Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree (Acts 8)

Acts chapter eight has a lot of interesting stuff, not all of which is noted on by the SAB. As I said in the comments of the last chapter, I find it interesting that the SAB doesn't mark a passage as violent if the violence is against Christians or Jews; here I note we start the persecution of the church, but the passage is not marked for intolerance.

Philip goes to Samaria to preach the gospel, and is apparently well received. However, there is an interesting distinction here in that for some reason the Samaritans aren't given the Holy Ghost, and Peter and John have to come and lay hands on people. I already answered the question of what name people should be baptized in back in Acts chapter two, but this passage would also fit under the question of when the Holy Ghost was given, and I wonder why the SAB doesn't put it there.

One of the people is a sorcerer named Simon, which prompts the SAB to ask, Is magic OK? I think that what the SAB is missing here is there is a difference between supernatural acts that come from the power of God and ones that come from another source. In fact, generally those that come from God tend to be called "miracles" rather than "magic". There are a few things on that page that need clarification nonetheless. When Hezekiah destroyed Moses's bronze serpent in 2Kings 18, it's not because it's magic; it's because people were worshipping it as an idol. Also, it's worth noting that the two run-ins with sorcerers in the Book of Acts don't end with them being killed, but merely rebuked; in fact, here in this chapter there's nothing to suggest Simon wasn't a Christian, he was just one who was misled in his intentions. Oh, and while it's not an entirely clear passage one way or the other, it's notable that the witch in 1Samuel 28 does actually manage to call up the spirit of Samuel, so does the Bible at least give legitimacy to magic? It seems to. I answered "Should the gospel be preached to everyone?" in Acts chapter one, although the page links to a much less thorough response in Matthew chapter ten. I should get that redirected.

So God tells Philip that he should go to Gaza, and apparently, it's so he can have an appointment with an Ethiopian eunuch of some importance. (This is perhaps how Christianity got to Ethiopia.) The man is reading the book of Isaiah, and when he meets Philip, he asks him about the meaning of the passage. Philip explains that the passage is a prophecy about Jesus and proceeds to share the gospel with him. The eunuch is very excited, and asks to be baptized, which Philip does. The SAB asks: May a eunuch enter into the congregation of the Lord? It's important to understand what these verses are saying, and what they are not saying. I'm pretty sure that the Leviticus passage is saying that that a eunuch (among others) may not serve as a priest. The Deuteronomy passage may possibly be echoing this, or it may be a more general ban on eunuchs participating in Jewish religious practices at all. Now the Isaiah passage is saying that while a eunuch can't participate, he can still actively serve God in his life, and God will definitely accept him. The New Testament passages that mention eunuchs are a completely separate matter, because the requirements for being a Christian are pretty much wide open. As for the possibility that the eunuch was a homosexual, I don't know about that, but I don't think it really matters, as I said, anyone can be a Christian.

The chapter ends in a bit of a strange way, with the statement that Philip goes away as soon as they come out of the water. As the SAB notes, it rather sounds like God magically teleported Philip to a town over 20 miles away, and some people interpret it like that, but it's also entirely possible that what's meant here is that Philip got abother call and immediately left, traveling quickly to Azotus. (If Philip was able to keep up with a chariot, he probably had a horse.)

Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water (John 4)

The first two verses of John 4 really belong in the last chapter, and I answered the footnote in my last post. It's worth noting that there's something significant about Jesus and his disciples going through Samaria on their way to Galilee. The Jews didn't like the Samaritans so much that most Jews taking this trip would actually go the long route and go around Samaria rather than through it. This suggests to me that this was not a chance meeting, but rather Jesus purposefully went to Samaria to meet this woman.

It's a very interesting conversation. Jesus talks about "living water" which is something that isn't really clarified, but it seems to be something spiritual. (Edited to add that I really should have noticed that John 7:38-39 (where I got the title) seems to clearly imply that "living water" is the Holy Ghost.) Jesus knows that this woman has been divorced five times and currently lives with a man she's not married to. The SAB's footnote on verse 29 is right in saying this was hardly "all the things [she] ever did," but I find it strange that they chalk it up to the same sort of thing palm readers do; I know how they do that sort of thing, and while you could certainly tell that the woman was a social outcast from her coming to the well mid-day (most women would have come in the morning before it got hot, but this woman apparently wanted to avoid the crowd), I don't see how he could use a "trick" to tell stuff so specific about her.

The woman brings up the matter of the main difference between Jews' religious practice and Samaritans': location. Samaritans didn't have access to the Temple, so they worshipped on a mountain. The woman says that when the Messiah comes, it will all be made known, and Jesus confesses that he's the Messiah.

Does God have a body? Not in any physical sense. This question is very similar to the question of whether God can be seen, which I answered in John 1, but is just different enough to go over separately. Throughout the Bible, as I said there, there are instances of God making something visible that is a representation of himself, as well as people having dreams and visions of a symbolic nature in which they see God as though he has a body. Most of these verses are one of those. God having a voice doesn't imply a body, the word for "spirit" and "breath" are the same in Hebrew, implying perhaps a connection. I don't think the passage in Deuteronomy 23 is saying what the SAB is implying it's saying (even if God had a body, he's omnipotent, so he'd know where to step), it's just an admonition to keep clean.

Did the Samaritans receive Jesus? I don't think there's a contradiction here; these are just two separate incidents at different times in different Samaritan cities.

This chapter ends with a quick story of Jesus healing the son of a nobleman at Capernaum. The SAB marks the passage with absurdity and science, as it does all miracles. Most likely, the reason this miracle is significant is that it shows Jesus can heal people without being physically present. I have to wonder if this is really the second miracle Jesus performed ever, since if it was, how would this guy know Jesus had healing power? I have thoughts, but nothing worth noting.

What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? (Luke 10)

Luke 10 opens with a repeat of a question from the last chapter, so I'm skipping it. Since Jesus tells his disciples to eat whatever is given to them, the SAB asks What kind of animals may we eat? While there may be some general confusion regarding this subject, I think this verse may not belong in the discussion. It may be fair to assume that Jesus is having them only stay in Jewish houses, therefore they'd always be eating kosher meals.

The SAB makes an interesting point about verses 10-15, and it's something that I'm not really sure what to say about it. (Although I think I touched on it in a previous post, I don't think I shed much light on it there, either.) There is a concept that is mentioned in the Bible in various places that God sometimes judges not just individuals, but cities and kingdoms. I'm not sure how this works out from a larger perspective. I mean, if you were a good person who lived in Bethsaida that happened to have faith in Jesus, does that mean you would be judged as part of the city as Jesus seems to be saying here? Or is this sort of statement from Jesus even meant to be taken literally? Perhaps when he says Bethsaida will be judged, he's just saying that the majority of the people there will be judged, I don't know.

In the midst of this, the SAB asks, What was Sodom's sin? For me, the definitive answer to this question has always been Ezekiel 16:49-50:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

In other words, Sodom had a number of sins, most of which had to do with social justice, although the "abomination" mentioned may indeed have had something to do with homosexuality. Let me say, however, that when you read the story of the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19, what you're seeing there is not typical homosexual behavior, but gang rape, which I hope anyone would see as being very, very wrong regardless of the genders of the parties involved.

A note on verse 16 is marked with "intolerance" and makes a statement about Pat Robertson. I think that statement makes a huge assumption: that Pat Robertson is speaking for God. I don't know that that's the case, and I've heard a number of things from Robertson that makes me doubt that.

The note on verses 25-28 is one worth discussing. Anyone following my writing closely will have noticed that I've generally avoided responding to the repeated question What must you do to be saved? Although it's a very important question, the page linked to is frankly too much for me to process in a simple way, as it's quite extensive and in no particular order. However, I do like this exchange that happens between the lawyer (in context, this isn't what we'd call a "lawyer" in the 21st century, but an expert on the works of Moses) and Jesus because I think it does manage to encapsulate some important principles. Is salvation about works, or is it about faith, or is it about saying the right prayers or something? I think the real substance of salvation is encapsulated here: Love God and love people. If you love God, then you will have faith in him. If you love people, then you will do works which are pleasing to God. I think the confusion of the SAB's page on salvation is from the fact that while salvation is in some ways a simple thing, it has many facets to it, so it can seem complicated if you over-analyze it.

Lastly, the SAB says that the story of the good Samaritan is probably the best story in the Bible. I don't know if I agree, but I'm certainly inclined to. And the thing to remember about the story is that the Jews didn't like the Samaritans, but a couple of people of high standing in the religious community don't do for the hurt man what a supposedly evil Samaritan did. So the message is twofold: You should always practice kindness towards people, even if they're strangers, and you shouldn't judge people by their ethnicity or what they may look like. Indeed, it's a very uplifting and positive message.

Neither shoes, nor yet staves (Luke 9)

In Luke 9, Jesus sends the apostles out to do work such as healing the sick and casting out demons. In examining Jesus' instructions here and elsewhere, the SAB asks, Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? I dealt with this before, and it was a subtle one. My understanding of what seems to be a contradiction here is that Jesus told them not to bring an extra staff, and wanted them to wear sandals rather than heavy shoes.

Apparently some people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist back from the dead, and the SAB wonders if Herod was among the people believing this. I think there's room for that interpretation in the Luke passage; although Herod doesn't actually say it, he does seem to be worried by the rumors.

Verse 27 has the cryptic message, "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." This is an odd statement, and many people have interpreted it to mean that the second coming of Christ would be within the lifetimes of some of his apostles, but I don't think that's what it does mean. In all of the Gospels recording this claim, it is immediately followed by the event known as the Transfiguration, and many Christians believe that it was this event to which Jesus was referring, that is, seeing Christ transfigured was equivalent to seeing the "kingdom of God". (Luke says the Transfiguration was eight days after the speech, which disagrees with the other Gospels; I don't believe I have anything useful to shed light on the discrepancy.)

Shortly after this, Jesus cures an epileptic boy by casting a demon out of him. The SAB says that the Bible is implying that epilepsy is caused by demons, but all I think you can say is that the Bible is claiming it was in this particular case. For some reason, Jesus has some harsh words for his disciples for not being able to handle the demon on their own, I have no idea why.

A following passage that discusses casting out demons leads the SAB to ask two similar questions: Who can cast out devils in the name of Jesus? and Is casting out devils a sign of a true Christian? I don't think there's a real contradiction here, both really depend on a very particular interpretation of Mark 16:17, which in my opinion means that if you're a Christian, you should have the power to cast out demons, but that doesn't mean that if you can cast out demons you must be a Christian. Furthermore, I don't think that the people being discussed in this passage are necessarily not Christians, they're just not part of the main group of Jesus and his Apostles.

Did the Samaritans receive Jesus? This is a simple one to answer. Some of them did, some of them didn't. The story happening here is a different one than the one in John 4, and in this particular case, Jesus was not received. While I don't agree with the absurdity of Jesus' disciples asking to call down fire from heaven, I readily admit that it opens up some questions. Were they right in being angry? Would they have really been able to call down fire? What did Jesus' response to their request really mean? I don't know that anyone has answers to those questions. I sure don't.

Final note on this chapter: the man who asks Jesus, "Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father." doesn't have a dead father, he's saying "I'd like to follow you, but can I wait until my parents are dead?" Perhaps one can still consider it cruel for Jesus to deny the request, but it's not what the SAB makes it sound like.