But whom say ye that I am? (Matthew 9)

Matthew 9 begins with the story of Jesus healing a sick man. The SAB says that the man is healed by having his sins forgiven, but I don't think that's what the story is telling us. I think the healing and the forgiveness are supposed to be two separate acts. (I have no idea why this passage is marked as "injustice".) The forgiveness does bring up an issue, though. Apparently, this was considered blasphemous, as only God had the authority to forgive sins, so is Jesus God? Well, I'm going to take the position that Jesus is God, so I'm only going to address items in the "No" column of the linked page. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus does not expressly say that he is not God; I'll probably address that more fully when I get there. As for the rest, the confusion arises because of the oddity that is trinitarianism, an issue probably too big for me to tackle, but I suppose I'll have to at some point in the New Testament, so why not here?

Okay, so Christianity of course believes that there is one and only one God, but, as you may have heard, also believes that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which can sound like a form of tritheism. (It's actually my understanding that the LDS church in particular is a tritheistic church, but it's more complicated than that in their case.) What is going on, though, is that while God is a single being, He manifests Himself in three persons, each of which has a slightly different role. I was actually talking with an agnostic friend about this recently, and just because he'll be delighted that I used this analogy in the blog, I will: It's sort of like the TV show Doctor Who. If you're not familiar, the show is a British sci-fi action series that features the adventures of "The Doctor", a human-appearing space alien that has a ship known as the TARDIS that allows him to travel through Time And Relative Dimensions In Space. What's important for the analogy, though, is that about a dozen actors have played The Doctor in the main series. Now unlike James Bond, who has been played by about half a dozen actors, but is always supposed to be the same person, each new actor that plays The Doctor is supposed to be taking over when the previous one dies, as death is not permanent for those of The Doctor's race, but leads to a "regeneration" in which one gets a new body and actually a new personality. Thus each regeneration of The Doctor is, while still The Doctor, like a brand new person in many ways. Back to theology, the Father (more often referred to as "God" or "Lord" than the other two), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (who doesn't seem to have a personal name) are all God in the end, but each of them has his own personality and role to play in Christianity (although unlike in Doctor Who, they all exist simultaneously). In a manner that is hard for me to fully understand, there also seems to be something like a rank among them, with the Father being primary in a fashion that I don't know to ever be made completely clear.

Does God desire animal sacrifices? I covered that in Genesis 4.

Starting in verse 18, we get the story of Jairus' daughter, who was either dead or at least near death when her father asked Jesus to come and help her. Was she dead? This does seem to be another place where Matthew differs from the other Gospels, but I'm not sure it really matters since I've always chosen to take Jesus at his word in verse 24 that she was never dead at all. Thus the question that the SAB asks in that verse is not an issue here, at least. (It will be eventually, of course.)

In the middle of the story is the story of a woman who was healed on the way to Jairus' house. I don't think that Jesus is saying that "medical science is unnecessary", but that there is some sort of power to be found in having faith in Jesus in addition to medicine. This may very well be just a matter of the healing power of a positive attitude for all I know; I've certainly heard it said that health is in many ways in the mind as well as in the body, and for some sorts of sickness, I don't doubt it. On the other hand, Jesus proceeds to go and heal two blind men and a mute possessed by a devil. I think both of these are undoubtedly a matter of supernatural power on the part of Jesus. No, I don't think the Bible is saying it's generally the case that a person who is mute must be possessed, only that it was the case here.

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? (Matthew 6)

So, continuing the sermon in chapter 6, we come on a number of similar issues to what we had last chapter. In fact, I'm pretty sure we just covered the first issue, and I think the SAB is tracking with my explanation, since it marks the first several verses as "good stuff". Generally when it comes to doing good works and praying, it's good to make it a thing you aren't doing to show off. The SAB mentions school prayer and the National Day of Prayer in their note on verse 5, and I actually agree. It should be noted that prayer in public schools is not illegal, so long as one keeps it to oneself, which is the way it should be in my opinion.

On verse 9, the SAB asks the interesting question "Do Christians know how to pray?" which is another one of those odd moments when I feel it's really reaching for a contradiction, but okay. I don't think either verse is saying what the SAB is purporting it to say. The verse here in Matthew is, I suppose being an instance of instruction in how to pray, but I don't think that necessarily means that Jesus wants Christians to pray these exact words, nor does it mean that, having read this passage, one will automatically know how prayer works. On the other hand, I don't think the Romans passage is saying that people don't know how to pray, only that sometimes the exact words to say may escape someone, but that's okay, as the Holy Spirit knows what we really need even if we can't put it in words.

So, feeling a little more fresh than I was when finishing up the last chapter, I'll try to address the question of whether we are all God's children. This is a tricky one actually, as I think the Bible can play pretty loose with this issue. Let me dispense with a few of these by noting that some of these verses may say "X are the children of God" but that may not imply that "not X are not the children of God". Also, there are a lot of issues being made separate here that are not actually separate, e.g. one might want to assume that "them that believe on [Jesus'] name" and "As many as are led by the Spirit of God" refer to the same group of people. Still, there is a sense in which we are all children of God because God created the human race, as I think I touched on for a similar issue in Genesis 6, and that wasn't much clearer. I think in most of these verses, the sentiment is that spiritually you are the "children of" whatever or whomever you do the will of.

Is God's will always done in heaven? I have to hand it to the SAB for catching these slightly less-than-obvious details, but I don't think this will float. Verse 10 doesn't say "always", and while I don't think it would be wrong to assume that it's generally the case that God's will is done in heaven, the fact there was an exception to the rule doesn't make the rule wrong.

While I understand that the wording of verse 13 might lead one to question whether God tempts people, I don't think this verse in particular is meant to say that. I think the idea here is asking God to keep us from temptation, not that God would tempt us if we failed to ask, but that we may ask God for further protection from temptation that might come from other sources.

I find it interesting that the SAB marks verse 15 with "injustice" and then comments "Fair is fair!" I'm not sure what point was being made there, but yes, it does seem rather fair, and I think it's a principle that some Christians have lost sight of: if God has forgiven our sins, then what place do we have to be unforgiving?

Verse 23 is marked as absurdity, and I'll have to admit here I don't know what this verse means; it does sound rather odd.

In verse 26, Jesus makes an odd comparison between people and birds. The SAB points out that birds don't have it quite so good as Jesus seems to be making it out to be. While I suppose it's technically right about this, there's something to be said (for better or worse) about how bad people have it anyway. Back in the first century, the life expectancy was pretty low, and this was largely due to infant mortality. I suppose the real point here is that the average human doesn't live as carefree a life as a bird, but even though, birds that do manage to live a good healthy life do so without having struggles that people do. And I don't think Jesus is saying that birds don't matter, he's just saying that they matter considerably less than humans do.

I don't think that the last few verses are Jesus saying that one should simply not care in any way about material things. In fact, I don't think I even need to appeal to hyperbole as I did in most of the points earlier to say that this is merely a matter of comparison, that is, Jesus is saying that material things should be less of a consideration than spiritual matters.

Whoring after the gods of the people of the land (Judges 2)

The second chapter opens with a rebuke of Israel from God, and an accompanying rebuke of the text by the SAB. Apparently, this rebuke is absurd, unjust and intolerant. Frankly, the only one I see is the intolerant bit, but as I have said before, absurdity and injustice are in the eye of the beholder, and I see no reason to excuse intolerant behavior on the part of God. They didn't do their job, now they suffer the consequences, and will repeatedly suffer the consequences throughout this book.

Actually, that covers pretty much all of the issues in this chapter. God is indeed intolerant, and it's a common view that it's not so much that God punishes them for turning their back on Him, but that turning their backs is its own punishment. Psalm 121 says "My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth." If you turn away from the source of your help, um, well... you'll be helpless, won't you?

And yes, the phrase "they went a whoring after other gods" is a bit harsh, but that's really part of the point. You might as well make yourself a prostitute as not follow God, or at least that's the metaphor used throughout scripture, most prominently in the book of Hosea.

Chapter 2 serves overall as something like an outline for the rest of the book; a "CliffsNotes" version of the book, if you will. The whole book is a repetition of the following process:

• God brings peace to Israel
• Israel gets complacent and turns from God to sin
• God allows them to be conquered by a foreign power
• Israel calls out to God for help and repents
• God delivers them from their situation through the use of a "Judge"
• ???
  
• Prophet!

Sorry, I couldn't resist that last bit; actually the first five essentially repeat over and over throughout the book, and probably one of the saddest things (or inspiring, as I have suggested before) is that even the people God chose to deliver Israel were far from great moral examples.

Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? (Judges, introduction)

I've been hesitating to start up the book of Judges for a number of reasons, one of which has not been that I was unaware of what an ugly book it is. I've known that from the first time I read it; you can't miss it. One thing that was lacking in me was a good idea of the proper way to say the things that needed to be said about it. Somehow, "This book is nasty. Let's go!" seemed a bit lacking.

The nastiness that is Judges needs to be addressed, and more than just admitted, it needs to be explained. Steve Wells points out that the book starts with a story involving the sending of body parts through the mail. The irony he forgets to mention is that, like a set of grisly bookends, the book's final story also involves body parts being sent through the mail. (EDIT: Oh, no, he does mention it. Did he add it, or did I somehow miss it on first read?) I remember the first time I read that particular story I thought, Sheesh, Stephen King's got nothing on the author of Judges! Horrifyingly, these stories are actually true.

Oddly enough, although I've been re-reading the book of Judges again lately to get back into it and get the right feel for it, it's the reading of a couple of other books, one by a more liberal theologian and the other by a more conservative one that have given me direction in this, although neither one mentions this particular book in their writings. Both of them point out the same thing about the Bible, a thing that I realized as a child reading the Bible for myself for the first time. I wasn't even in this book when it dawned on me (I was back in Genesis, probably reading about something like the story of Judah and Tamar) but I realized that in general, the Bible is not a book of heroes. It's not a book of great moral giants that we might look up to and model ourselves after. Adam eats the fruit. Cain kills his brother. Noah gets drunk and exposes himself. Abraham sleeps with his wife's maid. Isaac plays favorites with his children. Jacob lies and cheats his way through life at every turn. Moses commits murder. As I child, a light bulb went on in my head:

The Bible is a book full of screw-ups.

The funny thing about this is that there seem to be many people who come to a realization of this and it yields the opposite reaction in them from the one it did in me and so many people who know this to be true, and yet still use the Bible as a moral compass. People look at a book like Judges and they say, "How the Hell can I believe in a God who puts crap like this in His Holy Scriptures?" In many ways, the question is raised here, but the answer is hidden in the book of Jonah in the form of a question Jeopardy-style.

"And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?" (Jonah 4:11)

Jonah is the only book in the Bible to end with a question, and if God thinks leaving the question hanging out there is good enough, I think He wants us to consider it deeply. These 120,000 people God refers to are probably children; God is pointing out that while Nineveh (and the world at large) is full of evil people, if it were even just for the sake of the children, isn't it best to give a chance for people to do better and try again? Some have pointed out that if God only accepted "good people" who never do the wrong thing, then Jonah wouldn't be there to have the question asked to him.

Actually, Jonah would never have been born, because the nation of Israel would have been destroyed in the time of the Judges. Heck, you might as well suppose that they would have been killed at the whole golden calf incident. Or back when one of the Patriarchs screwed up big. Hmm, or maybe God could have just squished Adam and Eve like bugs when they disobeyed, and then none of us would be here at all.

In the book of Judges, the people of Israel go through a repeating cycle. They turn from God. They get in trouble. They turn back to God. God sends someone to save them. They rejoice, and the cycle repeats.

Some call God the "God of second chances." He's also the God of third, fourth, fifth, and 490th chances. If God could use a guy like Samson, a guy who was a drunk, a womanizer, a "momma's boy", a killer, and just generally all-around unpleasant fellow, then surely God could use a guy like me.

That's the hidden message of the book of Judges, and really of the Bible as a whole. It's a message that Bible detractors and followers alike can tend to miss. God is the God of screw-ups and rejects. "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5:32) That's good news for all of us. Don't think you're a screw-up? Maybe you're just a liar.