus. He was giving his honest opinion, he says, and in retrospect, we know in this case he guessed wrong. He imagined that Jesus was coming back in his lifetime, or at least in the lifetime of some of those listening. So certain was he about this that in this passage in Corinthians, he recommended that people not bother to marry! Thank goodness he was honest, and prefaced his opinion with “I have no commandment from the Lord!”

Does this give us pause about considering his opinion regarding same-sex relationships on the same level as the words of Jesus? Does it make us wonder whether these words—like so many of Paul’s writings—were better suited for a first-century audience, because of his particular beliefs and concerns? Two days ago I pointed out how different the first century social setting was from ours today. Certainly, Paul had no idea we’d be reading his words as scripture 2,000 years later, and using them to condemn loving, honest relationships.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a peek at what Jesus says on the matter.

Romans 2:1, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part IV of VIII

Posted on Tuesday, July 1, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

//Question 2 of 5: Why does Paul then contradict his teachings on this topic, in this same letter to the Romans?

Yesterday, I introduced the one verse in the New Testament which seems to speak against homosexual relationships. It’s in the letter of Paul to the Romans. Oddly, immediately after this, we find today’s verse at the start of chapter two.

The question is this: Why would Paul write condemning words, and then immediately say that anyone who judges another condemns himself? It hardly makes sense. Could Paul be NOT condemning anyone in the famous “homosexual” verses of chapter one? Or is he providing an example of how God takes care of the judgment of evil men (in this case, turning them over to pederasty), warning us to never, ever judge another?

More curious is why Paul would condemn homosexuals, when the only other place in the scripture which does so is the Old Testament Law. Does he forget his own words on the topic, how the law was obsolete once Jesus happened on the scene with a better way to live? (In Romans 10:4, he says the Christ is the end of the law.) Did he not insist that the Law applied only to the Jews, not to the Romans, the audience of his letter? Why does he explain twice in this same book of Romans (5:20, 7:7-8) that the Law increased our sin, as if many of the things once considered sin should be no longer?

Christians recognize the replacement of the Law to be true in regard to Sabbath observance and unclean foods. Things once considered a sin no longer are.

There is plenty of controversy about what Paul meant, but in any case, it should definitely make us doubt the assumption that we can tie Paul’s apparent condemnation of homosexuals in chapter 1 to the Holiness Code of the Old Testament. That is unlikely … whatever Paul was talking about in Romans chapter 1, he wasn’t talking about the Law. We’ll examine this in more depth tomorrow.

Romans 1:25-27,Homosexuality and the Bible, Part III of VIII

Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 2 comments

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

//Question 1 of 5: Could we be reading the one N.T. reference to homosexuality wrong?

Yesterday, I pointed out that there are two, and only two, places in the Bible which speak against homosexuality. One is in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, and the other is here in the epistle to the Romans. This is the ONLY passage in the New Testament criticizing homosexuality. Since the Bible itself advises a double witness, we should be extremely careful in how we interpret this one passage.

So what did Paul mean? First, let’s put the verses in context. These verses are positioned not as a sin but as a punishment. Repeatedly throughout this chapter, Paul lists a sin and with it its punishment. In this case, the sin is idolatry; the punishment is giving them up to their passions; and the people being punished are described as wicked, covetous, malicious, envious, murderous, deceitful, and evil-minded. So, if you apply Paul’s letter to your gay neighbor, you are labeling him as evil in all these ways.

But what does it mean to “give them up to their passions”, passions that are “against nature?”

Paul was a product of his times, so to understand what he was talking about, we must understand the social setting in the first century. The word to learn is “pederasty.” It refers to an acceptable form of same-sex encounters in the Greek and Roman world, defined by one strong partner (acting as the male, if you will) and one weak partner (acting as the female). It was considered a sort of mentor-student relationship, like men with boys. Surely Paul found this “unnatural”–a word which for him did not mean perverse, but against the norm, just as for Paul long hair on a man was “unnatural”.

For the Romans–the audience of Paul’s letter–pederasty came to be particularly disturbing: it began to crop up between a free man and his slave. It was, in other words, no longer consensual sex.

This, explain many scholars, is the real target of Paul’s warning. He was thinking of same-sex rape. In this light, we can now understand how Paul considered “homosexual relations” a punishment, not a sin! Could we have been reading Paul wrong all this time?

Tomorrow, we’ll look at how Paul seems to contradict his own teaching on this matter.

Jude 1:7, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part II of VIII

Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 4 comments

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

//Yesterday, I introduced a week-long series on the topic of homosexuality within the Bible. It actually shouldn’t take that long … we have only two places in the Bible which speak against homosexuality: The Holiness Code of Leviticus, and the letter of Paul to the Romans. While conservative Christians sometimes reference other verses, responsible scholarship points out that they are not really about homosexuality at all. Today’s verse is often referenced in such a manner, but it really doesn’t say anything about homosexuality, does it? As it turns out, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality at all … see here. Various references in the Bible about sexual perversions do not specify homosexuality. It is purely in the mind of the reader that homosexuality is thought to be one of those “sexual perversions,” because the Bible doesn’t say this at all.

We as Christians today no longer observe the Old Testament law. Surely none of us dare to speak for God, deciding which O.T. laws should be upheld and which should not, now that Jesus has brought a newer, higher, law. We eat pork; we wear cotton-blend clothing; we allow hunchbacks in our holy places; we don’t strain every drop of blood from our meat. Normally, then, we wouldn’t think twice about refusing to uphold the prohibition against homosexual relations in Leviticus. But then there’s that darn letter of Paul to the Romans.

Yet millions of Christians are saying they can no longer read this letter as instruction to label honest and loving homosexual relations as sinful. I’d like to discuss this topic over several more posts, introducing five respectful questions which, in my opinion, should leave an honest Christian in doubt over whether God really condemns homosexuality. And if there is doubt, it’s surely better to err on the side of compassion. Here are the next five days’ topics:

1. Could we be reading the one N.T. reference to homosexuality wrong?

2. Why does Paul then contradict his teachings on this topic, in this same letter to the Romans?

3. Did Paul mean for us to take this anti-gay teaching (1) literally, (2) in our day today, and (3) as the words of Jesus?

4. Most Christians understand that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but could his actions actually show approval?

5. Given the doubt these topics should introduce, does the vast preponderance of teachings about compassion and acceptance toward the marginalized outweigh the two passages in scripture that seem to teach against homosexuality?

Leviticus 20:13, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part I of VIII

Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 8 comments

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

//The greatest challenge today for the Church may be our struggle to overcome a bias against homosexuality, yet I don’t think I’ve ever put my research down in words here. Well, I’m on a week-long vacation, so I’ve queued up this series to cover me while I’m relaxing. So, here we go, on an eight-day investigation.

In the Old Testament, buried within the Law, in a section called the Holiness Code, lies today’s verse … a warning against homosexuality. Here is where it all starts, and to me, the wording is pretty clear. Readers sometimes argue that it refers only to sex between a man and boy (see tomorrow’s post about pederasty), not between two consenting adults, but I’m not convinced. The Bible says what it says: lie with another man and you should die. See also Leviticus 18:22.

Yet, notwithstanding this one law, plus a warning given by Paul to the Romans, I argue that Christians are called to overcome this old law with a doctrine of acceptance and compassion. I’d like to run an eight-part series on this topic, not with the intent of rewriting the Bible, but instead focusing on what we should be doing with what the Bible says. Let’s start with a reminder of why this is such an important issue today:

“More than 34,000 people die by suicide each year,” making it “the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24 year olds with lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth attempting suicide up to four times more than their heterosexual peers.” –thetrevorproject.org

Here is what these numbers mean, as I read it: If, as other studies show, roughly 10% of us prefer same-sex partners, then 10,464 lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth commit suicide every year. This is 7,848 more than would commit suicide if they were straight. This means that 7,848 young people are committing suicide because their sexual preference is causing them distress.

The primary reason for this is our religious teaching. In America, the blame falls squarely on Christianity. Suicides happen because we teach our kids that it is evil or, worse, despicable, to love a person of the same sex. A friend of mine tells how his gay brother committed suicide on the steps of the Mormon church. You may believe that God considers homosexuality a sin, but do not let your religious beliefs hide the truth: If you promote this doctrine, you are contributing to about 7,848 suicides per year among our youth, because of the confusion their sexuality is causing them.

There is no question anymore that homosexuality is not a choice. If you don’t believe the studies, then merely ask any gay person. Moreover, the thousands of suicides each year by gay and lesbian teens is telling; these suicides would not happen if a person could simply choose their sexual preference. The horrible truth is that our beliefs are killing our kids, and this is causing more compassionate Christians to wonder if there is something wrong with our interpretation of scripture.

On this note, let me remind you that the masses are not always right. While it’s true that traditional (conservative) Christianity still believes homosexuality is a sin, we human beings are not infallible. We have misinterpreted the Bible before, using it to condone witch hunts, crusades, and inquisitions. In just the last two centuries in America, the Bible was successfully being used to argue for slavery. So we’ve been wrong before on moral issues.

Yet the Bible seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? Abstain or die. I’d like to examine what the Bible really says over this series, and then compare it to the teachings of Jesus.

Matthew 4:15, Where was the book of Matthew written?

Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum … beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;

//Many scholars locate the origin of the book of Matthew to be Syria, modern day Jordan. Why do they think this?

Today’s verse provides a subtle clue. When Matthew writes of Capernaum, he refers to it as “beyond Jordan.” Capernaum was on the west side of the Jordan river, implying that the author was on the east side of the river.

Of course, there’s much more to the research than this. Matthew, though it is written in Greek like all of the other gospels, is the most “Jewish” of the four, and this corner of Syria happens to be where the Jewish Christians (known later as Ebionites) were strongest after the fall of Jerusalem. Some scholars surmise that Matthew’s author fled Jerusalem during the war (his gospel contains hints of this trauma) and if this is true, he could very well have landed in Pella, there on the east side of the Jordan river. A tradition–which I’m inclined to believe is true–is that a large number of Christians fled Jerusalem before it went under siege and resettled in Pella.

A speculative proposition, as is everything else in ancient history, but it all makes sense to me.

Romans 1:18, The “Intelligent Design” Verse

Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

//I quoted this verse from the New Living Translation in order to make it read clearly. (Hint: when studying a passage, you can start with the NLT for its simplicity of language, and then work your way backward to more scholar-approved translations, discerning whether or not the NLT version is justified.)

Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) believe sufficient evidence exists to convince us that the universe was created by an intelligent being. It is similar to the foundation of Deist beliefs, though IDers often go a step further to argue for a loving, omnipotent God.

Today’s verse has the reputation of being the “ID verse,” a ready biblical backup and inspiration for belief. Just look up to the sky, and everything will be clear: God had to have made all this.

Matthew 10:30, Jesus Came To Bring Division?

Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

//Yesterday, I brought up this verse in a discussion of whether Jesus came to bring peace or tribulation. I lean toward peace, and promised to present my own interpretation of this verse.

To me, the awkward reference to “a sword” can only refer to this Old Testament passage:

And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man’s sword shall be against his brother. –Ezekiel 38:21

Jesus’ message is therefore eschatological, referring to the expected time of severe tribulation that was to precede an era of God’s rule. Citizens would turn on their own family in the chaos of those times. Then, God’s Messiah would step in and make things right. Thus, it is not Jesus wielding the sword, but one’s own family.

Indeed, when the Jews came to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus against his “brother,” his fellow Jew. But Jesus told Peter to put his sword away. “Those who take the sword shall perish with the sword,” Jesus said. His way was a way of peace.

Futurists might interpret this eschatological claim differently than I do. In my understanding, Jesus’ arrival signaled a period of unrest, a climaxing turning point in history, but his ultimate purpose was the inauguration of God’s age of peace. A dozen or more verses in the New Testament affirm this understanding, and when Jesus appeared to the Twelve after his resurrection, his message–twice repeated in the Gospel of John–was “Peace be unto you.” The age of peace had arrived with the resurrection, when Jesus triumphed over violence to rise from the dead.

Acts 10:36, The Peace of Jesus Christ

Posted on Monday, June 23, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all).

//I got into a discussion the other day about whether or not Jesus meant for his disciples to spread peace. We were talking about whether doctrinal differences–even major differences–should be allowed to draw lines between Christians. The discussion centered on this saying by Jesus: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

Now, I don’t know for sure what this verse means–I have an opinion which I’ll share with you tomorrow–but the question today is, should we let one confusing verse overturn a multitude of verses in which Jesus preached peace? Some of these verses are quite direct:

Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. –Mark 9:50

The argument put forth by some is that we should strive for peace with those who follow Jesus, but not with those who don’t. Therefore, if a person doesn’t agree with our church’s interpretation of the doctrine of Christ, it’s time to unsheath the sword, right?

I doubt it. To let doctrine divide us is contrary to the “way:” Jesus came to “guide our feet into the way of peace.” (Luke 1:79)

We’ll talk about the sword tomorrow.

Acts 15:29, Eating Meat Sacrificed to Idols

Posted on Friday, June 20, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

//So ends the council in Jerusalem. As the story goes, the apostle Paul (who preached to the Gentiles) held some fundamental differences with the Jerusalem church–the Jewish Christians–and attended a council there to help straighten things out. One of the things they discussed was this matter of eating food which was unclean, because it was offered in sacrifice to idols and then sold in meat markets. Proper Jewish custom was to avoid any such meat; not only was Gentile meat impure after sacrifice to idols, but it was not properly prepared, as it was not drained of its blood.

Paul seems to agree with the council over this matter. But did he really? Paul’s letter to the Corinthians says exactly the opposite:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, –1 Corinthians 10:25

Apparently, the matter was not properly resolved. I have to side with Paul on this one.

Revelation 20:4, The Difference Between Pre- and Postmillennialism

Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 3 comments

… and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

//The millennium, from a Christian framework, refers to a period of one thousand years during which Christ will reign on earth. The technical difference between pre- and postmillennialists is simply this: One group thinks Jesus will return before the 1000 years begin, and the other thinks Jesus will return after the 1000 years are over. Also, 1000 isn’t always understood literally; it may mean simply “a long time.”

Note the word “will” in both definitions. Premillennialists and postmillennialists both agree that Jesus’ return is yet to come. Both groups are futurists, and both dream of Christ’s second arrival.

So on the face of it, there seems little difference between the two groups. What’s a thousand years here or there, right? Yet the philosophical difference is very great.

A premillennialist tends to attach little emphasis to this world and its politics. Her mood is one of expectancy and anticipation, for the day Christ returns to establish his kingdom. This world is going to get worse and worse, she imagines, until finally God steps in with a glorious return on the clouds. Then, we’ll have 1,000 years of Godly rule.

Postmillennialists, on the other hand, imagine that Christ’s reign during the 1,000 years is spiritual in nature. Human participation is therefore required; Christ aids us in establishing a Christian kingdom on earth, and will not return until the 1,000 year reign is complete. While premillennialists delight in the moral decline of the world, because it means Christ’s return is imminent, postmillennialists consider it their optimistic, Christian duty to redeem the world, to aid in reformation, so as to Christianize and make the world suitable for Christ’s return. He can’t come until we set things right.

The two groups are really as different in thinking as night and day.

Mark 7:18-19, Are All Foods Clean?

Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

//Most scholars today agree that the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written with Mark in hand. It’s fascinating, therefore, to note subtle differences in how the text was copied. Sometimes what is left out is as revealing as what is written.

Matthew, for example, is recognized as the most “Jewish” of the four gospels. Matthew holds a high regard for Torah, the “law” as written in the first five books of the Bible. He insists that Jesus did not come to abolish the law at all, but that every little dot or dash in the law code is significant:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. –Matthew 5:18

What, then, does Matthew have to say about diet, since the purity of food ingested is a matter of great importance to traditional Jews? He dutifully copies the saying of Jesus presented in today’s verse, but simply ignores the moral of the story. The parenthetical statement at the end is left off, where Jesus declares all foods clean. We’re left to interpret the story on our own.

Mark 10:19, The Eleventh Commandment

Posted on Monday, June 16, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ 

//The ten commandments are listed in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5. But Jesus, when he begins to list these commandments in the Gospel of Mark, decides to add another: Do not defraud.

Some scholars assume this commandment is a combination of two: “Do not steal” and “Do not covet your neighbor’s possessions.” When Luke and Matthew tell the same story, they ignore Mark’s eleventh commandment but Matthew adds an eleventh commandment of his own:

He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Matthew 19:18-19

So Matthew’s eleventh commandment is “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Which new commandment should we keep?

Acts 12:21-23, How Did Herod Agrippa Die

Posted on Sunday, June 15, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 1 comment

So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.

//Have you ever wondered about this passage in Acts? What really happened that day? Is Luke (the author of Acts) taking creative liberties, assuming supernatural intervention in the death of Agrippa to underscore a point?

The story in Acts is actually very similar to that which is told by Jewish historian Josephus. Here is how Agrippa dies according to Josephus:

Agrippa came to Caesarea (as reported in Acts 12:19) and appeared at a festival, where he was flattered by the crowd, and called a god. Said the crowd, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.”

Agrippa “neither rebuked them nor rejected their impious flattery,” but shortly afterward, looked up and saw an owl sitting on a rope over his head, which he recognized as an evil omen. A severe pain arose immediately in his belly, and he said to his friends, “I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life.” After five days of belly pain, he died.

Romans 9:1, Paul the Liar?

Posted on Friday, June 13, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit

//Have you ever noticed how often Paul insists he is not lying? Who exactly was calling him a liar? Who did he feel the need to defend against in his letters?

Speculation abounds. Some believe Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7) to be whatever person or group Paul constantly defends himself against. Paul’s letters betray the tension between himself and Judaic Christians, and one Christian branch–the Ebionites–were not shy about their feelings toward Paul. They distrusted him. But we may never know exactly who he was referring to in verses like today’s.

Here are a few more verses where Paul insists he’s telling the truth:

By honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; –2 Corinthians 6:8

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. –2 Corinthians 11:31

Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie. –Galatians 1:20

Luke 21: The Christian Escape to Pella

Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

//Church Fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius tell us that sometime just prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Christians in Jerusalem escaped the Roman siege and fled the city. They landed in Pella, a short distance to the north. I write briefly about this in my book about Revelation.

Luke’s Gospel, while surely written after the events it describes, chronicles this escape. Pella is located in the foothills of the Transjordan highlands, quite consistent with Luke’s description of “fleeing to the mountains.”

Some recent scholars challenge the authenticity of the Pella Tradition, as this exodus has come to be known. One point of contention is the matter of how impossible it seems to have penetrated the Roman siege. However, Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote about the war, does indicate five different escapes in 67-68 CE, one of which included 2,000 people!

I have no good reason to believe the escape didn’t happen, preserving a Jewish version of Christianity. These Jewish Christians would later be known as the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.

James 2:5-6, James and the Poor

Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?

//There seems to be disagreement among Christians about what the word “poor” means. Some, reading the words of Matthew regarding the “poor in spirit,” argue that Jesus isn’t really interested in the plight of the poor. God is interested in their soul, not their lack of money.

Would James agree? Today’s verses seem clear to me: God favors the poor over the rich. In the day of the Lord’s Coming (which James insists will be very soon, since the last days have begun), the tide will turn in favor of the poor. Read especially the following passage, where James tears into the rich, because they became rich through nefarious deeds:

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you. Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. –James 5:1-8

Book Excerpt: Revelation: The Way It Happened

Posted on Monday, June 9, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Scholars have long recognized the unmistakable similarities between the images used in the seal-breaking [Revelation chapter 6] and the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21, where Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE. War, international strife, famine, and earthquakes occur in the same order in both the Gospels and Revelation. Luke specifically names Jerusalem as the city under siege, and nearly all Bible interpreters agree that the Gospels, all written after the war began, “predict” the war of 70 CE. These Gospel accounts, often termed the “little apocalypse,” mirror Revelation in other ways as well:

The Gospels and Revelation both speak of the Abomination of Desolation.

Both speak of the gospel first being preached to every land.

Both speak of the Great Tribulation.

Both say false prophets will arise.

Both mention the Son of Man arriving on the clouds.

Both mention a trumpet sounding the end of all things.

Both mention a darkened sun and moon and stars falling from heaven.

Both describe birds feeding on the carcasses of the dead.

Both were to be fulfilled “soon.”

How have we come to believe that the Gospels speak of a different event than Revelation? Surely, at least in the minds of first-century readers, the “little apocalypse” in the Gospels—Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE—is also the “big apocalypse” of Revelation. Follow along as John and Samuel tell the story. But as Jesus opens the seals and later the trumpets sound, do not assume that an angel drawing attention to an event indicates that God approves of or causes the event. He merely allows it … for now. This will soon become a no-holds-barred war on a cosmic scale.

–Revelation: The Way It Happened, 2010, pp. 21, by Lee Harmon

1 Corinthians 6:4, Paul and the Shema part II of II

Posted on Sunday, June 8, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

//Yesterday, I introduced Paul’s application of the Shema, and how it leads some scholars to believe Paul expresses a high christology. But the argument relies heavily on Paul’s use of the title Lord (greek: Kyrios) and whether readers of his letters would automatically assume references to the Lord would think of the Lord God.

But in my opinion, the argument simply falls flat. Paul never refers to the Lord God. He reserves the title Lord only for Jesus, meaning we cannot easily draw inferences about what the title “Lord” means to Paul.

We can, however, see in Paul’s writings a low christology; a distinct relationship between God and the Son of God which presents them as two separate beings, even when referring to Jesus with the word Lord:

That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. –Rom 15:6

Here is another example. Note again how it is “God” (not “the Father”) who has a son, and this son is Lord:

God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. –1 Cor 1:9

Sometimes it’s even more clear that the Lord Jesus is a separate being from God, while the Father is God:

Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. –2 Cor 1:2

Whatever Paul meant by his use of the Shema in yesterday’s verse comparing “lords” and “gods,” it certainly did not mean that he thought the Lord Jesus was part of the Godhead.