2 Corinthians 6:16-18, Paul Predicts The Second Exodus
For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” “Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
//In Paul’s second letter to Corinth, he thrice quotes God directly, in verses lifted from various Old Testament books: Leviticus, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, 2 Samuel. These words were quoted by Paul himself in the 50s.
A decade and a half after Paul quoted these three verses, God destroyed Jerusalem, led the Christians out, and settled in spirit with them in a new land. Just as Paul predicted. You can read how this happened in Revelation, a book written a few years after the severance it describes, in words that sound too close to Paul’s to be coincidence. Here are the three quotes, in the language of Revelation.
The promise of being their God: Revelation 21:7, He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
The call to come out: Revelation 18:4, Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues.”
God’s promise to dwell with them: Revelation 21:3, And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.”
All this, Paul explains, is because the Christians are to be the new “temple of the living God.” Shortly after he wrote, the Jerusalem Temple was so thoroughly leveled by the Romans that (according to legend) not one stone remained upon another.
Spooky stuff, right? How did Paul know?
Isaiah 6:10-12, The Messianic Secret in Mark
“Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” Then I said, “For how long, O Lord?” And he answered: “Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.”
//New Testament writers love to quote Isaiah, and Mark is no exception. With his eye on today’s verses in Isaiah, the author of Mark wrote these words:
[Jesus] told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” (Mark 4:11-12)
Why did Jesus speak in hidden parables? Why didn’t Jesus want people to understand and be forgiven? The answer lies in the rest of the verse from Isaiah, in the commandment of God that they remain in the dark until the land is ravaged. I’ve often stated my belief that the war of 70 CE, when Jerusalem was attacked and the Temple destroyed, had an immense bearing on the development and direction of Christianity. The Gospel of Mark was written either during or immediately after this war. Perhaps he felt it was time to come out of the dark.
Did Jesus really want his fellow Jews to remain calloused, confused, and unforgiven? I doubt it, but the point is they did remain so, and Mark, stumbling about for an explanation for the terrible war that ravaged his nation, finds this verse of explanation in Isaiah.
Book review: Jesus for the Non-Religious
by John Shelby Spong
★★★★★
The phrase “spiritual but not religious” has become such a common description that an acronym has developed: SBNR. Are you an SBNR?
I’m not. As much as I want to belong, it doesn’t really describe me. I’m more of a JBNR guy (Jesus but not religious). Jesus’ dream of a kingdom of heaven on earth, and his humanitarian solution for inaugurating that kingdom, is my inspiration. I love church buildings, I love music, and I especially love church music, but when it comes to the real Jesus, he’s hardly limited to four stone walls, no matter how pretty the stained glass.
When Spong’s book hit the shelves five years ago, I snapped it up. Yes, he repeats a lot of his Jesus scholarship from earlier books, but reading Spong has become for me a comfort as much as a learning experience. It’s like coming home, digging down to the real Jesus, and lifting the weight off my shoulders of having to “believe” stuff. I’m not real good at believing, and religion seems to promote acceptance of the incredulous as some sort of Godly virtue, leaving me out in the cold.
Spong’s Jesus wasn’t born under a star, didn’t walk on water, and never literally raised the dead. He points out that the first followers of Jesus were not called Christians, as if knowing Christ was their goal; rather, they called themselves “the followers of the way,” as if Jesus was himself but part of the journey. Yet Spong’s admiration for Jesus shines, and he embraces the “original images” of Jesus with their symbolism and honor. He just doesn’t get hung up on literalism. Two hundred pages into the book, after discarding our unnecessary beliefs, Spong is ready to reintroduce Jesus for the non-religious, and he does so systematically:
Jesus really lived, and Jesus loved God. Jesus’ dream of a God-controlled world turned him into a breaker of tribal boundaries, prejudices, stereotypes, even religious boundaries. Jesus embraced God’s desire to heal the world. The cross became a human portrait of the love of God.
God, says Spong at the close of his book, is encountered in the “profoundly human Jesus.”
Leviticus 11:3, Chewing the Cud
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
//A couple days ago, I blogged about the Old Testament rule prohibiting eating swine, and pondered whether the rule derived from the ease of contracting trichinosis. I was told in a comment that this old argument was “really, really weak.” I still have no better explanation, though, so let’s look at this again.
Perhaps the reason for the rule is simply “God said don’t eat it.” But that naturally raises two more questions: Why did God demand this, and how did God communicate his wishes? Is it enough to imagine God only wanted to set up an opportunity, centuries later, to dramatically change his mind?
Since the trichinosis theory satisfies both the why and the how as regards pork, we come to the complainant’s main argument: Why the rules against other meat? They aren’t the only meats with parasites!
My experience in the corporate world has taught me a bit about how “group think” works, and besides, rules are fun. Start the ball rolling, and follow where it takes you. Yes, I know today’s post speculates a bit more than my usual, but how do you think religious ideas evolve?
Picture a still-tiny tribe of people trying to establish an identity around their chosen god. Picture a few Hebrew priests, the clan caretakers, sitting around a campfire poking at embers with sticks.
“Man, what’s up with that chubby pink animal? Every time we eat it, somebody gets violently sick.”
“Yeah, but it tastes soooo good! Is Yahweh trying to tell us something, you think?”
“Yahweh’s hard to figure. Remember when you were worried about forky-toed animals? You thought they looked like Pan and Yahweh wouldn’t like us eating another god’s animals, but it turned out He didn’t seem to mind.”
“Yeah, good thing, no way our people were going to quit eating cattle! That was a good switch from whole-toed to forky-toed. Forky-toed critters are fine if they eat their cud, we figured out…Pan doesn’t do that!”
“Hmmm, okay. That means no camel meat, though.”
“Yesterday, I ate some oysters, and caught a demon in my stomach. I spent the evening bent over the waste hole. Can we add oysters to the list?”
“Oh, no problem! Squishy, slimy things, ewww! Get rid of all shellfish, for all I care!”
“Can we outlaw bunnies, too? They’re so dang cute!”
“We just did. No forky toes.”
“What about birds?”
Revelation 4:6-7, The Throne of God
Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle.
//In John’s vision while on the isle of Patmos, he visits heaven and spies the throne of God. Revelation mentions this throne 46 times! Jewish literature, for perhaps 300 years before Revelation, showed a great fascination with the throne of God. We don’t see this trend so much in canonical scriptures, but we do in other popular writings of that day, such as material from the Dead Sea scrolls. This fascination may have originated with the book of 1 Enoch, much of which was written in the third century B.C. or even earlier.
Carved animals of various forms customarily supported the thrones of monarchs in that day. John animates these carvings using imagery already familiar to his readers. His beasts blend together Isaiah’s seraphim (Isaiah 6:2) and Ezekiel’s cherubim (Ezekiel 1:5-14). He divides these two images into four creatures–matching the four faces of the cherubim–the lion, the ox, the eagle, and the man.
These symbols, of course, are seen in the four corners of the zodiac. Abraham’s contemporaries visualized the constellation Scorpio as an eagle, according to the Chaldean system then in vogue. Thus, God rules over the entire heavens.
Revelation falls back on astronomy a surprising number of times, but if you aren’t paying attention, they go unnoticed.
Deuteronomy 14:8, No Pig On Your Plate!
Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.
//Of all the 613 laws in the Torah, one wonders why this one receives so much press. No pork on the plates of Jews. But why? Where do these bizarre culinary rules originate? Not only should pigs not be eaten, their carcasses should not even be touched!
Many scholars deduce the reason pigs were considered unclean was because of the ease in which people could become sick and die after eating. If pork isn’t cooked properly, one can easily contract trichinosis. Enough of these deaths, and uncomprehending ancient eaters naturally would conclude that the gods were punishing anyone who liked pork.
Today, we’ve gotten over the superstition. Or, at least, Terry Bradshaw thinks we have. Jesus may have been a Jew, but that didn’t prevent Bradshaw from feeding the poor with his Pigs for Jesus Foundation.
Kudos, Terry!
Got an opinion? 6 commentsBook review: Life of Pi
by Yann Martel
★★★★★
Piscine Molitor Patel (nickname: Pi) grows up as an impressionable young son of a zookeeper in India. When the family decides to sell the zoo animals and relocate to Canada, they board a cargo ship with the caged animals and set off. Tragedy strikes, the ship sinks, and young Pi (now sixteen, I think) finds himself on a 20-foot lifeboat with a wounded zebra, a hyperactive hyena, a likeable orangutan and a waiting tiger as his only companions. Soon, as you can imagine, it’s just he and the tiger.
Let’s back up. Pi’s passion is Christ. Well, and Muhammed. And Krishna. As a practicing Christian, Muslim, and Hindu in India, he sees no reason to choose between the three, but this drives his three spiritual advisors batty. Only one of the three can be right, right? The stage is set for a journey which will uncover God, for that is the book’s promise: to deliver a story that will make you believe in God.
But in the middle of the shark-infested Pacific ocean, with a ferocious Bengal tiger filling most of the lifeboat, God seems to slip out of the story. Where has God gone? Why bother introducing Pi’s triune confusion, if only to let God slide by the wayside? Most readers, I’m convinced, will never find Him again. You won’t find God either, if you don’t keep your eyes open, or if you point those eyes only up to heaven. Even those who imagine they have uncovered Martel’s postmodern message may be unwilling to probe inside the fanciful tale atop the banal story wherein God dwells.
Hebrews 13:1, Brotherly Love
Let brotherly love continue.
//One of the distinguishing marks of early Christianity was its propensity for treating one another as “brethren,” greatly beloved. Rome thought those early Christians a strange lot–“they love one another as though their precious Jesus were still with them.”
Let’s break today’s verse down. “Brotherly,” in the original Greek, is disturbingly literal. It might be more correctly interpreted, “from the same womb.” How are we to understand this? As Nicodemus says, “Can a man enter into the womb and be born again?” I can imagine Jesus smiling as he explains: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
“Love” in this verse is the Greek word philia; …that is, a fondness, a close companionship.
And “continue” means just what it sounds like; a plea to make sure love endures. Let’s put it all together again in a wordy retranslation:
Let there be a deep and enduring fondness between all who have been reborn of the Spirit.
Got an opinion? 0 commentsJob 42:12-13, Job’s Blessing
So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. He had also seven sons and three daughters.
//Sometimes, one person’s blessing is another person’s curse. Like in football: All those fans praying their hearts out, so God blesses one team with a touchdown, and the same blessing saddles the other team with a seven point deficit. Poor God can’t win for losing.
Here’s another blessing of good intention that would have hardly been appreciated by another. Job begins his testing period with three daughters and two or more sons. That’s at least five kids so far, probably many more, and they all die in a storm.
After Job’s test, God tries to make it right. He blesses Job with ten more kids.
So who’s the loser in all this? Ladies will have no trouble guessing, but maybe the guys need a hint: No epidurals back then.
Book review: Is God a Moral Monster?
by Paul Copan
★★★★
Paul Copan responds to the New Atheist stance that the God of the Old Testament is a “moral monster.” I agreed with only about half of Copan’s conclusions, but his book was well-written, informative, and fun to read.
Copan begins by attempting to make sense of the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. I loved the short discussion comparing the two times that God called Abraham: The first time to come to the promised land, the second time to sacrifice his son. Because of similar language, Copan argues that Abraham “couldn’t have missed the connection being made … God is clearly reminding him of his promise of blessing in Genesis 12 even while he’s being commanded to do what seems to be utterly opposed to that promise.” Outside of this, though, the Abraham/Isaac story is one of those sections of Copan’s book that just didn’t work for me. It doesn’t seem to matter how it’s explained to me, as soon as someone tries to pull this story down from the level of mythology and make me imagine it to be a true story that really happened, I start to feel queasy. I’d have a few choice words for God if he told me to kill my son. If Copan doesn’t mind, I’ll continue to classify this Bible passage as “storied theology,” where it’s much more palatable.
Copan spends several chapters talking about Israel’s slavery laws, and this section is superb. Was this law ideal? Certainly not. But there are three points I’d like to bring out here:
[1] We are discussing the Law of God, not what actually transpired among imperfect people. Yep, they kept slaves against the rules. The law was not faithfully followed.
[2] Copan points out again and again that Israel’s laws were a great improvement over the surrounding nations. God held Israel to a higher standard.
[3] Although this point gets little press time in the book, as the law evolved, it became more and more humane. Compare, for example, the Book of the Covenant, quoted by the Elohist in Exodus 21, with the Priesthood writings in Leviticus 19, and finally with the Deuteronomist’s instructions in Deut 22.
Yes, the Old Testament law seems archaic and brutal by today’s standards. Yet it’s clear Israel was learning and was trying to become Godly. Perhaps slowly approaching the standard God had in mind. Buy the book and, if you read nothing else, study chapters 11-14.
Next, Copan tackles what I feel are the most troublesome issues: genocide and ethnic cleansing. Particularly, the conquest of Canaan. Copan points out (rightly) that the Bible’s claims of utter annihilation are highly exaggerated, and that archaeological evidence hints that no such mass conquest took place. For the most part, Israel peacefully settled into Canaan without warfare and without driving out its inhabitants. But whether or not the conquest really happened, the fact remains that the Word of God graphically describes these holy wars in quite unholy terms, and claims that God commanded this inhumanity. Read, for example, Numbers 31:17-18, where God gives instruction regarding Midianite captives: “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.” Copan tries to soften the command, explaining that the non-virgin women were seducing Israel’s men and the boys would grow up to become warriors, but nothing can soften that one.
Copan presents a word game at this point. Moses commanded the armies to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites and not to “leave alive anything that breathes.” Joshua didn’t do this; we have lots of evidence of Canaanite people remaining afterward. Yet if you read Joshua 11:12, it says Joshua did as he was told; he utterly destroyed them as Moses commanded. Ergo, since Joshua didn’t kill ‘em all, but the Word of God says he did what he was told, then we can apparently consider Moses’ original command as hyperbole…the rhetoric of war. God didn’t really sanction genocide.
Well, whatever. Copan’s next attempt to justify this evil by reminding us that God is the author of life and has a rightful claim on it falls flat for me. If any kids were killed, they would go straight to heaven anyway, he says. The danger of that kind of thinking hardly needs discussion!
Though well-researched and thought-provoking, I finished the book with the feeling that Copan tried his best to tackle an impossible topic. I think it’s a four-star attempt and a fun book; I can’t judge the loser of a debate merely because he was given an indefensible position, right?
Connect With Me!