Matthew 9:13, The Door to Heaven is Mercy

Friday, May 16, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’

//Some time ago, I discussed what Jesus said in Matthew 5 about those who are merciful. They, said Jesus, are the ones who will receive mercy. Perhaps you believe you’re saved by grace; perhaps you believe you’re saved by works. But Jesus says you’re saved if and only if you’re merciful.

With this in mind, it’s enlightening to look at some of the parables Jesus told:

— The story of the Good Samaritan teaches us to have mercy.

— The story of the Wicked Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) is about punishment for a man who refused to show mercy.

— In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man is not condemned for any wrongdoing; only for not showing mercy.

— In the parable of the goats and the sheep (Matthew 25:31-45), the only criterion separating the goats from the sheep is mercy.

Mercy would seem to be a cornerstone of Jesus’ teachings.

Matthew 5:41, Jesus and Nonresistance

Thursday, May 15, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

//This verse sounds like it encourages camaraderie. If someone requests your presence to walk a mile, walk with him two. I used to read it this way.

But this is surely not what Jesus meant. Read it in context: If somebody hits you on the cheek, turn the other one to him. If someone takes you to court to take away your coat, give him your cloak, too. And now today’s verse: If someone demands that you help him, do so willingly … in fact, do double what he demands.

In Jesus’ day, Roman soldiers had the legal right to impress the labor of Jewish residents. Jesus is commending loving service without resistance, even to your enemy. Thus, the New Living Translation translates this verse this way:

If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.

Matthew 5:22, Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca

Wednesday, May 14, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

//I think today’s verse is commonly misunderstood. “Raca” in this verse (taken from the King James Version) is Aramaic for “empty-headed” or “worthless.” It’s roughly equivalent to saying “Thou fool.” A person who says “Raca” to his brother is in danger of the council.

But what is the council? Jesus is not talking about the Sanhedrin, or any earthly council. He’s talking about the heavenly Sanhedrin, or heavenly court. Jewish literature described God’s heavenly tribunal as a supreme court, like the one on earth. This court has the power to condemn one to everlasting life or to hell fire.

It’s not my intention to delve into the meaning of “everlasting life” or “hell fire”; that’s a topic all of its own. Today’s point is that this verse isn’t comparing three different offenses and listing three different punishments. It’s saying if you get angry with your brother without cause, or call him empty-headed, or say “you fool” to him, you’re in danger. Your act will be remembered in the coming age of God’s rule, when it will be brought before the heavenly court. You’ll be in danger of being judged and sentenced to hell fire.

So be nice to your brother.

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

Tuesday, May 13, 2014 in Book Excerpt | 0 comments

In the beginning was the Logos, John tells us. Logos, the Greek word translated as Word in the NASB, is the mind of God controlling this world, the force changing it from chaos to order, and for hundreds of years before Christ, it portrayed a philosophical line of thought known well by all learned men in the Hellenistic world, much as scholars today might discuss evolution or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

Plato once said to his followers, “It may be that someday there will come forth from God a Logos, who will reveal all mysteries and make everything plain.” The idea of the Logos, or Word, began back in the sixth century BCE among the Greeks, in the very city in which John’s Gospel was supposedly written (Ephesus). Its roots go deep into Stoicism, where it is perceived as a sort of cosmic reason, giving order and structure to the universe. In Stoic thought, Logos was reason, the impersonal, rational principle governing the universe. This principle was thought to pervade the entire universe and was indeed the only god recognized by the Stoics.

Philo of Alexandria provides our best Jewish example of this line of thought. “Logos” is the term Philo used to reconcile Stoicism and Judaism. He speaks of the knowledge of God as eternal life, and identifies the Logos as the firstborn Son of God—a phrase which, until New Testament times, had always been understood metaphorically. The Logos for Philo was never personal either.

In an astounding claim, John now alleges this Logos has arrived … in the flesh! Literally, as written in Greek, John’s hymn says God “tabernacled” with mortals, choosing a temporary dwelling place among his people. It evokes an image of the portable tabernacle of the Hebrew nation as they travelled through the wilderness.

Until these verses, John’s intended Hellenistic audience would have never imagined that he was speaking about a historical character, or describing the events of a historical life. But now John drops a bombshell: he is writing about the glory of the Jewish Messiah, a flesh-and-blood person! A profound claim is made here, and the wording is not coincidental. Ezekiel 37:27 reads, “My dwelling place will be with them: I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Devout Jews looked forward to a future age, an era of righteous reign, when God himself would come back to earth, set up his messianic kingdom, and “tabernacle” among his people. The Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, which is an integral part of John’s theology in this Gospel, anticipates this great day. And now, it has finally arrived! John is telling us in song about the very day God came down to earth.

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

Book review: Blueprint for Theocracy: The Christian Right’s Vision for America

Monday, May 12, 2014 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

by James C. Sanford

★★★★★

For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king. –Isaiah 33:22

This stuff frightens me. Sanford approaches the topic of the Religious Right much like a journalist struggling mightily to remain unbiased. This goal is too lofty, and though he gives it a good try, the inherent danger of merging church and state nevertheless surfaces in his writing.

The word “theocracy” merely means a form of government where God is in control. It sounds wonderful, until the question arises of who speaks for God. Sanford’s book is the history of the growth of the Religious Right and its infiltration into government, from the Moral Majority through today’s time. It’s deeply researched, written intelligently and straightforwardly, with strong reference material.

Is Christian Reconstructionism, ala Rushdoony’s The Institutes of Biblical Law, really dead? How about Abraham Kuyper’s Christian Worldview? Are personalities like Francis Shaeffer, James Dobson and Charles Colson really under control? By 1984, Pat Robertson, an extremely popular evangelist, was insisting that only Christians and Jews are qualified to govern the nation, and that “God’s people would soon hold sway in Washington.”

Should we fear the emergence of organizations such as the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) or the Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) who run their fingers through politics? How about politicians such as Palin, Bachmann and Gingrich who see politics as a battle against secular America?

The fear runs both directions. In 1980, Timothy LaHaye predicted that without a Christian awakening, humanists would achieve their “goal of a complete world takeover by the year 2000.” How did we get so polarized in politics? Will the culture war ever end? Sanford argues that secularism is not hatred of religion; pluralism is not anarchy; tolerance is not indulgence; autonomy is not rebellion. There is nothing to war over. Yet all these are imagined by the Christian Right as undermining a Christian Nation.

Sanford traces the assumption of Divine authority back to Calvin. “Supreme authority makes demands that must be obeyed at all costs, however unreasonable or unpalatable its directives may appear on their face.” The ultimate goal for such Christians is salvation in another world, sometimes reflecting a lack of concern for this world … for the sooner things spiral out of control, the sooner Christ will return.

This book is a probing but necessary read. Still, the solution to ending the culture war is unclear, and it leaves me feeling nervous.

Metacomet Books, © 2014, 278 pages

ISBN: 978-0-9747042-0-3

Matthew 1:19, Mary’s Betrothal

Sunday, May 11, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

//This verse is often confusing to readers unfamiliar with Bible customs. Joseph is not yet married to Mary when she is found pregnant, but he is called her husband because they are betrothed. Typically, betrothal was arranged by the parents of the youngsters (the woman usually about age 14, the man about 18), but with the approval of those to be married.

Betrothal means the two were pledged to each other, usually for a period of about a year. In Galilee (though not necessarily in Judea), it was expected that the man and woman would remain separate, never seen alone together.

The husband-to-be pays a bride price to the father of the bride, and the father of the bride sets aside a dowry for her. Thus, even though they were not officially married, Joseph and Mary were legally bound and divorce was required to break the pledge. If Joseph chose to publicly charge Mary of infidelity before a judge, he would have been able to recover the bride price and even acquire the dowry she had been given.

On the other hand, for Joseph to do this, he would need to publicly shame Mary before a judge. The punishment for adultery was stoning, though it was rarely enforced by this time in Israel’s history, but the dishonor she would earn would be punishment aplenty; she would most likely never be able to find another husband, leaving her without support if she ever left her parents or if they died.

It’s not unlikely that Joseph cared enough about Mary to want to spare her this, especially if the child was his. Whether Joseph was the father, or another man, or the Holy Spirit, the two put their heads together and decided on a story. God, they apparently decided to say, came down to earth and impregnated Mary. (This is Matthew’s version of the virgin birth.)

So bizarre is their concocted story that it’s hard to believe the two would make this up. Does that mean we should believe in the virgin birth?

Genesis 3:6, Vitamin C and the Tree of Knowledge

Saturday, May 10, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

//In the Garden of Eden, the serpent convinces Eve that the fruit of the tree of knowledge won’t kill her. So she eats, and gives some to her husband Adam. Against God’s warning, they gobble down the fruit, and with it, a precious commodity: vitamin C.

Eating from the tree of knowledge must have put within us a rabid curiosity to learn. For example, we’ve since learned that vitamin C is necessary for our health. We have to have that fruit. Nearly all animals are able to synthesize their own vitamin C, but a rare few–notably, humans and our closest relative, chimpanzees–don’t. We have to have it in our diet. Without it, we develop scurvy.

We’ve also learned that chimpanzees and humans share a defective DNA. When scientists decoded the genome, they found that humans and chimpanzees actually do possess the gene for synthesizing vitamin C, in the same position that other mammals do. But in humans and chimps, the gene is broken. Apparently, somewhere in the evolutionary branch shared by humans and chimps, a mutation made the gene go wrong, leaving behind very strong evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Of course, many Christians find that evolution contradicts the story of Adam and Eve, and the very apple which provides the life-giving elixir needed to overcome this evolutionary malfunction.

A bit ironic, isn’t it? The tree of knowledge didn’t kill our bodies–it actually saved us. God said if we eat it, we die. But instead it was our simple, unquestioning trust in a literal interpretation of the Bible that died. That’s what the apple killed, as we learned more about its life-saving quality.

Is God toying with our minds?

Book review: Excommunicating the Faithful: Jewish Christianity in the Early Church

Friday, May 9, 2014 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

by Kenneth W. Howard

★★★★★

This is a scholarly look at the evidence, both archaeological and from the written record of the Church Fathers, of early Jewish Christianity. Howard focuses on two sects, the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. He notes that early Christians all went by the name of Nazarene, and that the Jewish Christians probably fled Jerusalem just prior to the war of 70 AD, landing in Pella (the famous Christian exodus noted in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 21). These displaced Christians were surely the Jerusalem church, once headed by James, the brother of Jesus. They favored versions of the Gospel of Matthew. There in Pella, they splintered, dividing into two or more sects sometime in the second century, with the point of division probably being over the matter of Christology.

Howard considers the Ebionites to be clearly heretical, denying the divinity of Christ and not believing in the virgin birth. The Nazarenes, on the other hand, were orthodox in all respects except that they adhered to Jewish ceremonial law. This respect for the Law was to be expected: when the apostle Paul met with the Jerusalem Christians, they reached a compromise. Jewish Christians would continue to observe the Law, while Gentile Christians would not. This worked well, apparently, and Jewish Christianity remained the dominant expression of the Christian Church in Palestine up until perhaps the time of Constantine.

This compromise was broken, however, over the course of several centuries. Antisemitism reared its ugly head, and Jews in all forms grew despised. Jewish Christians all began to be classed with the heretical Ebionites, whether they fit the mold or not. They were not invited to the Council of Nicaea; of the 318 fathers at the Council, only 18 were from Palestine and these were Gentile bishops representing only the coastal cities. No Jewish Christians were in attendance, and by the end of the fourth century, it was no longer acceptable for Jewish Christians to practice any aspects of the ceremonial law, even if they were in all other ways orthodox in belief. Epiphanius declared the Nazarenes heretical in 376 CE, Augustine endorsed the claim in 400 CE, and Jewish Christians simply ceased to exist.

Excellent booklet, very well documented.

Kenneth W. Howard, © 2013

ISBN: none

Luke 13:35, Your House is Left Desolate

Thursday, May 8, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

//The desolation of the “house” in Luke’s writing probably refers to the Temple of God in Jerusalem. It was often named the “House” of God in scripture. As we all know, the Temple was destined to be destroyed only 40 years after Jesus died.

This “house of God” phrase may be taken from the song of Psalm 118:26:

Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.

Note not only the reference to the house of God in Psalms, but to “he that comes in the name of the Lord.” Now we move to another Lukan verse, 19:38, which tells how it is Jesus who came in the name of the Lord:

Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

See how the verse in Psalms ties the two verses in Luke together? This last verse tells how the psalm was sung about Jesus as he approached Jerusalem. Jesus has, according to Luke’s theology, replaced the Temple. He has become the Temple of God. It may take two or three readings to catch the subtle meaning.

1 Peter 4:12, The Fiery Trial

Wednesday, May 7, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.

//In Jewish tradition, driven a great deal by the Old Testament, there were considered to be two eras of note: the current, sinful age, which was spiraling deeper and deeper into chaos, and the coming messianic age, where God would again take an active role in the governance of earth and justice would prevail. Jewish thought was that the righteous were suffering in this age, but in the age to come, the righteous and the unrighteous would trade places. The unrighteous would be the sufferers throughout the age to come.

Between these two ages was to be a period of intense tribulation, sometimes called the “woes of the Messiah.” In today’s verse, the author of 1 Peter is encouraging his audience to stand firm throughout the tribulations they are experiencing, because these tribulations will birth a new age of joy. Thus, when we move on to the next verse, the author promises that when Christ returns and governs the earth with the authority and glory of God, all oppressions would be lifted:

But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

But it makes you wonder: what exactly is the fiery trial that Christians were experiencing, and that this epistle was talking about? When 1 Peter refers to gold being tried in the fire (1:7) does he have something specific in mind?

Possibly. He may be referring to the events of AD 64, when Nero Caesar (the beast of Revelation) persecuted Christians by setting them aflame, using them as torches to light his gardens at night. If so, the language of a “fiery trial” was anything but figurative to his readers; it was disturbingly literal.