Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently (Isaiah 28)

Isaiah chapter 28 is a prophecy about Ephraim (a.k.a. Israel, the northern kingdom) that seems chiefly concerned with drunkenness. I discussed whether it's okay to drink alcohol in John chapter two, where I said it's okay in moderation; here in Isaiah, people are getting so drunk, they're apparently vomiting on everything (v. 8)! Also, priests and prophets are making poor decisions, which is very bad.

Anyway, after talking about all these drunks, Isaiah talks about how God is going to teach his law, mainly to children (v. 9). Much of this chapter talks about how important the law is, and there's a lot of repetition. The SAB notes that verse 16 is quoted in Romans 9:33, but incorrectly. A lot of the time when this sort of thing happens, it has to do with a variation in the Septuagint, which is the Bible New Testament authors would be quoting from, but looking at the Septuagint, I don't see where Paul got his quote. None of the commentaries I can access online has a full explanation for this, although some note that this is a quote of both Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14; this doesn't explain where "ashamed" comes from, however.

Lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (Isaiah 24)

Isaiah chapter 24 is apparently a prophecy for the whole world, as no specific nation is named. The SAB comments on the first verse that, "The earth is like a flat plate. When God turns it over, the people fall off." Once again, I don't think you can say that this is what this verse means, and this phrase is metaphorical. Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated "upside down" in the KJV appears nearly two thousand times in the Bible and is translated into all sorts of different English words and phrases depending on context (most often "before" or "face"); apparently its meaning is quite nuanced. Actually, the word translated "turn" is also nuanced and translated into a variety of English words, but seems to particularly mean something like turning in a wrong way, as it's often related to sin. Anyway, I doubt even the KJV translators thought this verse was meant literally.

Will God curse the earth? I actually touched on this in Genesis chapter eight but I either missed the Isaiah verses or they have been added since I was there. Once again, I think there's a need to point out that in all three of these contexts, there are three different Hebrew words translated "curse", and so there is probably some nuanced meaning in the original language that the KJV translators didn't convey. I suppose however that taking the KJV on its face yields a contradiction here, although I should also point out that in this passage, it doesn't say God was responsible for the curse. It may be that the sinfulness of the people of the world caused them to be cursed of their own choices; the Bible teaches in various places that sin leads to death. Also, if you look closely at Malachi 4:6, God is saying that he's not going to curse the earth, as Elijah is going to make things right.

The next section of the prophecy talks a lot about there not being wine or "strong drink". The SAB asks if this is a prophecy about prohibition, which is a strange question, I think; I'm pretty sure it's just saying there won't be an abundance of grapes. I'm not sure what all the talk of the pit and the snare is about in the next section; I suppose it's possibly literal, but it doesn't say who is responsible for these problems. Anyway, there's a lot of fire and earthquakes, which sounds a lot like the present. The end of the prophecy talks about the Lord reigning on Mount Zion, which makes me think that all of this is an end times prophecy.

Drink thy wine with a merry heart (John 2)

John chapter two opens with a marriage on "the third day". The third day of what, however? Contrary to what the SAB implies this is not the third day after Jesus's baptism, but the third day after John the Baptist points out Jesus to his disciples, describing what happened at his baptism.

Is it OK to drink alcohol? What the Bible says about alcohol The Bible says a lot of things about alcohol; most of it can be summed up with: alcohol is okay, but try not to get so drunk you do something to embarrass yourself. Let's talk about some of the things that need explanation. Yes, people who have taken the Nazarite vow are instructed to (among other things) abstain from wine, and in fact grapes as well. Samson was a Nazarite from birth, and for some reason, God commanded his mother not to have grapes or wine while she was pregnant; of course, we know it's not good to have alcohol when pregnant anyway. Many people have suggested that John the Baptist was a Nazarite; the description of him in the Gospels is consistent with this, including the similar announcement of his impending birth to Samson's. I don't think Isaiah 28 is saying priests and prophets can't drink, but once again, when you get drunk, you often make bad choices. I think the reason Daniel didn't drink wine was the same reason he didn't eat meat; he was worried about his food being kosher in a pagan land. I think what's going on in Lamentations 4:21 is actually what the footnote there says. In 1Timothy 5:23, Paul is giving a bit of personal advice to Timothy, which I don't think is meant to be a general commandment. Haggai 2:11-14 is a passage talking about holy things and unclean things in which it's suggested that holy thing (such as a piece of meat from an offering) doesn't transfer its holiness to things it touches, but unclean things (such as a dead body) do spread their uncleanness to things they touch. The point of the passage is the general uncleanness of the nation of Israel, and is not really making any point about alcohol. I'm not sure what point the SAB is making about different "drink offerings" in the book of Numbers; it seems that different offerings often include some amount of wine, and it depends on the offering. It's interesting that the Israelites were commanded to not drink wine when they went to the Tabernacle/Temple, but many offerings there included wine; I think this indicates that wine is a good thing in general, but when you're in worship, you should be sober.

I think that covers drinking, but perhaps I should say a word about the phrase "drunk with blood", since Steve Wells is fascinated by it. This is a fairly common phrase (although there are certainly more common ones), but it should be noted that it's certainly not meant to be literal. Throughout the Bible, and in both Jewish and Christian cultures, there are a lot of instances of wine being used as a symbol for blood. With this symbolism, it apparently works both ways, as this phrase demonstrates. Yeah, it's violent imagery, and the parts of the Bible where it appears are violent, or at least describing violence, but since (as Wells notes in his blog) it's not literal, it doesn't really belong in this discussion.

How should parents be treated? I think generally, parents should be treated with respect, but there are certainly exceptions. I don't know that all of the verses in the bottom part of this page are meant to be disrespectful, I certainly don't think it's the case for the verse here in John; after all, Jesus did take care of the wine issue that his mother brought to his attention. Matthew 23:9 is an interesting one, and I've met Christians who actually do take this literally and don't call their father "father". I don't think that's what Jesus meant, though; I think he meant that you shouldn't use the term for anyone other than God and your actual literal father. Luke 9:59-60 is often misunderstood; this man's father is not dead, he's implying that his father won't approve of him following Jesus, so he wants to wait until his father dies. Luke 14:26 is hyperbole; Jesus says in that list of things to "hate" that one should hate "his own life also" which nobody actually does. Jesus is saying you should love God so much that in comparison, your other loves should seem like hate. The Luke 2 passage is not disrespectful; Jesus's earthly parents knew that his actual father was God, and since he was about to come of age, it made sense he would be at the Temple being "about my Father's business." I would say the last passage listed on that page is the only one that's arguably disrespectful, but really Jesus is making a point that to him, all the people that follow him are his family.

When did Jesus's temple tantrum occur? It's possible that John got mixed up, since he wrote his Gospel about 60 years after the events, and it's possible as I mentioned before that John isn't being chronological in his storytelling, although that's doubtful here. The explanation I personally believe is one I've heard suggested by a few people: Jesus actually had two "Temple tantrums", one at the beginning of his ministry and another at the end. As for the supposed discrepancy between Luke's telling and Matthew and Mark's, I don't think there is any reason to assume that, just because Luke fails to specify the length of time between the triumphal entry and the clearing of the Temple, one must have immediately followed the other.

Who raised Jesus from the dead? There is no contradiction here. Trinitarianism: God raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus is God, the Holy Ghost is God. It's all the same here.

Did Jesus say, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"? As the question is worded, the answer is "yes"; no problem. Note that on the supposed contradiction page, the false witnesses are misquoting Jesus, saying that he said he personally would destroy the Temple, which is not what he said at all. The SAB also notes on this passage a problem with Jehovah's Witness theology, which claims that the risen Jesus was a spirit and not a physical body. I agree, and would say there are plenty of other scriptures that make this claim problematic; I bet the SAB has caught all of them.

John the son of Zacharias (Luke 1:1-25)

Luke chapter one is interesting in that it tells the accounts of two supernatural births. I've often mused on the fact that if you look into the fine details of the Gospel accounts, there happen to be a lot of connections between the people of the early church that aren't always as well-known as they should be, starting here where we find out that Jesus and John the Baptist are actually cousins of some sort. A careful examination of the Gospels reveals that actually several disciples were extended family of Mary, but I don't know if the SAB tracks that and has commented on it, I'm sure there's room for some interesting speculation on the matter.

John's parents are described as being "righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless". As is so often the case, the SAB uses this statement to bring up the question "Has there ever been a righteous person?" along with a question I don't think I have yet addressed, "Does righteousness come from following the Law?" Although I have addressed the first question before, I don't think it will hurt to revisit it here, especially in light of the second one. In the question of whether or not there was ever a righteous person, I think one could actually fairly dismiss the verses quoted from Isaiah as possibly being specific to the time and place in which he was writing, but of course, the Romans passage seems much more clear and blanketing, and it's also a pretty well-known Christian doctrine that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." How can we say that John's parents are righteous? A lot of the problem in dealing with the Bible is the confusion of terminology and difficulty of exacting translation. Most people understand the gist of what's being said, but the details can be tough to sort out. Being "righteous" doesn't mean that you're perfect, but rather means that you strive to do what is right. What does that imply, and how does that fit with Paul's claim that there are no righteous people? Paul is quoting (with slightly different wording) from Psalm 14, which uses the phrase "doeth good". I admit it's sometimes hard to sort all of this out, but there is doing good, striving for goodness, and depending on God, each of which could be referred to as righteousness at one time or another. I do believe that what Paul is saying and is said elsewhere along these same lines is that there is no such thing as someone who does what is right all the time. Additionally, there is perhaps a uniquely Christian understanding that nobody even tries to do good with the pure motive of pleasing God unless they are divinely inspired to it by the Holy Spirit. This is a strange concept that has many different forms of understanding among Christians of varied theological stripes, and I certainly don't fully understand every position on the matter, nor necessarily agree with all of them. (I don't know if any of this is making great sense, I've got a cold...)

Oh yeah, and as for righteousness coming from following the law, the answer is No. That John's parents happened to be righteous and followed the law is really two different (although admittedly related) facts. There are a LOT of issues in the Bible that can be confusing if you misunderstand the proper chain of cause-and-effect, the most common being the dichotomy of faith vs. works. Here what we see is not people who are righteous because they follow the Law of Moses, but people who follow the Law of Moses because they are righteous. Even in the Old Testament, the concept is there--although not so explicitly stated--of the true following of the law being something that comes from the inherent righteousness of the heart, and not simply out of obligation to fulfill righteousness.

God tells Zacharias that John is to never touch alcohol in his life, prompting the SAB to ask, "Is it OK to drink alcohol?" This is a good topic in itself that I thought I had already addressed, but apparently not. There are a few general guidelines for understanding the Bible's view on alcohol, and I think they are for the most part pretty common-sense. In general, alcohol is a good thing, in moderation. A glass of wine or two at a party, maybe a beer when out with friends? That's just good times; I myself had a couple beers at my birthday party (and was glad to not have to drive home, my alcohol tolerance is apparently way down from what it was in college!) What the Bible says against alcohol fits into one of two categories, of which this story is the latter. One, that alcohol to excess is a bad thing, and can ruin your life; I hope most of us know that to be true and are on our guards. Two, some people, due to the station they have in life, really ought to avoid alcohol altogether for the sake of personal purity. The verse quoted from Numbers 6 is about a person who decides to make a special vow of purity, and it may be that this is another case of God ordaining a "Nazarite" from birth, as He did with Samson. There are a number of interesting similarities between Samson and John that would suggest this.

Several times in this chapter, Luke says that someone was filled with the Holy Ghost. While yes, it may be a bit silly that John was filled with the Holy Ghost as a fetus, we do have to deal with the issue of when the Holy Ghost was given. I actually addressed this in chapter two, which I really don't remember why I did it before this chapter, but there it is. Basically, the giving of the Holy Ghost after the resurrection of Jesus was a special event, but not at all the first time the Holy Ghost was given, with various events going way back in the Bible to even to perhaps Genesis.

Verse 17 refers to "the wisdom of the just", prompting the SAB to inquire as to whether there has ever been a "just" person. I wish I had the Greek knowledge to dissect this verse, as the English translation does not make it clear whether this is singular or plural. If it were singular, I would suggest that it refers to God, who is surely just (at least in Judeo-Christian theology, skeptical opinions aside) but I can't tell. Still, it doesn't matter, because I believe the answer is Yes. While the Bible talks a lot about how there are no "good", "righteous" or whatever sorts of people, and requires some confusing discussion like that which I gave above for righteousness, I don't think the same can be said about people being "just". While yes, the Ecclesiastes passage exists, the book of Ecclesiastes is highly poetic, and is full of hyperbole. Some of it is nonetheless true, but in general, most of the ideas in that book are very abstract, like the claim that there is "nothing new" in the world. Surely there is new stuff every day, but in a sense, nothing is really new. When I post this far too long entry to my blog, it will be a "new" blog entry, but I create nothing, as all I am doing is shuffling around electrons to regurgitate ideas that no doubt exist on other blogs, websites, and even books printed well before I was even born. I think Solomon is saying that it's hard to find someone who is just, and even if you do, they're probably not just all of the time. Ecclesiastes is a good source of wisdom, but I don't tend to think of it as a good source of doctrine, myself.

Zacharias ends up being struck dumb because of his unbelief. Yes, it's strange, and it may seem a little bit unfair, but there it is. I think the real problem is the reconciling of this story with Mary's in the second half of the chapter. We'll see about that.