Psalms 121:6, Moonstroke?

Friday, August 8, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.

//Today, I leave on vacation for a family reunion, an outdoor camping trip. I hear the temperature will be in the 90’s there in Northern Idaho next week. Sounds like a great place for getting a moontan.

The Psalmist in today’s verse promises that neither the sun nor the moon will cause heat stroke to believers, but prudence requires I warn my family: I believe it would be wise to use moonscreen of at least an 8 if you plan to be out much during the night next week.

Book Excerpt: John’s Gospel: The Way It Happened

Thursday, August 7, 2014 in Book Excerpt | 0 comments

Nathanael calls Jesus the Son of God (the chosen king), but Jesus immediately ups the ante to Son of Man (the anticipated Messiah).

“Son of God” is not a new title at all. This identification with God grew common in Hermetic literature and among Hellenistic thinkers, even among Jews, but always in metaphor and always in ambiguity.

Romulus, the founder of Rome, was the Son of God, as was Alexander the Great. Roman emperors were labeled sons of God, a tribute to their deified fathers. Philosophers reserved the title for particularly wise men. Even in Judaic tradition, the title never literally meant divine offspring. It applied to those who belonged to God and in time came to mean a righteous man in general. Some argue that by Jesus’ day, the title implied messianic fulfillment in the Davidic lineage, a “mighty God” who would rule forever (Isaiah 9:6–7), but it is applied to people in the Old Testament in a number of less dramatic ways. It refers to any of the children of Israel; to a lawful or holy Jew; to a messenger or mediator sent by God; to the coming Messiah; or to an angelic being. It never implies physical sonship.

The king of Israel also boasted the title Son of God, not in the sense of Roman emperors but as a representative of Yahweh. “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” (Psalms 2:7, echoed in Hebrews 1:5). Thus, on the day of his anointing, each king became a “son” to Yahweh, going back to Solomon in 2 Samuel 7:14, and this appears to be Nathanael’s insinuation here in John’s Gospel.

But irony is a favorite tool of John, and surely he intends Nathanael’s assertion as an understatement. How, then, does John mean for the phrase “Son of God” to be interpreted? John’s usage throughout his Gospel seems to speak of the Son of God as a “sent one” by the Father. It might make the most sense to consider Jesus as one who comes in the name of the Father. We are familiar with the way Matthew carried the title “Son of God” to extremes, telling the story of how God stepped down to earth and impregnated a human woman, who then bore a half-human/half-divine offspring. This theme proliferated in legends about demigods and heroes, but among New Testament writers, the biological claim is unique to Matthew’s Gospel—not even Luke shares such a literal understanding (see Luke 1:35)—and John’s Gospel has no use for these birth stories, his preexistent version of Jesus is far more encompassing. When John writes of the Son of God, we can certainly discard the romantic idea of a literal offspring of God and a human. Instead, John twice points out that Jesus is the child of Joseph (1:45, 6:42). John nowhere betrays any knowledge of or interest in the doctrine of the virgin birth. In fact, the idea of a miraculous conception contradicts the Johannine teaching of a preexistent Logos. For John, Jesus proved worthy of far greater praise than the overused birth stories put forth to honor kings and heroes in his day.

Yet the title “Son of God” quickly grew pregnant with meaning within Christian circles, where it began to carry intimate and eschatological overtones. God hid himself from Moses, the greatest of Hebrew heroes, yet Jesus claimed a blasphemously close relationship with God, even calling him “Abba” (presumably a term of affection like “daddy”), such that “son of God” came to refer primarily to one’s relationship with God. Jews understood that in the final days, God himself would come back down to earth and dwell with his people, making himself personally known, bringing back the intimacy shared with Adam in the garden of Eden. In the golden age, all Christians would be called sons and daughters of God!

For now, let’s merely embrace the mysticism inherent in the phrase and the intimate union with God that it implies. Perhaps John will make his meaning more clear.

–John’s Gospel: The Way It Happened, 2013, by Lee Harmon

Luke 23:28, Weep For Your Children

Wednesday, August 6, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

//Jesus said these words as he carried his cross to his death. Roughly forty years after Jesus died, the Romans invaded Jerusalem by force and toppled the city. It was, the Romans felt, the only way to enforce peace in the Empire. The rebellious Jews had to be put in their place.

This war had a profound effect on our New Testament scriptures, most of which were written after the war ended, while Jerusalem and the Temple lay in ruins. Jesus often warned of what was on the horizon for Jerusalem, and after it happened, our gospel writers surely recalled Jesus’ prophetic words and emphasized them. It’s hard to imagine the cultural upheaval of losing your temple–the house of God–and being displaced from God’s holy land.

Because of this emphasis in the New Testament, it seems proper to read scripture in the light of this destruction. Think of Jesus standing on a hill overlooking Jerusalem, weeping for it. Think of him predicting that one day soon, not one stone of the temple would be left atop another. Think of him warning the Jews that they were headed for Gehenna–a valley on the south side of Jerusalem, often assumed to be a creative reference to hell, but which actually describes exactly what happen in history. During the war, bodies were thrown by the thousands over the walls of Jerusalem into the cursed valley of Hinnom (Gehenna). What happened to the Jews was hellish, indeed.

Today’s verse is one more not-so-subtle reference to the upcoming horror. When Jesus speaks of weeping for “you and your children,” he means it quite literally: that generation and the next. They would be massacred and tossed into Gehenna. The gospels come alive when we put them back in their historical context.

This topic will be covered in more detail in my upcoming book, The River of Life.

Book review: The Eucharist

Tuesday, August 5, 2014 in Book Reviews | 3 comments

by Robert D. Cornwall

★★★★

Too bloody short! This is one of Energion Publications’ Topical Line Drives booklets, meant to introduce a topic directly by zeroing in on the necessities, but this time the abbreviated coverage left me wanting much more. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Known as the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper, or the Holy Communion, Cornwall traces the evolution of its practice and meaning through the centuries as this ritual evolved from an agape feast to a sporadic nibble of bread and sip of wine. Along the way, ideas such as “real presence” (Christ’s presence, of course) and transubstantiation developed. The reformation brought further debates about the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, and in modern developments a focal point has developed over thanksgiving (hence the word Eucharist). But what are we thankful for, and how much sacrificial imagery is appropriate? The idea of substitutional atonement can be dreary and uncomfortable for many Christians, so what is the sip and nibble supposed to mean to us?

Cornwall doesn’t insist on any interpretations, but his own opinion is that we should be able to share communion between denominations, and when we gather together at the table, we should learn from one another’s theology. For those who have fallen into a rote practice, there is value in recognizing what Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians say about sacrifice, and ideas of “real presence” can enrich the ritual.

A good little introduction. Here’s hoping Robert Cornwall publishes more on the topic.

Energion Publications, © 2014, 34 pages

ISBN: 978-1-63199-011-3

Matthew 15:22, The Canaanite Woman

Monday, August 4, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David;

//Today’s verse leads into the story of Jesus healing the daughter of a Canaanite. At first Jesus ignores her pleading for mercy, stating that his duty is to Israel. But she persists, humbling herself, and Jesus succumbs to mercy. He heals the woman’s little girl.

I’ve written about this story before. It’s fascinating and encouraging on a number of levels. But today, I want you to note one word in particular:

Canaanite.

Matthew calls this woman a Canaanite. It’s an odd description, because there were no Canaanites anymore by Jesus’ time. They no longer existed as a culture. Maybe this Old Testament verse is why:

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver [the Canaanites] before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: –Deuteronomy 7:2

Even the daughters of the Canaanites were destroyed. They were not fit as wives for Israelites. Israel was to show no mercy for them, even for their little girls.

Is this why Jesus at first refused to heal the little girl of this “Canaanite” woman? Was he letting their meeting build to a climax before making his point: that things were changing and even “Canaanites” were to be treated mercifully in God’s new world?

Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

John 8:6, Jesus Writes on the Ground

Sunday, August 3, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

//Everyone knows this story. The Pharisees, hoping to discredit Jesus, bring him a woman caught in the act of adultery and ask him if she should be stoned. The law says she must die. But Jesus refuses to answer at first and instead stoops to write in the dust.

This scene leads to great speculation. What was Jesus writing, there? I provided a guess once before about what Jesus may have written. See here.

Today it was brought to my attention that this incident occurred in the Temple. That means Jesus was writing in the Temple dust, which sheds a different light on the topic. It brings us to this post about the “Jealousy Law.” In order to find out whether a woman was unfaithful to her husband, the priest would make a mixture of holy water and Temple dust. He then would make the woman drink it, to see if her womb would shrink (perhaps a “shrinking womb” indicated the death of the fetus).

Might Jesus have been toying with the woman, or with the Pharisees, pretending to be a priest … pretending to evoke the divining powers of the Temple dust? Or … even more bizarre … might he actually have been learning from the magic dust whether the story of adultery was true? This is the first time I’ve ever put these two passages of scripture together, so I would be interested in hearing opinions!

Leviticus 15:16, Baptism By Immersion Or Sprinkling?

Saturday, August 2, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.

//Christian baptism evolved from the ritual cleansing baths of Judaism, and those baths evolved from an interpretation of the Law. Today’s verse is one law in particular, and instance where “baptismal cleansing” is required. So are we doing baptism right?

If your church believes in immersion, you’re halfway there. But only halfway. The law is specific about all flesh being cleansed. The person being baptized was therefore not to be clothed at all. Nor was he to remain in contact with his baptizer, for a single touch would prevent full cleansing of at least a small part of the body.

This brings up a question. What about women? Were they to be baptized naked? Acts 8:12 indicates that women were indeed baptized:

But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

But we know Jews were notoriously cautious about sexual immorality. The only time you would see a woman nude in public was when she was being punished, by being lawfully shamed. As a result, scholars are unsure about exactly how baptism was practiced in the early church. Maybe we’ll never know whether or not we’re doing it right.

Genesis 3:15, The Seed of a Woman

Friday, August 1, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

//This is a rather fascinating verse to me. First, it speaks of the seed of the serpent, whom later Jews came to associate with Satan. In other words, Satan’s children. Let’s read this verse again in the NIV translation:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

So Satan’s children, slithering around on the ground, will be crushed underfoot by the seed of Eve. Yet every Jew at this time understood that life comes from the male, not the woman. A woman provides only a womb to grow the seed of a male. How can it be possible, then, that the seed of a woman will crush the seed of Satan?

Answer: according to Christian thinking, the One who crushes the seed of Satan is Jesus, who had no human father. Since Jesus was born of a virgin woman, Mary (Jesus’ mother) provided the “seed.”

Prophecy fulfilled?

Book review: The Synoptic Problem

Thursday, July 31, 2014 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

by Mark Goodacre

★★★★★

This is an excellent overview of the Synoptic Problem with a proposed solution which bypasses the need for a Q document. Goodacre is intrigued by this mystery, stating that the “Synoptic Problem is probably the most fascinating literary enigma of all time.” He provides a fair analysis of why scholars tend to favor Q as a solution, but then dismantles the arguments in favor the Farrer Theory.

The Synoptic Problem seeks to explain the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are simply too similar to have been written indepently. But what is the relationship between the three? Which gospel(s) copied from which, why did portions of the gospel story get left out in the copying, and where did any new material come from?

While Q is the assumed missing link in the Two-Source Theory (which states that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and an as-yet unfound sayings gospel known as Q), the Farrer Theory also assumes Markan priority but then goes in a different direction. It proposes that Luke actually relied on Matthew and Mark, with no need for another source. The idea is that Luke found Matthew’s work largely unacceptable and picked over those additions to Mark that he found in line with his own emphasis while discarding other material. After admitting that the solution is far from proven, Goodacre appeals to Occam’s Razor, choosing what he feels is the less complex solution. If you’re familiar with the divisions titled Mark, Q, M and L, the idea here is that M and Q are Matthew’s additions to Mark, but Q doesn’t derive from an earlier source … it merely represents that portion of Matthew’s additions that Luke chose to retain in his own rewrite.

Written with clarity and numerous examples, but without digging deeper than necessary to portray the issues, this is the best book I’ve read yet about the Synoptic Problem.

Originally published in 2001 by T&T Clark International, this book is now placed in the public domain and made available by the Internet Archive.

T&T Clark International, © 2011

ISBN: 0-567-080-560

Acts 1:12, A Sabbath Day’s Walk

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey.

//The book of Acts tells us that the allowable distance an observant Jew could walk on the Sabbath without violating the law was about the distance from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives. That’s about 3,000 feet, or 2,000 cubits. This distance is derived from Joshua 3:4, which is the distance specified between the people and the Ark of the Covenant as they travelled to the promised land:

Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure: come not near unto it, that ye may know the way by which ye must go: for ye have not passed this way heretofore.

Now let’s talk about the Essenes, an ultra-strict community of Jews who held rigid purity laws. In their scrolls, they insisted that the community latrines must be a distance of 2,000 cubits away*. This leads to an interesting conclusion: It appears that it was illegal for the Essenes to empty their bowels on a Saturday! The latrines would be further away than they could legally walk on the Sabbath. See the research of Robert Feather in the New Dawn Magazine, 12/23/2010.

—

* Different texts record different distances, from 1000 to 3000 cubits, and one archaeological discovery seems to locate a latrine area only 1640 feet from the Qumran site. So, take this post with a grain of salt!