Acts chapter four has only one contradiction (who raised Jesus, which I answered in John chapter two), but there are a lot of other notes that I don't want to pass up.
Verse twelve has a lot of notes on it, because it's the controversial moment in which Peter says that only in the name of Jesus can one be saved. As always, the SAB marks such a statement as intolerant and unjust, and it's understandable! There is something fascinating to me about exclusivity claims by religions, because people find them intolerant, but most religions (including, as not a religion, but a religious classification, atheism) claim to be the one true religion. Yeah, there are exceptions, but think they are likely representative of less of the world population. Putting that aside and focusing on Christianity's exclusivity for the moment, I think there is something that can be said about it to soften the harshness. As I've discussed several times in both John and even earlier in Acts, it's largely understood that when Jesus died, he went to Hell and "set the captives free". It's pretty darn likely that the majority of people in Hell waiting for salvation had never heard the name Jesus of Nazareth, but they were saved anyway. I figure if people before the crucifixion could be saved without knowing Jesus, why would that change afterwards? So no, the name Jesus isn't "the password to heaven" as the SAB puts it; we are all saved by Jesus, but it isn't about any specific words or name that we know or say. I truly believe that Heaven will be full of plenty of non-Christians. (Should I say something about the side comment to Jehovah's Witnesses? I don't think I know JW theology well enough to comment on this. They don't believe that Jesus is God, I know, but does that bring up an issue with this particular verse? I don't know.)
So verse 13 brings up the issue of Peter and John being uneducated. The SAB says that if this is true, they couldn't have written the Bible books attributed to them. I don't think this follows, though, for a few reasons. First of all, it's not clear what is meant by "unlearned and ignorant". It doesn't necessarily mean that they were illiterate idiots; as obserant Jews they probably knew how to read and write Hebrew and Aramaic, and had some amount of teaching in the Hebrew Bible, but didn't have the sort of formal teaching a Rabbi would have had. More importantly, the fact that they were "unlearned" at this time is probably irrelevant because from this time forward, they stopped being fishermen and started being pastors, which probably involved a lot of time reading and writing, thus furthering and refining their knowledge. The time between Pentecost and the writing of John's books is actually many decades; I'm sure he had a long time to get as good as he did.
So, Peter and John get threatened by the religious leaders, but since they haven't technically broken any laws, they get to leave the Temple without any punishment. They say a prayer of thanksgiving (which the SAB finds boring) and for some reason, after they pray, there's an earthquake. The SAB marks this with "science" but this was either a miracle or maybe even just a coincidence; there's nothing antiscientific about earthquakes happening. The last bit of the chapter again talks about the church and how they were essentially communists. This is marked with "politics", which is one I haven't seen before; I don't know if it was added or if I just haven't come across it before. I suppose the point of the marking is that you don't tend to hear a lot about Christian communists in the 21st century, although they do exist; I know a few. It's actually very interesting that modern conservative evangelical Christians have sort of made a marriage between Christianity and capitalism, when the Bible says a whole lot about the love of money being evil, and that a country is judged by how they treat the poor, and other such things that are really the antithesis of capitalism, in my opinion. I think it's a subject worth examining.
Showing posts with label salvation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label salvation. Show all posts
Sunday, October 08, 2023
Thursday, October 05, 2023
Then shall the lame man leap as an hart (Acts 3)
Well, Acts chapter three has no contradictions listed, so this should be easier than the last two. The chapter opens with Peter and John meeting a lame man begging at the gate of Jerusalem. Peter decides to perform a miracle and heal the man's legs. The man goes with them to the Temple, where they draw a crowd because people recognize the formerly lame man. Peter tells the crowd they shouldn't be amazed, because he healed the man by the power of the Son of God. Peter tells the crowd that they were responsible for turning Jesus over to Pilate (which is a bit harsh, and perhaps presumptuous) but at least they did it out of ignorance. He tells them that all of it was foretold by the prophets, and they should repent and be converted into Christians (actually the word "Christian" hasn't been coined yet, that happens in chapter eleven). Peter reminds them of the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18, identifying Jesus as that prophet, and saying those who do not listen to him will be destroyed. The SAB marks this as intolerant, unjust, and violent, but I really don't think Peter is calling for anyone to be killed, but rather pointing out that Jesus is the only way to salvation. (So count this as a verse against the idea of universal salvation, I guess.) The SAB seems confused about verse 24, but I think Peter is just saying that all of the prophets have at some time spoken about the Messiah, which may not be strictly true, but it's largely correct.
Saturday, July 08, 2023
And they brought the colt to Jesus (John 12)
Okay, John chapter twelve opens with Jesus being anointed by Mary. The SAB compares this story with one in the other gospels, but I think if you look at the details, it's two different anointings. In this story, we're told the anointer is Mary, while in the other, it's a nameless woman who is a "sinner" (I think it may be implied that she is a prostitute). In this story, Jesus is at the house of Lazarus, while in the other he is at the house of Simon "the leper" (probably a former leper that Jesus healed). In this story, it's six days before Passover, while in the other, it's two days before. In this story, there's no mention of what sort of vessel Mary had the ointment in, while in the other, they specify an alabaster box.
Is it OK to use perfume? Wow, a lot of the SAB's supposed contradictions are insightful, but this is a reach. The answer is yes, it is okay. The Exodus 30 verse is crystal clear in context that it's talking about a specific perfume; the one described in the previous two verses is specified to be for ceremonial use only, and not personal use. The Proverbs 7 passage is saying that prostitutes use perfume, but doesn't in any way say only prostitutes use it. I don't know entirely what the point of the Isaiah verses is, but they certainly don't say not to use perfume. This really is a non-issue.
Anyway, Judas complains that the perfume was worth about a year's worth of wages, and it could have been sold to help the poor. The Bible notes that Judas didn't really care about the poor, but rather was in charge of holding the money bag for the group, and often stole from it for himself. Jesus says an interesting thing here, "the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." It dounds a bit calloused, and indeed it's sort of strange that Jesus, who often taught about helping the poor, would say it, but keep in mind, Jesus has about a week to live. This is actually a rather unfortunate verse in the Bible that I have actually heard "Christians" quote to justify not helping the poor.
So the next day, Jesus rides into Jerusalem, but the SAB asks, On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? This seems like a contradiction, but it's just that the different gospel writers used different words for the same thing. Jesus rode on the colt of an ass. Saying he rode on a colt or an ass essentially means the same thing, and saying that he rode on both is just saying the colt's mother was there; obviously he didn't ride on two things at once. The SAB also questions whether this truly fulfilled the prophecy quoted in verse 15. While he fulfilled that specific verse, the SAB claims, "But this can't be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom." Let's see those verses:
After riding into Jerusalem, Jesus makes a speech. In the speech, he says something about seeds "dying" that the SAB takes issue with. I vaguely recall addressing this somewhere before, but I have no idea where that would have been. Yes, technically seeds don't "die", but they have the appearance of not being alive and need to be buried in the ground to grow (most of them, anyway) so speaking metaphorically, I think this makes sense. In verse 27, Jesus says something that prompts the SAB to ask, Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion? I'd have to say at most, this is another instance of Jesus lying, which is not a contradiction, but it's probably worth examining the other verses where Jesus seems to contradict himself. Yes, Jesus says, "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," but Jesus knows it's not possible to avoid crucifixion and fulfill God's will, so he follows with, "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Although Jesus went willingly to the cross, it's understandable that he wasn't enthusiastic about it. Then something interesting happens; God the Father speaks out of the sky again, like he did at Jesus's baptism.
Jesus, in talking about his crucifixion, mentions that "now shall the prince of this world be cast out." This prompts the SAB to ask Who is the Lord of this world? Interestingly enough, I really covered this at the end of my post on Ruth chapter four, where I said God is the original owner of the earth, but gave it to Adam, who essentially sold it to Satan for a piece of fruit. My link to Revelation five there implies that there is a trust deed that Jesus will redeem from whoever currently owns it, which is likely Satan, since he essentially offered the world to Jesus as a temptation. So the answer is that Satan has it temporarily in his possession, but it ultimately belongs to God.
I answered the question of whether Jesus performed many signs in John chapter three. Does God want some to go to hell? and Who forces non-believers to disbelieve? are both closely related questions and have a lot of proof texts in common. It seems pretty evident that there seems to be contradiction in the first question, but the second one can be very easily dismissed: some people are influenced by Satan to disbelieve, but for many people who disbelieve, God solidifies their disbelief. It's a lot like what was said about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart; if you're stubborn, sometimes God entrenches your stubbornness. And really, for those verses shared by both pages, that's the explanation; but what about the others? Well, the Proverbs verse is just stating a fact: God made all people, both good and bad, and in ways we don't always fully understand, bad people have a purpose, too. The 2Thessalonians verse in a larger context is largely saying all of the things that were said in the above paragraph; Satan deceived them, they preferred the delusion, and so God reinforced it.
The chapter winds up with Jesus saying stuff about belief and judgment, with there being a side note about there being members of the Sanhedrin who believed, but were silent. I answered the question about whether Jesus judges people or not in John chapter five.
Is it OK to use perfume? Wow, a lot of the SAB's supposed contradictions are insightful, but this is a reach. The answer is yes, it is okay. The Exodus 30 verse is crystal clear in context that it's talking about a specific perfume; the one described in the previous two verses is specified to be for ceremonial use only, and not personal use. The Proverbs 7 passage is saying that prostitutes use perfume, but doesn't in any way say only prostitutes use it. I don't know entirely what the point of the Isaiah verses is, but they certainly don't say not to use perfume. This really is a non-issue.
Anyway, Judas complains that the perfume was worth about a year's worth of wages, and it could have been sold to help the poor. The Bible notes that Judas didn't really care about the poor, but rather was in charge of holding the money bag for the group, and often stole from it for himself. Jesus says an interesting thing here, "the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." It dounds a bit calloused, and indeed it's sort of strange that Jesus, who often taught about helping the poor, would say it, but keep in mind, Jesus has about a week to live. This is actually a rather unfortunate verse in the Bible that I have actually heard "Christians" quote to justify not helping the poor.
So the next day, Jesus rides into Jerusalem, but the SAB asks, On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? This seems like a contradiction, but it's just that the different gospel writers used different words for the same thing. Jesus rode on the colt of an ass. Saying he rode on a colt or an ass essentially means the same thing, and saying that he rode on both is just saying the colt's mother was there; obviously he didn't ride on two things at once. The SAB also questions whether this truly fulfilled the prophecy quoted in verse 15. While he fulfilled that specific verse, the SAB claims, "But this can't be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom." Let's see those verses:
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Be glad and shout, people of Jerusalem, because your king comes to you, humble and riding on a young donkey.I think I don't see the military thing, as verse 10 talks about peace; nonetheless, there is a concept that is pretty consistent in the New Testament of "spiritual warfare" which is to say that there is always a battle going on in the spiritual realm between good and bad (actually, there are elements of this concept in the Old Testament, too). It's also known that it's symbolic that when a military leader rides into a city on a stallion, he's coming for war, but when he rides on a colt, he's coming in peace. As for an earthly kingdom, the book of Revelation says some things similar to this, implying that at Jesus's second coming, he will have a kingdom on earth.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
12 Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee;
13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.
After riding into Jerusalem, Jesus makes a speech. In the speech, he says something about seeds "dying" that the SAB takes issue with. I vaguely recall addressing this somewhere before, but I have no idea where that would have been. Yes, technically seeds don't "die", but they have the appearance of not being alive and need to be buried in the ground to grow (most of them, anyway) so speaking metaphorically, I think this makes sense. In verse 27, Jesus says something that prompts the SAB to ask, Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion? I'd have to say at most, this is another instance of Jesus lying, which is not a contradiction, but it's probably worth examining the other verses where Jesus seems to contradict himself. Yes, Jesus says, "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," but Jesus knows it's not possible to avoid crucifixion and fulfill God's will, so he follows with, "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Although Jesus went willingly to the cross, it's understandable that he wasn't enthusiastic about it. Then something interesting happens; God the Father speaks out of the sky again, like he did at Jesus's baptism.
Jesus, in talking about his crucifixion, mentions that "now shall the prince of this world be cast out." This prompts the SAB to ask Who is the Lord of this world? Interestingly enough, I really covered this at the end of my post on Ruth chapter four, where I said God is the original owner of the earth, but gave it to Adam, who essentially sold it to Satan for a piece of fruit. My link to Revelation five there implies that there is a trust deed that Jesus will redeem from whoever currently owns it, which is likely Satan, since he essentially offered the world to Jesus as a temptation. So the answer is that Satan has it temporarily in his possession, but it ultimately belongs to God.
I answered the question of whether Jesus performed many signs in John chapter three. Does God want some to go to hell? and Who forces non-believers to disbelieve? are both closely related questions and have a lot of proof texts in common. It seems pretty evident that there seems to be contradiction in the first question, but the second one can be very easily dismissed: some people are influenced by Satan to disbelieve, but for many people who disbelieve, God solidifies their disbelief. It's a lot like what was said about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart; if you're stubborn, sometimes God entrenches your stubbornness. And really, for those verses shared by both pages, that's the explanation; but what about the others? Well, the Proverbs verse is just stating a fact: God made all people, both good and bad, and in ways we don't always fully understand, bad people have a purpose, too. The 2Thessalonians verse in a larger context is largely saying all of the things that were said in the above paragraph; Satan deceived them, they preferred the delusion, and so God reinforced it.
The chapter winds up with Jesus saying stuff about belief and judgment, with there being a side note about there being members of the Sanhedrin who believed, but were silent. I answered the question about whether Jesus judges people or not in John chapter five.
Saturday, July 01, 2023
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter (John 10)
John chapter ten is more speeches by Jesus which, as I said sometime earlier, is a lot of John's gospel.
The SAB misinterprets verse eight; I don't think that Jesus is saying everyone everyone that came before him was a thief and a liar, but rather those that claimed to be the Messiah. I think it is mentioned in passing in the other gospels that there were actually a lot of people in that era who were claiming to be the Messiah. Who was the greatest prophet? There is something ironic about the Deuteronomy verse given here, and that's that it was written by Moses, the same guy who wrote Numbers 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) Generally, when there's a verse like that in the Bible, it means up until the time of this writing, it didn't happen, but this was written while Moses was still alive! Anyway, it doesn't say Moses was the greatest prophet, it just says there was never another like him which, in the sense that it notes, is true. So the issue is really between John the Baptist and Jesus. I think there is an understanding that Jesus is sort of in a class of his own, and furthermore, note what Luke 7:28 say as a whole: "...he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he [John the Baptist]." This verse seems to be saying that there is something special about Christians, and technically, John wasn't a Christian. Nonetheless, after all that babbling on, I feel the need to point out that none of the verses listed for Jesus talk specifically about Jesus as a prophet, leading me to say, the definitive answer here is John the Baptist was the greatest prophet.
Who is the greatest person? This is not a contradiction, because each of these verses is really saying something different. The verse about Solomon is saying that he's the wisest person who ever lived. As I just said above, the verses about John the Baptist are saying he's the greatest prophet who ever lived. The verses about "everyone in the kingdom of heaven" are just a comparison of greatness to John the Baptist. The verse about being humble is saying that the more humble you are, the greater you will be in the kingdom of heaven. And really, who was more humble than Jesus? As Philippians 2:6-8 says of Jesus,
Jesus talks about laying down his life in verses 17 and 18, prompting the SAB to ask if Jesus committed suicide. This is an interesting question that I don't think a lot of people ponder enough. I mean, Jesus actually says, "No man taketh [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself." This does sound like suicide. I would say yes, Jesus did effectively commit suicide because he was in complete control of the timing and manner of his death. I expect I will have a lot to say about this when I get there.
Is it possible to fall from grace? Boy this is a doozy of a question, and the standard answer sounds like a cop-out, but I'm going to give it, because it's Biblical. It's one of those things like predestination vs. free will, where it's complicated and sort of metaphysical. Yes, here in verse 28 and in various other parts of the Bible, it sounds like a believer can't fall from grace, while in others it seems to be talking about that very thing. The key is actually in the Bible in 1John 2:19:
I already answered the question of whether Jesus is God in John chapter one, but the real interesting question here is How many gods are there? which the SAB brings up because Jesus quotes Psalm 82, which has a lot of suggestive language. I think I already answered this question a long time ago, but I'll give it another go. There is a very important sense that is given by the Bible--and is echoed by modern theologians--that anything you choose to worship becomes your god. In that sense, there are certainly many gods; people worship money, power, sex, beauty, food, nature, guns, drugs, and the list goes on. Most other religions' gods are just embodiment of these concepts. When the Bible says there is one God, it's stressing that there is one God that is a true God, while all other "gods" are lesser to the point of meaninglessness. So yes, the Bible admits the existence of other gods, but with a caveat.
The SAB misinterprets verse eight; I don't think that Jesus is saying everyone everyone that came before him was a thief and a liar, but rather those that claimed to be the Messiah. I think it is mentioned in passing in the other gospels that there were actually a lot of people in that era who were claiming to be the Messiah. Who was the greatest prophet? There is something ironic about the Deuteronomy verse given here, and that's that it was written by Moses, the same guy who wrote Numbers 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) Generally, when there's a verse like that in the Bible, it means up until the time of this writing, it didn't happen, but this was written while Moses was still alive! Anyway, it doesn't say Moses was the greatest prophet, it just says there was never another like him which, in the sense that it notes, is true. So the issue is really between John the Baptist and Jesus. I think there is an understanding that Jesus is sort of in a class of his own, and furthermore, note what Luke 7:28 say as a whole: "...he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he [John the Baptist]." This verse seems to be saying that there is something special about Christians, and technically, John wasn't a Christian. Nonetheless, after all that babbling on, I feel the need to point out that none of the verses listed for Jesus talk specifically about Jesus as a prophet, leading me to say, the definitive answer here is John the Baptist was the greatest prophet.
Who is the greatest person? This is not a contradiction, because each of these verses is really saying something different. The verse about Solomon is saying that he's the wisest person who ever lived. As I just said above, the verses about John the Baptist are saying he's the greatest prophet who ever lived. The verses about "everyone in the kingdom of heaven" are just a comparison of greatness to John the Baptist. The verse about being humble is saying that the more humble you are, the greater you will be in the kingdom of heaven. And really, who was more humble than Jesus? As Philippians 2:6-8 says of Jesus,
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.The SAB says verse 16 is a false prophecy. Jesus talks about there being "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold" and that "there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." I think the SAB is thinking this means something other than what I understand it to be. Up until this point, Jesus has been almost exclusively preaching to Jews; the Jews are "this fold", and the "other sheep" are the gentiles. Jesus is saying the Gospel is going to spread outside of Palestine, and there will be one Christianity. (If the SAB is nitpicking about the multitude of Christian denominations, I don't think there will be any after the second coming.)
Jesus talks about laying down his life in verses 17 and 18, prompting the SAB to ask if Jesus committed suicide. This is an interesting question that I don't think a lot of people ponder enough. I mean, Jesus actually says, "No man taketh [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself." This does sound like suicide. I would say yes, Jesus did effectively commit suicide because he was in complete control of the timing and manner of his death. I expect I will have a lot to say about this when I get there.
Is it possible to fall from grace? Boy this is a doozy of a question, and the standard answer sounds like a cop-out, but I'm going to give it, because it's Biblical. It's one of those things like predestination vs. free will, where it's complicated and sort of metaphysical. Yes, here in verse 28 and in various other parts of the Bible, it sounds like a believer can't fall from grace, while in others it seems to be talking about that very thing. The key is actually in the Bible in 1John 2:19:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.In other words, if you "fell from grace" it indicates that you were never there in the first place. Using Jesus's terminology from our chapter, nobody can pluck Jesus's sheep from his hand, so if someone appears to have been turned away from Jesus, that just proves that they were never his sheep.
I already answered the question of whether Jesus is God in John chapter one, but the real interesting question here is How many gods are there? which the SAB brings up because Jesus quotes Psalm 82, which has a lot of suggestive language. I think I already answered this question a long time ago, but I'll give it another go. There is a very important sense that is given by the Bible--and is echoed by modern theologians--that anything you choose to worship becomes your god. In that sense, there are certainly many gods; people worship money, power, sex, beauty, food, nature, guns, drugs, and the list goes on. Most other religions' gods are just embodiment of these concepts. When the Bible says there is one God, it's stressing that there is one God that is a true God, while all other "gods" are lesser to the point of meaninglessness. So yes, the Bible admits the existence of other gods, but with a caveat.
Tuesday, June 13, 2023
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren (John 5:19-47)
The rest of John chapter five is a big flowery speech by Jesus about himself, which is what a lot of the book of John is comprised of.
Does Jesus judge people? This is going to be a very complicated answer to what is honestly a very straightforward question. Jesus, in his time on earth living as a human prophet and Messiah, didn't come to judge; nonetheless, after Jesus's death on the cross and ascension, he was put into a place of authority to judge the dead. So, when it says that the Father gave Jesus authority to judge, this is what it is referring to: that Jesus, having been judged on behalf of humanity for their sin, is in a special position to judge. When Jesus says, "For judgment I am come into this world," he is talking about how his ultimate purpose in life was to be sacrificed to attain that position. So, Jesus doesn't judge people in his life, but in his death.
Is death final? Well, in the sense of whether one comes back to life after dying, yes, there are very few exceptions. But in the sense of whether bodily death means the end of an individual's experience, the answer is no, there is an afterlife. So, to address the verses that say yes... Joshua 23:14 isn't making a claim about the finality of death, only that everyone dies. All of the verses from Job are just Job's personal reflection from a limited point of view; Job is neither a prophet nor a theologian. Psalm 6:5 needs context, as in reading it alone, I misunderstood what it was talking about, which is the suggestion that after one dies, one has no relationship with God. While David was considered a prophet, that doesn't mean he understood everything, and the Old Testament doesn't talk much on the afterlife, so David had no solid basis to believe in one (although 2Samuel 12:23 "I shall go to him [my dead son]" is somewhat suggestive). Psalm 31:17, while also written by David, and thus could be dismissed likewise, doesn't say anything about the afterlife, but simply states that dead people don't talk to the living. Psalm 39:13 is also David talking about death, and not knowing what may come after. Psalm 88 as a whole is about death generally, but once again, Heman the Ezrahite simply doesn't know what may be after death. Psalm 115:17 is a strange statement; I could say what I've already said about David saying pretty much the same thing as the first part, but the second part is quizzical. What could be meant by "neither any that go down into silence"? I mean, it sounds like they are talking about the dead, but then, why "neither," like this is a second category of people? Strange. Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, when he was very old, and apparently more than a little depressed; like his father David, he had little evidence to believe in an afterlife. Isaiah is tricky, because not only is he a prophet, but his book of prophecy has verses that the SAB puts on either side of this apparent dilemma; so what does Isaiah really believe about the afterlife? It's worth noting that two of these verses that seem to contradict each other come right after one another in chapter 26, which would suggest it's not an accident, but a purposeful juxtaposition; Isaiah is making a bold statement about coming back from the dead. I believe in verse 14, "They are dead," refers to the wicked, while in verse 19, "Thy dead men shall live," refers to the righteous men of Israel; Isaiah is talking in the middle of this very long passage (chapters 24-27) about a coming prophetic event where the righteous will be raised from the dead. Isaiah 38:18 however is a bit of a stumper, as Isaiah has already said there is a day coming when the dead shall rise; it's possible that he's referring to the state that the dead are in temporarily between the day of death and the day of resurrection, which is a bit of a sticky point theologically. There is definitely some discussion among theologians as to whether a person goes immediately to the afterlife upon dying or whether there is a waiting period much like sleeping; there's scripture that seems to support either side, and the book of Revelation does seem to have different moments where different classes of people are given a bodily resurrection (see Revelation 20:13 for instance).
"How are people judged by God?" was answered in John chapter three (where it specifically asked about being "born again"), as was "Is salvation by faith alone?", but in the second part of that chapter; they're closely related questions.
Does Hell exist? This is a big question, and there are important related questions that the SAB seems to have rolled up into one page. That's to say that whether Hell exists is really a separate question from (assuming it exists) who goes there. First of all, I think it's worth reflecting on whether "Hell" even exists as a word in the Bible; the King James Version certainly has the word "hell" 23 times in the New Testament, but I don't believe it's a Greek word. "Hell" is translated 13 times from "Gehenna", 10 times from "Hades", and once from "Tartarus"; "Gehenna" (from Hebrew "ge Hinnom") is a valley in Israel where pagan sacrifices used to be made and in Jesus's time was a burning trash dump, "Hades" is a Greek word signifying the place where the dead go, "Tartarus" is the lowest level of the underworld where the enemies of the Greek gods were imprisoned. So...there are three separate concepts that sort of come together to form the Christian doctrine of "a fiery place where dead people are imprisoned," and you could ask whether they really belong together like that, but for now, since the KJV treats them all the same, we'll say they are. (sigh This is really going to be a long post...)
So does a place exist where all three of these concepts are true? Yes. I take Luke 16:22-24 as the prime example:
It is possible that this jailbreak involved every human soul and Hell essentially closed up shop (excepting the fallen angels mentioned in 2Peter 2:4 imprisoned in Hell (Tartarus) who are waiting for a final judgment), and there are many Christians who believe this based on (among others) 1Corinthians 15:22. I personally believe that the other two verses in the "everyone goes to Heaven" section don't necessarily mean that, however. Note that 1Timothy 4:10 says, "...specially of those that believe," suggesting the criteria for going to Heaven still includes belief. As for 1John 2:2, yes, Jesus died for the sin of the world, but it's like a blank check given to you, and even if a billionaire gave you a blank check, you don't get anything unless you believe that the check is real, so you sign the back and bring it to the bank!
So, seeing as all of the verses in the "no Heaven or Hell" category were addressed in the "Is death final?" question above, that leaves the "No, those that don't go to heaven, just die." category. Actually, once again, there are Christians who believe this doctrine. Supposedly, while the fires of Hell are never extinguished, the souls that they burn do eventually get destroyed. Those who don't believe in this doctrine explain away these verses in various ways. First of all, most of these verses that talk about death, are actually referring to death, no metaphor. Everyone is a sinner, so everyone dies. Revelation 20:14-15--which I'm surprised the SAB didn't put in this category--is the metaphorical death: "the second death." This, and the New Testament verses in this category discussing destruction, corruption, and perishing, are describing an ongoing eternal process of these things. Yes, morbid, but that's the doctrine. And Jesus seems to be supporting that view in Matthew 7:13-14:
Does anyone ever do anything good? I've answered a lot of similar questions in the past, and I think they're all listed at the bottom of the linked page. Once again, this is slightly different, and deserves its own answer. Without even looking, the answer is "yes", but what about the verses that the SAB groups under "no"? In Psalm 14:3, I think David is using a bit of hyperbole, because obviously he thinks he himself does good, more often than bad, at least. When Paul quotes David in the book of Romans, he is trying to make the point that all people are sinners. I think that's what most of these verses are saying, particularly clear in the Ecclesiastes verse, that there is nobody who does good all the time. The verse from Isaiah doesn't really belong here at all, but is saying in a hyperbolic way that human righteousness is like "filthy rags" (I've been told the Hebrew here actually says "used menstrual cloths"! Yes, the word translated "filthy" is "עִדִּים" which pertains to menstrual issue) when compared to the righteousness of God.
Did Jesus bear witness of himself? and Is Jesus's witness of himself true? are both closely related questions, and the SAB seems to be using the same verses for both. The verse for "no" on the first page simply doesn't say that, so there's no contradiction there. The answer to the second question is "yes" as well, as John 5:31 is not Jesus admitting that he's lying or anything like that; he's just pointing out that when he speaks for himself, the Pharisees aren't going to simply take him at his word. The question Can God be seen? was answered in John chapter one, among other places.
The SAB notes on verse 46 that although Jesus says Moses wrote about him, he doesn't specify where. His listeners would probably think of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where Moses is directly talking about Jesus, but there are other things in the books of Moses that point to Jesus. Genesis 3:15 is consideredby many to be the first prophecy of Jesus:
Does Jesus judge people? This is going to be a very complicated answer to what is honestly a very straightforward question. Jesus, in his time on earth living as a human prophet and Messiah, didn't come to judge; nonetheless, after Jesus's death on the cross and ascension, he was put into a place of authority to judge the dead. So, when it says that the Father gave Jesus authority to judge, this is what it is referring to: that Jesus, having been judged on behalf of humanity for their sin, is in a special position to judge. When Jesus says, "For judgment I am come into this world," he is talking about how his ultimate purpose in life was to be sacrificed to attain that position. So, Jesus doesn't judge people in his life, but in his death.
Is death final? Well, in the sense of whether one comes back to life after dying, yes, there are very few exceptions. But in the sense of whether bodily death means the end of an individual's experience, the answer is no, there is an afterlife. So, to address the verses that say yes... Joshua 23:14 isn't making a claim about the finality of death, only that everyone dies. All of the verses from Job are just Job's personal reflection from a limited point of view; Job is neither a prophet nor a theologian. Psalm 6:5 needs context, as in reading it alone, I misunderstood what it was talking about, which is the suggestion that after one dies, one has no relationship with God. While David was considered a prophet, that doesn't mean he understood everything, and the Old Testament doesn't talk much on the afterlife, so David had no solid basis to believe in one (although 2Samuel 12:23 "I shall go to him [my dead son]" is somewhat suggestive). Psalm 31:17, while also written by David, and thus could be dismissed likewise, doesn't say anything about the afterlife, but simply states that dead people don't talk to the living. Psalm 39:13 is also David talking about death, and not knowing what may come after. Psalm 88 as a whole is about death generally, but once again, Heman the Ezrahite simply doesn't know what may be after death. Psalm 115:17 is a strange statement; I could say what I've already said about David saying pretty much the same thing as the first part, but the second part is quizzical. What could be meant by "neither any that go down into silence"? I mean, it sounds like they are talking about the dead, but then, why "neither," like this is a second category of people? Strange. Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, when he was very old, and apparently more than a little depressed; like his father David, he had little evidence to believe in an afterlife. Isaiah is tricky, because not only is he a prophet, but his book of prophecy has verses that the SAB puts on either side of this apparent dilemma; so what does Isaiah really believe about the afterlife? It's worth noting that two of these verses that seem to contradict each other come right after one another in chapter 26, which would suggest it's not an accident, but a purposeful juxtaposition; Isaiah is making a bold statement about coming back from the dead. I believe in verse 14, "They are dead," refers to the wicked, while in verse 19, "Thy dead men shall live," refers to the righteous men of Israel; Isaiah is talking in the middle of this very long passage (chapters 24-27) about a coming prophetic event where the righteous will be raised from the dead. Isaiah 38:18 however is a bit of a stumper, as Isaiah has already said there is a day coming when the dead shall rise; it's possible that he's referring to the state that the dead are in temporarily between the day of death and the day of resurrection, which is a bit of a sticky point theologically. There is definitely some discussion among theologians as to whether a person goes immediately to the afterlife upon dying or whether there is a waiting period much like sleeping; there's scripture that seems to support either side, and the book of Revelation does seem to have different moments where different classes of people are given a bodily resurrection (see Revelation 20:13 for instance).
"How are people judged by God?" was answered in John chapter three (where it specifically asked about being "born again"), as was "Is salvation by faith alone?", but in the second part of that chapter; they're closely related questions.
Does Hell exist? This is a big question, and there are important related questions that the SAB seems to have rolled up into one page. That's to say that whether Hell exists is really a separate question from (assuming it exists) who goes there. First of all, I think it's worth reflecting on whether "Hell" even exists as a word in the Bible; the King James Version certainly has the word "hell" 23 times in the New Testament, but I don't believe it's a Greek word. "Hell" is translated 13 times from "Gehenna", 10 times from "Hades", and once from "Tartarus"; "Gehenna" (from Hebrew "ge Hinnom") is a valley in Israel where pagan sacrifices used to be made and in Jesus's time was a burning trash dump, "Hades" is a Greek word signifying the place where the dead go, "Tartarus" is the lowest level of the underworld where the enemies of the Greek gods were imprisoned. So...there are three separate concepts that sort of come together to form the Christian doctrine of "a fiery place where dead people are imprisoned," and you could ask whether they really belong together like that, but for now, since the KJV treats them all the same, we'll say they are. (sigh This is really going to be a long post...)
So does a place exist where all three of these concepts are true? Yes. I take Luke 16:22-24 as the prime example:
And it came to pass, that the beggar [Lazarus] died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.Here we have a description of a place where the dead go, they seem to be imprisoned there, and there is a fire tormenting them (Jesus uses "Hades" in this discussion). However, there are also people separate from the fire being comforted. So what does that mean? Ephesians 4:8-10 suggests a doctrine that everyone who died before the crucifixion would go to Hell and wait for sin to be paid for:
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)So, assuming that is saying that Jesus went to Hell and staged a massive spiritual prison break, there are at least some people who went to Hell temporarily.
It is possible that this jailbreak involved every human soul and Hell essentially closed up shop (excepting the fallen angels mentioned in 2Peter 2:4 imprisoned in Hell (Tartarus) who are waiting for a final judgment), and there are many Christians who believe this based on (among others) 1Corinthians 15:22. I personally believe that the other two verses in the "everyone goes to Heaven" section don't necessarily mean that, however. Note that 1Timothy 4:10 says, "...specially of those that believe," suggesting the criteria for going to Heaven still includes belief. As for 1John 2:2, yes, Jesus died for the sin of the world, but it's like a blank check given to you, and even if a billionaire gave you a blank check, you don't get anything unless you believe that the check is real, so you sign the back and bring it to the bank!
So, seeing as all of the verses in the "no Heaven or Hell" category were addressed in the "Is death final?" question above, that leaves the "No, those that don't go to heaven, just die." category. Actually, once again, there are Christians who believe this doctrine. Supposedly, while the fires of Hell are never extinguished, the souls that they burn do eventually get destroyed. Those who don't believe in this doctrine explain away these verses in various ways. First of all, most of these verses that talk about death, are actually referring to death, no metaphor. Everyone is a sinner, so everyone dies. Revelation 20:14-15--which I'm surprised the SAB didn't put in this category--is the metaphorical death: "the second death." This, and the New Testament verses in this category discussing destruction, corruption, and perishing, are describing an ongoing eternal process of these things. Yes, morbid, but that's the doctrine. And Jesus seems to be supporting that view in Matthew 7:13-14:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.I don't think I have anything to add to the What the Bible says about Hell page.
Does anyone ever do anything good? I've answered a lot of similar questions in the past, and I think they're all listed at the bottom of the linked page. Once again, this is slightly different, and deserves its own answer. Without even looking, the answer is "yes", but what about the verses that the SAB groups under "no"? In Psalm 14:3, I think David is using a bit of hyperbole, because obviously he thinks he himself does good, more often than bad, at least. When Paul quotes David in the book of Romans, he is trying to make the point that all people are sinners. I think that's what most of these verses are saying, particularly clear in the Ecclesiastes verse, that there is nobody who does good all the time. The verse from Isaiah doesn't really belong here at all, but is saying in a hyperbolic way that human righteousness is like "filthy rags" (I've been told the Hebrew here actually says "used menstrual cloths"! Yes, the word translated "filthy" is "עִדִּים" which pertains to menstrual issue) when compared to the righteousness of God.
Did Jesus bear witness of himself? and Is Jesus's witness of himself true? are both closely related questions, and the SAB seems to be using the same verses for both. The verse for "no" on the first page simply doesn't say that, so there's no contradiction there. The answer to the second question is "yes" as well, as John 5:31 is not Jesus admitting that he's lying or anything like that; he's just pointing out that when he speaks for himself, the Pharisees aren't going to simply take him at his word. The question Can God be seen? was answered in John chapter one, among other places.
The SAB notes on verse 46 that although Jesus says Moses wrote about him, he doesn't specify where. His listeners would probably think of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where Moses is directly talking about Jesus, but there are other things in the books of Moses that point to Jesus. Genesis 3:15 is consideredby many to be the first prophecy of Jesus:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.While a lot of people take this verse to mean that people generally won't like snakes, some have suggested it's talking about the crucifixion. Genesis 18 has three men appearing before Abraham, where the first verse says, "And the LORD appeared unto him..." A few Christian scholars have suggested that this is Jesus with two angels, while some have even suggested that this is an embodiment of the Trinity! Verse 18 in particular of that chapter says, "...all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in [Abraham]," which many have suggested is talking about his descendant, Jesus. (Several times in Genesis, God refers to Abraham and his descendants as being a blessing to all nations, the first being in chapter 12) Abraham's (attempted) sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22 is considered by many to be a prefiguring of Jesus's death on the cross; in fact, some have suggested that "Moriah" was the place where Jesus's crucifixion would later take place. Genesis 49:8-12 is Jacob's special blessing on his son, Judah who, despite not being the firstborn, is described in words suggesting a role as the royal tribe of Israel; the Talmud actually suggests that "until Shiloh come" is a Messianic prophecy, and of course Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, in the line of King David. Leviticus 25:47ff talks about the kinsman redeemer, which is also discussed further in Deuteronomy 25, and as I explored in Ruth chapter four, Jesus is the kinsman redeemer of both Israel and the entire world. In general, there are a lot of parallels between Moses and Jesus that I won't go into details with, but I did find this article very interesting (and it was also a help for some of my verses here).
Tuesday, June 06, 2023
Greater love hath no man than this (John 3:16-36)
John 3:16 is arguably the most famous verse in the Bible, because so many Christians feel that it sums up the Gospel, and it's one verse virtually every Christian has memorized. How does the SAB unpack it?
Does God love everyone? The answer is yes. Period. Obviously, however, it's complicated. I think it's important to note that it's entirely possible for a person to have more than one emotion towards another person at the same time, so why can't God? Confession time here: I have a daughter with mental health issues. She's been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and her behavior is sometimes erratic. There are times when I find myself hating her, but even when I feel that way, I never stop loving her. I think a lot of what is on this contradiction page is resolved by understanding that God sometimes has a love/hate relationship with certain people. Let's see... Yes, God hates entire nations sometimes, but it's usually because they are so steeped in sin that they are hurting people; sometimes God has felt that the hurting was so bad that they needed to be destroyed. God didn't hate Job; Job was simply suffering so badly that he incorrectly assumed God must hate him. Apparently, God hated Esau; he really wasn't a very good person.
I answered the question of how many sons God has in John 1
Is salvation by faith alone? Sort of. I answered a similar question in the last post, in which I said faith is important, but true faith leads to good words and deeds, so they are found together. It's actually the main theme of James, that faith is not complete without works. It's worth noting that a lot of the verses in the bottom of the page are from the Old Testament, which didn't often deal with the concepts of salvation and the afterlife, and those verses are actually about how to live a good life, which is nonetheless also important. However, "The just shall live by faith," appears several times in the New Testament, but is a quote from Habakkuk 2:4, so the importance of faith is indeed taught in the Old Testament. Matthew 5:20 is not making the claim that you need to be righteous to enter the Kingdom of heaven, but is rather hyperbole essentially saying that it takes more than righteousness. Matthew 19:17 needs context; Jesus is saying that one needs to be perfect and sinless to go to Heaven, but when the man Jesus was talking to claimed to be sinless, Jesus showed him that money was his idol. I believe 2Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 2:23 (and maybe Revelation 20:12-13, it's not very clear) are referring to a non-salvific judgment; there is a theological understanding of judgment in the afterlife that while faith is what gets you into Heaven, in Heaven, there are different levels of reward waiting for believers based on their amount of good works. The question of how people are judged by God is a closely related matter, which I answered in my last entry.
Verse 22 is worth noting for a minor detail of "came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea." It's not specified where the meeting with Nicodemus occurred, but it's very likely that wherever it happened, it was in Judea already. It may be that John's Gospel is a collection of stories thrown together by an editor. Did Jesus baptize anyone? I think John 4:2, especially following so closely on this passage (remember that as originally written, there were no chapter divisions or verses), gives us the answer to clarify what is said here: Jesus's disciples baptized, but Jesus didn't. While it sounds like a contradiction between this chapter and the next, I think what is going on here is that when John was writing this he realized that he made it sound like Jesus was baptizing, but didn't mean to, so he simply clarified shortly afterward. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is an entirely different thing, and happened first at Pentecost. The timing of the calling of Peter and Andrew I covered in John chapter one.
How much power did Jesus have? Jesus was essentially all-powerful. The reason why he couldn't grant John and James's mother's request was, at least I always believed, that they didn't realize that what they were asking was to be crucified with Jesus, and that wasn't meant for them. The reason Jesus was unable to perform many miracles in his home town was that nobody there believed in him, so there simply wasn't enough opportunity!
As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed.Yes, this is meant to highlight absurdity, injustice, and violence, and seems a bit irreverent, but honestly, it's spot-on; this is what the verse is saying, and this is what Christianity is about! There are different theological approaches to what this really means when you understand it, but by far the majority view is that humanity was doomed to go to Hell because of Original Sin, and in order to be reconciled with God, there needed to be a perfect sacrifice to erase it, which could only be the killing of a completely innocent human being in the person of Jesus Christ.
Does God love everyone? The answer is yes. Period. Obviously, however, it's complicated. I think it's important to note that it's entirely possible for a person to have more than one emotion towards another person at the same time, so why can't God? Confession time here: I have a daughter with mental health issues. She's been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and her behavior is sometimes erratic. There are times when I find myself hating her, but even when I feel that way, I never stop loving her. I think a lot of what is on this contradiction page is resolved by understanding that God sometimes has a love/hate relationship with certain people. Let's see... Yes, God hates entire nations sometimes, but it's usually because they are so steeped in sin that they are hurting people; sometimes God has felt that the hurting was so bad that they needed to be destroyed. God didn't hate Job; Job was simply suffering so badly that he incorrectly assumed God must hate him. Apparently, God hated Esau; he really wasn't a very good person.
I answered the question of how many sons God has in John 1
Is salvation by faith alone? Sort of. I answered a similar question in the last post, in which I said faith is important, but true faith leads to good words and deeds, so they are found together. It's actually the main theme of James, that faith is not complete without works. It's worth noting that a lot of the verses in the bottom of the page are from the Old Testament, which didn't often deal with the concepts of salvation and the afterlife, and those verses are actually about how to live a good life, which is nonetheless also important. However, "The just shall live by faith," appears several times in the New Testament, but is a quote from Habakkuk 2:4, so the importance of faith is indeed taught in the Old Testament. Matthew 5:20 is not making the claim that you need to be righteous to enter the Kingdom of heaven, but is rather hyperbole essentially saying that it takes more than righteousness. Matthew 19:17 needs context; Jesus is saying that one needs to be perfect and sinless to go to Heaven, but when the man Jesus was talking to claimed to be sinless, Jesus showed him that money was his idol. I believe 2Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 2:23 (and maybe Revelation 20:12-13, it's not very clear) are referring to a non-salvific judgment; there is a theological understanding of judgment in the afterlife that while faith is what gets you into Heaven, in Heaven, there are different levels of reward waiting for believers based on their amount of good works. The question of how people are judged by God is a closely related matter, which I answered in my last entry.
Verse 22 is worth noting for a minor detail of "came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea." It's not specified where the meeting with Nicodemus occurred, but it's very likely that wherever it happened, it was in Judea already. It may be that John's Gospel is a collection of stories thrown together by an editor. Did Jesus baptize anyone? I think John 4:2, especially following so closely on this passage (remember that as originally written, there were no chapter divisions or verses), gives us the answer to clarify what is said here: Jesus's disciples baptized, but Jesus didn't. While it sounds like a contradiction between this chapter and the next, I think what is going on here is that when John was writing this he realized that he made it sound like Jesus was baptizing, but didn't mean to, so he simply clarified shortly afterward. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is an entirely different thing, and happened first at Pentecost. The timing of the calling of Peter and Andrew I covered in John chapter one.
How much power did Jesus have? Jesus was essentially all-powerful. The reason why he couldn't grant John and James's mother's request was, at least I always believed, that they didn't realize that what they were asking was to be crucified with Jesus, and that wasn't meant for them. The reason Jesus was unable to perform many miracles in his home town was that nobody there believed in him, so there simply wasn't enough opportunity!
Monday, June 05, 2023
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night (John 3:1-15)
John chapter three is mostly the story of Jesus having a conversation with Nicodemus. This conversation and Nicodemus himself are noteworthy, because in much of the Gospels, Jesus is seen in situations being in opposition to the Pharisees, but Nicodemus is "a man of the Pharisees". It's not commonly noted, but not all of the Pharisees were against Jesus, and at least two of them (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) performed actions indicating that they believed in him to some extent.
Did Jesus perform many signs and wonders? Yes, Jesus performed a lot of signs and wonders, he just refused to do any just for the sake of showing off. All of Jesus's miracles were performed because there was a need for them, but there were a few times when the Pharisees demanded that he do something on the spot to prove himself, and he refused. Of course, it's understood that the "sign of Jonas" was a reference to the prophet Jonah being three days in the belly of a whale; similarly Jesus would be three days in the grave. (Yes the latter "three days" is questionable, but I don't think this is the place for that subject.)
Must someone be born again to be saved? These discussions are always convoluted because there's a lot the Bible says on this subject, and a lot of subjects that are closely related. The specific issue of being "born again" is a particularly sticky point because John 3:3 is the only place in the Bible where the term appears, at which point it's not very well explained, and yet you'll find a lot of Christians who are very hung up on it. (Ask a Christian like that what it means, and they'll probably say something like, "If you are, you just know!") Nonetheless, how I would respond to what is touched on on the contradiction page is that being born again is believing in Jesus, and the SAB seems to understand that the point here is belief, as they group it together. The thing that seems like a sticking point is when the Bible talks about salvation through words and deeds; the solution to the confusion is understanding that if you have the right beliefs, you will speak the right words and perform the right deeds. A pastor friend of mine told me he teaches this subject with an illustration of a coin, where faith and beliefs are on one side, and good words and deeds are on the other; while they are two different things, they are just two aspects of the same state of being. This does open up a whole can of worms theologically with the question of which may be more important, and there are scriptures that seem to support either side, but I'm not going to get that deep here.
The SAB makes an interesting note on verse 8 about Jesus's statement "The wind bloeth where it listeth, and thou ... canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." I suppose in a scientific note, the SAB points out that it is quite possible to measure the wind. This is true, but I think what Jesus is saying still stands, even without the fact that methods of measuring the wind didn't exist in first century Palestine. Yes, you can tell what the wind is doing at a specific point in space and time, but just because that's possible, can you really tell where it's coming from or where it's going? Wind is very chaotic, and it's not visible, so you can't really have full knowledge of what the wind is doing in general. This article, which I just Googled and is very recent, talks about the technology used to measure wind, and how difficult it is.
Has anyone ever ascended into heaven? You know, I'm inclined to give this one to the SAB. I mean, I could be nitpicky about the stories of Enoch and Elijah (the Bible doesn't actually say Enoch went to heaven, but if he didn't, then what the heck is the Bible trying to say?) and try to weasel out of this, but honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why Jesus overlooked these two men. I guess I can say that Jesus is making a generalized statement that he failed to mention the odd exceptions to, but it feels like the wording should be different; it just feels so absolute. It's probable that his point is that no man has ascended into heaven and come back to talk about it, because that's certainly true, but his wording is technically a contradiction with other parts of scripture as the SAB notes.
This is getting long, so I'll break it at the famous verse 16, and finish this post with the footnote on verse 14. I'll say once again that just because Jesus uses an illustration out of the Old Testament, it doesn't necessarily follow that he takes the referenced story literally, however in this case, I don't see a reason why he shouldn't. The SAB marks the story in Numbers 21 as both absurd and having scientific issues, but we're talking about two miracles, so to a nonbeliever, any miracle is going to seem absurd and nonscientific. I suppose there is the issue of God making a miracle that hurts people and following it by a second miracle to fix the first; yes, that seems absurd, but I think the reason for what happened was to teach the Israelites something about faith. The snakes came because of lack of faith, and they needed to have faith in God's strange cure to deal with it. (The story has more issues, but I'll save them for whenever I get around to blogging Numbers.) The important thing here is that Jesus is comparing himself to the bronze serpent of Numbers 21, because like the issue of faith I described above, people of the world are subject to the effects of Original Sin because of the lack of faith of Adam, and need to be cured by faith in looking to Jesus lifted up on the cross to pay the price for sin. More on this in verse 16 next post.
Did Jesus perform many signs and wonders? Yes, Jesus performed a lot of signs and wonders, he just refused to do any just for the sake of showing off. All of Jesus's miracles were performed because there was a need for them, but there were a few times when the Pharisees demanded that he do something on the spot to prove himself, and he refused. Of course, it's understood that the "sign of Jonas" was a reference to the prophet Jonah being three days in the belly of a whale; similarly Jesus would be three days in the grave. (Yes the latter "three days" is questionable, but I don't think this is the place for that subject.)
Must someone be born again to be saved? These discussions are always convoluted because there's a lot the Bible says on this subject, and a lot of subjects that are closely related. The specific issue of being "born again" is a particularly sticky point because John 3:3 is the only place in the Bible where the term appears, at which point it's not very well explained, and yet you'll find a lot of Christians who are very hung up on it. (Ask a Christian like that what it means, and they'll probably say something like, "If you are, you just know!") Nonetheless, how I would respond to what is touched on on the contradiction page is that being born again is believing in Jesus, and the SAB seems to understand that the point here is belief, as they group it together. The thing that seems like a sticking point is when the Bible talks about salvation through words and deeds; the solution to the confusion is understanding that if you have the right beliefs, you will speak the right words and perform the right deeds. A pastor friend of mine told me he teaches this subject with an illustration of a coin, where faith and beliefs are on one side, and good words and deeds are on the other; while they are two different things, they are just two aspects of the same state of being. This does open up a whole can of worms theologically with the question of which may be more important, and there are scriptures that seem to support either side, but I'm not going to get that deep here.
The SAB makes an interesting note on verse 8 about Jesus's statement "The wind bloeth where it listeth, and thou ... canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." I suppose in a scientific note, the SAB points out that it is quite possible to measure the wind. This is true, but I think what Jesus is saying still stands, even without the fact that methods of measuring the wind didn't exist in first century Palestine. Yes, you can tell what the wind is doing at a specific point in space and time, but just because that's possible, can you really tell where it's coming from or where it's going? Wind is very chaotic, and it's not visible, so you can't really have full knowledge of what the wind is doing in general. This article, which I just Googled and is very recent, talks about the technology used to measure wind, and how difficult it is.
"It's a demonstration of the feasibility for our future satellite mission we are pursuing where we hope to provide the 10-kilometer resolution," Zeng said.The SAB has a lot to say about verse 12 in the footnote. it's a lot of science stuff linked to on other pages. Let's gather it up:
Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were created "from the beginning." But the universe is 13.8 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion, and humans (depending on how you define "human") for a couple million years.This comment is on a passage where Jesus is making a point about divorce by essentially quoting from Genesis 1. So, I'm guessing that the SAB is implying that Jesus is a young-earth creationist, which goes against modern science. Maybe, but just because Jesus is quoting Genesis doesn't mean you know what his view on creation is; Christians all accept Genesis as part of the Bible, but views on what it means vary greatly. Some believe in a literal seven-day creation that happened about 6,000 years ago; some believe that the seven days represent indefinite amounts of time that may be billions of years; some believe that Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, but the first ones to have a special relationship with God. I have a particular view that may not be widespread, but didn't originate with me, that I went over in Genesis 2. The point here is that I think the SAB is reading too much into Jesus quoting Genesis, and nonetheless, the first human beings in fact were male and female, which is what Jesus actually said in that passage.
Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody.This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I hear a lot of Christians say, "Jesus says Jonah really happened!" just because Jesus mentioned Jonah being swallowed by a fish. Jesus knows his audience is familiar with the Old Testament, so it makes sense to use it as a common cultural reference; this doesn't mean that Jesus is necessarily saying it's all true. The SAB is doing the same thing here: if Jesus mentions Noah, he has to be signing off on the complete veracity of every single aspect of the complete story of Noah's flood! Again, this is a leap of logic that I don't think is warranted; at most, I'd say you can probably say that Jesus recognizes that Noah was a real historical person. It was my view going through that part of Genesis that the story is problematic scientifically and narratively; does that mean that Jesus, when making a point illustrated by the person of Noah, needs to pause to untangle all the problems of that story? Why would he? Jesus is making a point about urgency and danger, and illustrating it with the story of the flood; discussion of physics and meteorology would be a distraction.
Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. (Orchids have the smallest seeds.) And there are no trees in the mustard family (Brassicaceae).The SAB is completely missing the point on two levels. Jesus's parable of the mustard seed is trying to make a point about something spiritual. His use of the mustard seed as "the smallest seed" is not intended as a scientific statement of fact, but simply that the mustard seed was likely the smallest seed any of his audience would have been familiar with. And it's important that his audience is familiar with the mustard seed, because they would have known that the idea of a mustard seed growing into a huge tree was absolutely ridiculous! Jesus doesn't think this is normal, he's implying that the kingdom of heaven defies expectations! So to sum up the footnote on verse 12, Jesus is only wrong about those things if you make entirely unwarranted leaps of logic based on things he said in passing in various places in the Gospels.
Has anyone ever ascended into heaven? You know, I'm inclined to give this one to the SAB. I mean, I could be nitpicky about the stories of Enoch and Elijah (the Bible doesn't actually say Enoch went to heaven, but if he didn't, then what the heck is the Bible trying to say?) and try to weasel out of this, but honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why Jesus overlooked these two men. I guess I can say that Jesus is making a generalized statement that he failed to mention the odd exceptions to, but it feels like the wording should be different; it just feels so absolute. It's probable that his point is that no man has ascended into heaven and come back to talk about it, because that's certainly true, but his wording is technically a contradiction with other parts of scripture as the SAB notes.
This is getting long, so I'll break it at the famous verse 16, and finish this post with the footnote on verse 14. I'll say once again that just because Jesus uses an illustration out of the Old Testament, it doesn't necessarily follow that he takes the referenced story literally, however in this case, I don't see a reason why he shouldn't. The SAB marks the story in Numbers 21 as both absurd and having scientific issues, but we're talking about two miracles, so to a nonbeliever, any miracle is going to seem absurd and nonscientific. I suppose there is the issue of God making a miracle that hurts people and following it by a second miracle to fix the first; yes, that seems absurd, but I think the reason for what happened was to teach the Israelites something about faith. The snakes came because of lack of faith, and they needed to have faith in God's strange cure to deal with it. (The story has more issues, but I'll save them for whenever I get around to blogging Numbers.) The important thing here is that Jesus is comparing himself to the bronze serpent of Numbers 21, because like the issue of faith I described above, people of the world are subject to the effects of Original Sin because of the lack of faith of Adam, and need to be cured by faith in looking to Jesus lifted up on the cross to pay the price for sin. More on this in verse 16 next post.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
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:
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.
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.
Friday, October 11, 2013
I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off (Matthew 19)
In Matthew 19, verses 4-10, the SAB brings up some questions regarding marriage. Hopefully, I've already answered these elsewhere, let me see. Is marriage a good thing? I addressed this largely in Genesis 2, at which time I said that for most people, being married is a great thing, but Paul happens to point out that as good as it is, marriage complicates life, and one should be careful to think about the implications of that sort of commitment before entering into it. I addressed polygamy most fully on this page, where I said that I don't think polygamy is a sin, but it's far from a desirable state of affairs, usually leading to trouble. What about divorce? I addressed that back in chapter 5, and it's worth noting here that the SAB puts verses 6 and 9 in separate categories; as I've said before, an apparent contradiction that follows so quickly is usually (in my opinion) an indication that one is not understanding the real meaning of the passage: verse 9 is further clarification on verse 6, not a contradiction.
Following this, Jesus has some cryptic things to say about eunuchs in verse 12, and while I don't really know what it's about, I can give some speculation and response to the SAB's speculation. The idea presented that perhaps Jesus is talking about homosexuals is a thought provoking one; I myself had once considered that possibility that this verse was referring to transsexuals, after all, there do exist genetic disorders in which a person does not develop functional genitals. On the other hand, people who "have made themselves eunuchs" does seem to suggest self-castration, but if I can appeal to hyperbole again, it may be that he is referring to people who have taken a vow of celibacy, which doesn't seem too far of a stretch. (This would imply that those who were "born eunuchs" are people with no natural sexual drive, a concept not unheard of.) The SAB links to two pages that are almost identical (and neither of which mention the eunuch from Acts 8, who might be considered noteworthy) to ask what God may feel about castration, both of which hinge on Deut. 23:1 which says that a man with wounded genitals "shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." I really should do some more research here, and I'm surprised I haven't covered that phrase already. One thing I'm fairly sure it does mean is that such a man cannot serve as a priest in the temple. I don't believe it means that such a man cannot be a practicing Jew (and that is an important distinction, as we're now talking about the N.T. church, not the O.T. "congregation"). I suspect that the distinction is that such a person cannot perform any religious duties, which even non-priests perform at times. (If Jesus is speaking in hyperbole, none of this matters, of course.)
The bit about children was already covered in the previous chapter, and while each of the particulars of verse 17 have been covered, it's an odd verse that deserves some special attention. Jesus says "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God." Jesus seems, as the SAB claims, to be saying that he is not neither good nor God, so what's going on? I seem to vaguely remember hearing before that it was the belief of the Pharisees that "good" was an adjective that could only rightfully applied to God; whether this was the case, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Jesus is cautioning this guy to think twice before applying labels to people and things, even if he happens to be right.
Now the exchange that happens after this is one that's repeated in the other Gospels, and is a source of some contention, even outside of the SAB. Is Jesus really saying that the way to be saved is to keep the commandments? While the consensus is no, there is a strain of thought among Christianity that since Jesus said it, he must have really meant it, so what is the implication? (And the fact that Jesus is shown as listing a different set of commandments in each telling is once again something I think of as being of minimal importance; he was just tossing out a few, not making an exhaustive list.) Well in the case of this guy, Jesus shatters this guy's hope by telling him to give away all of his possessions to the poor. It's been said (even in the Bible) that the whole of the law can be summed up by "Love God with all your heart", and "Love your neighbor as yourself." If this guy couldn't give up all that he had, then he certainly loved money more than God, and he also surely wasn't able to love his neighbor as himself. (As for finer points on stealing and killing, I covered those in Exodus 20.) Jesus may be saying that you could go to heaven IF you could keep all the commandments, but that's an awfully big IF.
Is it OK to be rich? This can be a sticking point in the Bible, and I think the answer is subtle. I don't think the Bible ever outright says that wealth is a sign of wickedness, but rather shows awareness of that saying that to whom much is given, much is expected. If you're a good, honest, and hard-working person, wealth will probably come to you, but once you have it, God will expect you to use your wealth for good things. Sure there are a lot of rich people who are greedy bastards, but I personally have known people with six and seven-figure incomes who are some of the most generous and kind people you'd ever know. I think the N.T. verses the SAB gives, especially the one here in Matthew, are pointing out the danger of the love of money.
The question of whether God can do anything was addressed in Genesis 18. The issue of the apostles sitting on 12 thrones is not something I've ever addressed, although I recently asked a pastor his opinion on the matter (In the context of Revelation 4) and he suggested that rather than Judas Iscariot, Paul might be sitting on one of the thrones mentioned. Lastly, I don't think that verse 29 is suggesting that people should give up their wives and children, but rather that if they end up having to because of following Jesus, they will get something better as a reward.
Following this, Jesus has some cryptic things to say about eunuchs in verse 12, and while I don't really know what it's about, I can give some speculation and response to the SAB's speculation. The idea presented that perhaps Jesus is talking about homosexuals is a thought provoking one; I myself had once considered that possibility that this verse was referring to transsexuals, after all, there do exist genetic disorders in which a person does not develop functional genitals. On the other hand, people who "have made themselves eunuchs" does seem to suggest self-castration, but if I can appeal to hyperbole again, it may be that he is referring to people who have taken a vow of celibacy, which doesn't seem too far of a stretch. (This would imply that those who were "born eunuchs" are people with no natural sexual drive, a concept not unheard of.) The SAB links to two pages that are almost identical (and neither of which mention the eunuch from Acts 8, who might be considered noteworthy) to ask what God may feel about castration, both of which hinge on Deut. 23:1 which says that a man with wounded genitals "shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." I really should do some more research here, and I'm surprised I haven't covered that phrase already. One thing I'm fairly sure it does mean is that such a man cannot serve as a priest in the temple. I don't believe it means that such a man cannot be a practicing Jew (and that is an important distinction, as we're now talking about the N.T. church, not the O.T. "congregation"). I suspect that the distinction is that such a person cannot perform any religious duties, which even non-priests perform at times. (If Jesus is speaking in hyperbole, none of this matters, of course.)
The bit about children was already covered in the previous chapter, and while each of the particulars of verse 17 have been covered, it's an odd verse that deserves some special attention. Jesus says "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God." Jesus seems, as the SAB claims, to be saying that he is not neither good nor God, so what's going on? I seem to vaguely remember hearing before that it was the belief of the Pharisees that "good" was an adjective that could only rightfully applied to God; whether this was the case, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Jesus is cautioning this guy to think twice before applying labels to people and things, even if he happens to be right.
Now the exchange that happens after this is one that's repeated in the other Gospels, and is a source of some contention, even outside of the SAB. Is Jesus really saying that the way to be saved is to keep the commandments? While the consensus is no, there is a strain of thought among Christianity that since Jesus said it, he must have really meant it, so what is the implication? (And the fact that Jesus is shown as listing a different set of commandments in each telling is once again something I think of as being of minimal importance; he was just tossing out a few, not making an exhaustive list.) Well in the case of this guy, Jesus shatters this guy's hope by telling him to give away all of his possessions to the poor. It's been said (even in the Bible) that the whole of the law can be summed up by "Love God with all your heart", and "Love your neighbor as yourself." If this guy couldn't give up all that he had, then he certainly loved money more than God, and he also surely wasn't able to love his neighbor as himself. (As for finer points on stealing and killing, I covered those in Exodus 20.) Jesus may be saying that you could go to heaven IF you could keep all the commandments, but that's an awfully big IF.
Is it OK to be rich? This can be a sticking point in the Bible, and I think the answer is subtle. I don't think the Bible ever outright says that wealth is a sign of wickedness, but rather shows awareness of that saying that to whom much is given, much is expected. If you're a good, honest, and hard-working person, wealth will probably come to you, but once you have it, God will expect you to use your wealth for good things. Sure there are a lot of rich people who are greedy bastards, but I personally have known people with six and seven-figure incomes who are some of the most generous and kind people you'd ever know. I think the N.T. verses the SAB gives, especially the one here in Matthew, are pointing out the danger of the love of money.
The question of whether God can do anything was addressed in Genesis 18. The issue of the apostles sitting on 12 thrones is not something I've ever addressed, although I recently asked a pastor his opinion on the matter (In the context of Revelation 4) and he suggested that rather than Judas Iscariot, Paul might be sitting on one of the thrones mentioned. Lastly, I don't think that verse 29 is suggesting that people should give up their wives and children, but rather that if they end up having to because of following Jesus, they will get something better as a reward.
Friday, October 04, 2013
We have found the Messias (Matthew 16)
Matthew 16 has another disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees (and the Sadducees as a bonus) about showing signs. Yeah, there's some harsh language, but I think Jesus makes a good point; there have already been quite a number of signs performed by Jesus, even in front of them, and as I said back in chapter 12 when there was a similar exchange, Jesus isn't there to perform tricks for anybody.
The SAB asks of verse 17 "How did Peter find out that Jesus was the Messiah?" I can see why the SAB might consider this verse a contradiction with John 1:41, but I don't think it is. Yes, Andrew told Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, but I think Jesus is saying that Peter's finally accepting this truth was a spiritual matter. I mean, I could tell any reader of my blog that Jesus was the Messiah until the second coming, but I think there needs to be something spiritual that "reveals" the truth of this to your heart, so to speak.
Verses 18-19 are open to interpretation, but it does seem on the face of it that this may be Jesus stating that Peter is to be the leader of the church; sure, you can call him the first Pope if you'd like to put it that way, I have no problem with it. Some have suggested that "this rock" that Jesus speaks of is not Peter himself, but Peter's statement of faith that Jesus is the Messiah, and there's some wiggle room for such an interpretation. As for what "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means, I can't say; as the SAB points out, the Catholic church has had a spotty history, so it's certainly not incorruptible. As a side note, I'd like to point out that protestants who like to wave aside such ugly history with declarations of, "Of, but that's the Catholic church!" can't really take such an easy out when it comes to history of the church before the protestant reformation, as until that point in most of Europe the Catholic church was synonymous with Christianity. Just a thought.
Almost immediately after praising Peter, Jesus ends up having to rebuke Peter trying to rebuke him over his coming death. Harsh, but then even a Catholic will tell you that being Pope doesn't make you perfect. (Remember also that "satan" means "adversary", and Peter was certainly being adversarial at that moment.)
In verse 25, which the SAB marks as unjust and absurd, Jesus says that one should lose one's life in order truly find it. No I don't think Jesus is saying that you should kill yourself, but is suggesting that people should put aside their personal desires and seek Jesus first. Jesus goes on to speak of how God "will reward each according to his works." and asks whether salvation is by faith alone. I think I already addressed this a few chapters back, but my view is that while salvation is by faith, in the afterlife, there are different rewards according to the works that a person of faith has done.
At the end of this chapter, Jesus makes a very strange statement, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The SAB interprets this as a statement about the end of the world, which is not unreasonable, except seeing as nearly 2,000 years have passed since Jesus made the statement and now, and we don't know of any 2,000-year-olds, this would seem to be a problem. The only solution that I know of is that some have suggested the event Jesus is talking about is not the second coming, but the strange, miraculous event that Matthew talks about in the very next chapter, known as the Transfiguration.
The SAB asks of verse 17 "How did Peter find out that Jesus was the Messiah?" I can see why the SAB might consider this verse a contradiction with John 1:41, but I don't think it is. Yes, Andrew told Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, but I think Jesus is saying that Peter's finally accepting this truth was a spiritual matter. I mean, I could tell any reader of my blog that Jesus was the Messiah until the second coming, but I think there needs to be something spiritual that "reveals" the truth of this to your heart, so to speak.
Verses 18-19 are open to interpretation, but it does seem on the face of it that this may be Jesus stating that Peter is to be the leader of the church; sure, you can call him the first Pope if you'd like to put it that way, I have no problem with it. Some have suggested that "this rock" that Jesus speaks of is not Peter himself, but Peter's statement of faith that Jesus is the Messiah, and there's some wiggle room for such an interpretation. As for what "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means, I can't say; as the SAB points out, the Catholic church has had a spotty history, so it's certainly not incorruptible. As a side note, I'd like to point out that protestants who like to wave aside such ugly history with declarations of, "Of, but that's the Catholic church!" can't really take such an easy out when it comes to history of the church before the protestant reformation, as until that point in most of Europe the Catholic church was synonymous with Christianity. Just a thought.
Almost immediately after praising Peter, Jesus ends up having to rebuke Peter trying to rebuke him over his coming death. Harsh, but then even a Catholic will tell you that being Pope doesn't make you perfect. (Remember also that "satan" means "adversary", and Peter was certainly being adversarial at that moment.)
In verse 25, which the SAB marks as unjust and absurd, Jesus says that one should lose one's life in order truly find it. No I don't think Jesus is saying that you should kill yourself, but is suggesting that people should put aside their personal desires and seek Jesus first. Jesus goes on to speak of how God "will reward each according to his works." and asks whether salvation is by faith alone. I think I already addressed this a few chapters back, but my view is that while salvation is by faith, in the afterlife, there are different rewards according to the works that a person of faith has done.
At the end of this chapter, Jesus makes a very strange statement, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The SAB interprets this as a statement about the end of the world, which is not unreasonable, except seeing as nearly 2,000 years have passed since Jesus made the statement and now, and we don't know of any 2,000-year-olds, this would seem to be a problem. The only solution that I know of is that some have suggested the event Jesus is talking about is not the second coming, but the strange, miraculous event that Matthew talks about in the very next chapter, known as the Transfiguration.
Friday, September 20, 2013
This is the second death (Matthew 10)
So the first (substantive) issue that comes up in Matthew 10 is the matter of what the names of the apostles were. There are actually many minor issues here, as many of the apostles were known by more than one name, such as Peter a.k.a. Simon, but the SAB points out the most difficult one, this "Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus" fellow. Mark's Gospel refers to "Thaddeus" but the two times Luke refers to the apostles by name, he refers to "Judas the brother of James" which is never explained anywhere to be the same person. I think, however, that the fact that a lot of people in the New Testament have more than one name that they go by suggests that it's quite possibly what's going on here. Both Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus may have been nicknames of Judas, as both apparently mean something like "large-hearted".
Should the Gospel be preached to everyone? Well, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that what is going on in this passage in particular is that at this time, Jesus isn't sending the Gospel outside of Israel, but that doesn't mean that it's never to be the case.
Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? Once again, I have to hand it to the SAB for being so detail-oriented, as I doubt I would have ever noticed this oddity. I think it can be explained, though. In the matter of staves, I think what's being said here is much like what's being said about coats; it's not that they can't have a staff, but that they should refrain from bringing a spare. Going more out on a limb here, as I don't know first century customs regarding footwear, I think a distinction is being made between sandals and heavier footwear, that they can wear the former but not the latter. (I checked, and it is a different word in the Greek, at least.)
At the mention of the infamous ancient city, the SAB asks the question "What was Sodom's sin?" I don't think this question belongs here, but I'll address it nonetheless, as it's a good one. The reason I don't think it belongs is that I don't think that verse 15 or the parallel passage in Luke 10 actually say what Sodom's crime was but only hold the city up as a comparison. (The passage from Jeremiah 23 does likewise.) While homosexuality could possibly have been an issue, I don't see a lot of evidence for it. Yes, Ezekiel says they committed an "abomination", but the Hebrew word for "abomination" that Ezekiel uses shows up over 100 times in the O.T., and only once or twice is it associated with homosexuality, so that doesn't narrow it down much; I'd say it actually is more often associated with improper sacrificial practices than improper sexual practices anyway. No, I think that the passage in Ezekiel lists the real crimes of Sodom, but they are listed in a more general sense rather than a list of specific things.
The SAB puts a whole bunch of its category labels on verse 21, because yeah, it's talking about some pretty awful stuff. While I don't disagree that this is bad, I'm assuming that the SAB is trying to imply that Jesus wants this bad stuff or something, and I don't think that's the case. Intolerance, violence, and injustice are terrible things, but they happen because that's unfortunately just the way people are. The fact that Jesus knew these things would happen doesn't mean that he made them that way. When the next verse says "...he that endureth to the end shall be saved." I think the SAB is reading too much into it to say that this is like instructions on how to be saved. Rather I think it's saying that those who do not endure will not be saved, so take it as an encouragement rather than a sort of rule.
Verse 23 is an odd one, and I suppose it does sound a bit like it's talking about the timing of end of the world. I don't know that it is, though. For one thing, it may be talking about how the apostles in particular will not manage to preach in every city of Israel, although the Gospel may eventually be preached by others nonetheless. For another thing, there may be another meaning to "till the Son of man be come." I think the bigger issue in comparing it to Matthew 24:14 is that that verse says the Gospel would be preached to "all nations" which doesn't imply necessarily "all cities". As it happens, there are Christians in every one of the world's 200-odd countries (it's hard to say how many there are as it changes, and it's hard to say what counts as a country) but certainly not in every city, so the gospel has in a sense come to "all nations" while it very well may have never been preached in numerous cities of Israel.
The SAB asks if we should fear God, a question I addressed at length back here in what I think was one of my better posts. The SAB also asks whether or not Hell exists, which I'm certain I have not addressed. It's actually a difficult question, though, at least in the way that the SAB frames it. That is to say, I'm pretty well certain that the Bible teaches that Hell is a real place, but I will readily admit that it's a place of questionable nature. (I have some reflections on the nature of Hell in my other blog here.) There are those who, no doubt in part due to many of the verses in the second part of the linked page, believe that Hell is a place where the ungodly go after death to be destroyed rather than eternally punished as is the common understanding among mainstream Christians. It may be that some of this is a matter of a sort of poetic use of the term "death" as I've heard many say; when the Bible talks of the "death" of a soul, it may be referring to the eternal torment of Hell as a sort of death. I'm going to set that issue aside as a deeper bit of theology that I feel may be out of my scope and address the "everyone goes to heaven" section of the page (although it may be too deep as well, just shorter).
There is a doctrine that's part of strict Calvinism that suggests that when Jesus died for our sins, he didn't die for the sins of unbelievers, only those who would eventually come to faith. I think that 1John 2:2 suggests that this is not the case, but note that while that verse says that Jesus "is the propitiation...for the sins of the whole world" it does not say that the whole world will go to Heaven. Now when 1Timothy 4:10 says "...specially of those that believe", I think it's approaching the nature of the real truth. The metaphor that I've always gone with is that when Jesus died on the cross, it was like he signed a blank check to pay for the sins of each and every person in the world. The problem of faith is that a blank check is only worth something if you believe in it: everyone has this spiritual blank check, but are you going to sign the back and cash it out? I'm sure it sounds weird, but it works for me, and I hope it clarified a bit where my belief is anyway.
I'm not sure what the SAB is on about with sparrows (marked with the "science" icon), so I'm not sure whether I can address it. As the SAB says, God thinks human beings are worth much more than sparrows, and I'm inclined to agree. If there's scientific evidence that this is not so, I'd probably find it interesting.
I know that the SAB is interpreting verses 32-33 more strictly than I would, and I'm guessing that most Christians would also take this as more of a guideline than a strict rule. In particular, as is pointed out, Peter denied knowing Jesus at the time of his crucifixion, but later in life was a powerful, outspoken evangelist, so I don't think he lost his salvation over it.
Verses 34-37 have a lot of the same issues that verse 21 had, but there may be a few more things to say about these verses. As for whether Jesus is peaceful, it's a bit complicated, and I addressed that issue at the end of this post. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the meaning of verse 37 in particular, as it sounds pretty bad (although not as bad as some similar verses). Jesus is simply saying that in the end, our love of God should be our strongest love. Does that mean that we should be cruel to our family in any way? I don't believe so.
Most of the rest of the chapter is flowery poetic talk that I don't know I fully follow the meaning of so well, to be honest, although I can say that I addressed the question of whether there was ever a righteous person in this post.
Should the Gospel be preached to everyone? Well, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that what is going on in this passage in particular is that at this time, Jesus isn't sending the Gospel outside of Israel, but that doesn't mean that it's never to be the case.
Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? Once again, I have to hand it to the SAB for being so detail-oriented, as I doubt I would have ever noticed this oddity. I think it can be explained, though. In the matter of staves, I think what's being said here is much like what's being said about coats; it's not that they can't have a staff, but that they should refrain from bringing a spare. Going more out on a limb here, as I don't know first century customs regarding footwear, I think a distinction is being made between sandals and heavier footwear, that they can wear the former but not the latter. (I checked, and it is a different word in the Greek, at least.)
At the mention of the infamous ancient city, the SAB asks the question "What was Sodom's sin?" I don't think this question belongs here, but I'll address it nonetheless, as it's a good one. The reason I don't think it belongs is that I don't think that verse 15 or the parallel passage in Luke 10 actually say what Sodom's crime was but only hold the city up as a comparison. (The passage from Jeremiah 23 does likewise.) While homosexuality could possibly have been an issue, I don't see a lot of evidence for it. Yes, Ezekiel says they committed an "abomination", but the Hebrew word for "abomination" that Ezekiel uses shows up over 100 times in the O.T., and only once or twice is it associated with homosexuality, so that doesn't narrow it down much; I'd say it actually is more often associated with improper sacrificial practices than improper sexual practices anyway. No, I think that the passage in Ezekiel lists the real crimes of Sodom, but they are listed in a more general sense rather than a list of specific things.
The SAB puts a whole bunch of its category labels on verse 21, because yeah, it's talking about some pretty awful stuff. While I don't disagree that this is bad, I'm assuming that the SAB is trying to imply that Jesus wants this bad stuff or something, and I don't think that's the case. Intolerance, violence, and injustice are terrible things, but they happen because that's unfortunately just the way people are. The fact that Jesus knew these things would happen doesn't mean that he made them that way. When the next verse says "...he that endureth to the end shall be saved." I think the SAB is reading too much into it to say that this is like instructions on how to be saved. Rather I think it's saying that those who do not endure will not be saved, so take it as an encouragement rather than a sort of rule.
Verse 23 is an odd one, and I suppose it does sound a bit like it's talking about the timing of end of the world. I don't know that it is, though. For one thing, it may be talking about how the apostles in particular will not manage to preach in every city of Israel, although the Gospel may eventually be preached by others nonetheless. For another thing, there may be another meaning to "till the Son of man be come." I think the bigger issue in comparing it to Matthew 24:14 is that that verse says the Gospel would be preached to "all nations" which doesn't imply necessarily "all cities". As it happens, there are Christians in every one of the world's 200-odd countries (it's hard to say how many there are as it changes, and it's hard to say what counts as a country) but certainly not in every city, so the gospel has in a sense come to "all nations" while it very well may have never been preached in numerous cities of Israel.
The SAB asks if we should fear God, a question I addressed at length back here in what I think was one of my better posts. The SAB also asks whether or not Hell exists, which I'm certain I have not addressed. It's actually a difficult question, though, at least in the way that the SAB frames it. That is to say, I'm pretty well certain that the Bible teaches that Hell is a real place, but I will readily admit that it's a place of questionable nature. (I have some reflections on the nature of Hell in my other blog here.) There are those who, no doubt in part due to many of the verses in the second part of the linked page, believe that Hell is a place where the ungodly go after death to be destroyed rather than eternally punished as is the common understanding among mainstream Christians. It may be that some of this is a matter of a sort of poetic use of the term "death" as I've heard many say; when the Bible talks of the "death" of a soul, it may be referring to the eternal torment of Hell as a sort of death. I'm going to set that issue aside as a deeper bit of theology that I feel may be out of my scope and address the "everyone goes to heaven" section of the page (although it may be too deep as well, just shorter).
There is a doctrine that's part of strict Calvinism that suggests that when Jesus died for our sins, he didn't die for the sins of unbelievers, only those who would eventually come to faith. I think that 1John 2:2 suggests that this is not the case, but note that while that verse says that Jesus "is the propitiation...for the sins of the whole world" it does not say that the whole world will go to Heaven. Now when 1Timothy 4:10 says "...specially of those that believe", I think it's approaching the nature of the real truth. The metaphor that I've always gone with is that when Jesus died on the cross, it was like he signed a blank check to pay for the sins of each and every person in the world. The problem of faith is that a blank check is only worth something if you believe in it: everyone has this spiritual blank check, but are you going to sign the back and cash it out? I'm sure it sounds weird, but it works for me, and I hope it clarified a bit where my belief is anyway.
I'm not sure what the SAB is on about with sparrows (marked with the "science" icon), so I'm not sure whether I can address it. As the SAB says, God thinks human beings are worth much more than sparrows, and I'm inclined to agree. If there's scientific evidence that this is not so, I'd probably find it interesting.
I know that the SAB is interpreting verses 32-33 more strictly than I would, and I'm guessing that most Christians would also take this as more of a guideline than a strict rule. In particular, as is pointed out, Peter denied knowing Jesus at the time of his crucifixion, but later in life was a powerful, outspoken evangelist, so I don't think he lost his salvation over it.
Verses 34-37 have a lot of the same issues that verse 21 had, but there may be a few more things to say about these verses. As for whether Jesus is peaceful, it's a bit complicated, and I addressed that issue at the end of this post. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the meaning of verse 37 in particular, as it sounds pretty bad (although not as bad as some similar verses). Jesus is simply saying that in the end, our love of God should be our strongest love. Does that mean that we should be cruel to our family in any way? I don't believe so.
Most of the rest of the chapter is flowery poetic talk that I don't know I fully follow the meaning of so well, to be honest, although I can say that I addressed the question of whether there was ever a righteous person in this post.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Send us into the swine (Matthew 8)
The first issue raised in Matthew 8 is the question of whether the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant came directly to Jesus, or sent messengers. While of course it could be possible that these are two different centurions, I think it's more likely that Matthew left some details out of the story. Note that in both stories, the centurion tells Jesus not to come to his house, so not coming in person makes some sense. The SAB points out that this would have been a good opportunity for Jesus to make a statement condemning slavery, but Jesus says nothing about this guy owning a slave. While I touched on this subject before, that was essentially discussing Israelite slavery, and this guy is a gentile, so I have little reason to assume that this is the same sort of arrangement. If I were to address the issue of slavery in the New Testament, I'd have to do some research, I think, but no, Jesus never comes out expressly against slavery as far as I'm aware.
The SAB makes a side-note on this story suggesting that perhaps the centurion and his servant were a gay couple. I find this difficult to fathom. Yes, I think in that day homosexuality may have been considered acceptable in Roman society, but what sort of couple would they have been if one was the owner of another? No, I think homosexuality is another issue that Jesus never directly addresses, even by silent assent.
In verse 10, we are told that Jesus was "astonished" and the SAB takes the opportunity to ask "Did Jesus know everything?" First of all, I think that Jesus expressing an emotion that is often linked with being surprised does not immediately mean that Jesus didn't know something, but I'll set that aside, because it's my view that Jesus, in the time that he walked the earth in human form, was not omniscient. The two quoted verses from the book of John aren't Jesus claiming to know everything, but his followers making that claim. The real nail in the coffin of Jesus having omniscience is Mark 13:32, in which Jesus admits there is at least one thing that he does not know. Now how much Jesus does know is worth questioning, and indeed, he does seem to know quite a bit, but he does not know everything.
Verse 12 is another odd one, and for more than just the reason the SAB notes. Yes, I'll agree with the interpretation that "the children of the kingdom" most likely refers to Jews, but that doesn't mean that all Jews will fail to be saved, I think that the point here is that despite the fact that the nation of Israel is the "chosen people", there will be many non-Jews in heaven and many Jews in hell. (I'm not really convinced that Jesus is even saying the the centurion is saved, only that he has an impressive level of faith.) The thing that I find interesting that's not noted is yet another use of the phrase "the children of..." that clouds the picture of what standing various people have before God, as discussed in a few of the recent chapters.
In verses 14-15, there is mention of Peter's mother-in-law being healed. The SAB asks, no doubt semi-sarcastically, whether this implies that the first Pope was married. Yes, Peter did appear to be married, and I don't know the full details, but it's my understanding that requiring clergy of the Catholic church to be celibate is a development more recent than the first century. I don't know if this goes for the Pope also, or whether the Catholic church thus has some explanation of this passage because of that issue; you'd probably have to ask a Catholic, not an ex-Jewish baptist like me. (The SAB marks this healing and the following casting out of devils as absurd; I'm not generally going to address miracles marked as absurdity, I think, but let them stand as miracles.)
Verses 21-22 have a man who wants to follow Jesus, but says "suffer me first to go and bury my father." I think the SAB is misunderstanding what the guy is asking here; it's always been my understanding that this was his way of saying, "I don't think my father would approve of me following you, so can I wait until he's passed away?" Jesus' response is not to literally suggest that dead people should bury each other, but that if his father can't handle Jesus, then he should be left behind. (This could still perhaps take all the tags the SAB gives it, but the meaning is not quite what it's being taken as.)
The story in verses 23-27 is another miracle, and I think the real point of the miracle, if anything, is what it says in the last verse: that even the weather obeys Jesus' commands.
The last story in this chapter is an odd one about Jesus casting out some demons (or perhaps one very strange, powerful one). For reasons unknown, when Mark and Luke tell this story, they say there's only one demon-possessed man, while Matthew puts it at two. I have no idea why the difference in number, and it seems to be a big difference; I mean, who has a hard time counting to two? (Matthew does use different names in his telling of the story, so it could possibly be a different event, but there's enough detail in common to make this improbable.) Anyway, this is an interesting story for numerous reasons. The demons immediately know who Jesus is, and they refer to some time in the future that Jesus is going to torment them. Weird stuff. Note that in other versions of the story, Jesus finds out that the devil(s) is named "Legion", and in all the stories, they are sent into a herd of pigs. Some have suggested that this story is symbolic of the Roman occupation, which is possible, but I'm not real keen on that interpretation. It is odd to note that someone in a Jewish city would be keeping a herd of pigs, seeing as they're unclean animals. I find it odd that people who dislike this story object to the drowning of the pigs; I guess while I'm thinking it's good that the demons were driven out at all, these people are wondering if it could have been done more cleanly. Certainly the people of the nearby town seem to think so, as they ask Jesus to leave.
The SAB makes a side-note on this story suggesting that perhaps the centurion and his servant were a gay couple. I find this difficult to fathom. Yes, I think in that day homosexuality may have been considered acceptable in Roman society, but what sort of couple would they have been if one was the owner of another? No, I think homosexuality is another issue that Jesus never directly addresses, even by silent assent.
In verse 10, we are told that Jesus was "astonished" and the SAB takes the opportunity to ask "Did Jesus know everything?" First of all, I think that Jesus expressing an emotion that is often linked with being surprised does not immediately mean that Jesus didn't know something, but I'll set that aside, because it's my view that Jesus, in the time that he walked the earth in human form, was not omniscient. The two quoted verses from the book of John aren't Jesus claiming to know everything, but his followers making that claim. The real nail in the coffin of Jesus having omniscience is Mark 13:32, in which Jesus admits there is at least one thing that he does not know. Now how much Jesus does know is worth questioning, and indeed, he does seem to know quite a bit, but he does not know everything.
Verse 12 is another odd one, and for more than just the reason the SAB notes. Yes, I'll agree with the interpretation that "the children of the kingdom" most likely refers to Jews, but that doesn't mean that all Jews will fail to be saved, I think that the point here is that despite the fact that the nation of Israel is the "chosen people", there will be many non-Jews in heaven and many Jews in hell. (I'm not really convinced that Jesus is even saying the the centurion is saved, only that he has an impressive level of faith.) The thing that I find interesting that's not noted is yet another use of the phrase "the children of..." that clouds the picture of what standing various people have before God, as discussed in a few of the recent chapters.
In verses 14-15, there is mention of Peter's mother-in-law being healed. The SAB asks, no doubt semi-sarcastically, whether this implies that the first Pope was married. Yes, Peter did appear to be married, and I don't know the full details, but it's my understanding that requiring clergy of the Catholic church to be celibate is a development more recent than the first century. I don't know if this goes for the Pope also, or whether the Catholic church thus has some explanation of this passage because of that issue; you'd probably have to ask a Catholic, not an ex-Jewish baptist like me. (The SAB marks this healing and the following casting out of devils as absurd; I'm not generally going to address miracles marked as absurdity, I think, but let them stand as miracles.)
Verses 21-22 have a man who wants to follow Jesus, but says "suffer me first to go and bury my father." I think the SAB is misunderstanding what the guy is asking here; it's always been my understanding that this was his way of saying, "I don't think my father would approve of me following you, so can I wait until he's passed away?" Jesus' response is not to literally suggest that dead people should bury each other, but that if his father can't handle Jesus, then he should be left behind. (This could still perhaps take all the tags the SAB gives it, but the meaning is not quite what it's being taken as.)
The story in verses 23-27 is another miracle, and I think the real point of the miracle, if anything, is what it says in the last verse: that even the weather obeys Jesus' commands.
The last story in this chapter is an odd one about Jesus casting out some demons (or perhaps one very strange, powerful one). For reasons unknown, when Mark and Luke tell this story, they say there's only one demon-possessed man, while Matthew puts it at two. I have no idea why the difference in number, and it seems to be a big difference; I mean, who has a hard time counting to two? (Matthew does use different names in his telling of the story, so it could possibly be a different event, but there's enough detail in common to make this improbable.) Anyway, this is an interesting story for numerous reasons. The demons immediately know who Jesus is, and they refer to some time in the future that Jesus is going to torment them. Weird stuff. Note that in other versions of the story, Jesus finds out that the devil(s) is named "Legion", and in all the stories, they are sent into a herd of pigs. Some have suggested that this story is symbolic of the Roman occupation, which is possible, but I'm not real keen on that interpretation. It is odd to note that someone in a Jewish city would be keeping a herd of pigs, seeing as they're unclean animals. I find it odd that people who dislike this story object to the drowning of the pigs; I guess while I'm thinking it's good that the demons were driven out at all, these people are wondering if it could have been done more cleanly. Certainly the people of the nearby town seem to think so, as they ask Jesus to leave.
Friday, September 13, 2013
In my name shall they cast out devils (Matthew 7)
Okay, time for Matthew 7 and finishing up the Sermon on the Mount, which we start with the question of whether or not we should judge people. My take on this verse, and actually most of what's on the linked page is that we should always be careful before we decide to pass judgment on others. Most of these "judge not" verses aren't saying straight out not to judge so much as they're saying that we should think twice before we judge, and consider our own faults, which as the SAB says, is a good thing. Judging is something that we simply do as humans, in my opinion, but there's a difference also between the kind of judgment that says "X is a bad thing to do." and the kind that says "You are a bad person because you do X." In my estimation the former is a natural and good sort of judgment, while the latter is not, especially since if you happen to be judging wrong in the former, you at least won't screw up the latter, if that makes any sense.
Verses 3-4 have a bit of hyperbolic language that the SAB seems to understand, since it doesn't mark them as absurd. A funny metaphor that Jesus paints, he suggests that the average person who wants to pick at a tiny piece of sawdust in another person's eye might not realize they have a big plank of wood in their own eye blocking their view.
I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, so I'm not sure what to say about the note on verse 6. Actually, I'd have to admit that verse 6 is another one in this passage that I really have very little idea as to what it means.
Verses 7-11 seem to talk about the power of prayer, and the SAB has, perhaps rightly, an issue with the claims made here. Jesus seems to be suggesting that prayer is a sort of blank check we have with God, and we can simply get whatever we want whatsoever. There are few people that really believe this to be the case, so what does it mean? Well, one thing that can be said is that verse 11 specifies "good things" and the distinction is important. If my kids asked me for candy, would I be a good parent if I simply always gave it to them? I think there's a sense in which this is really saying that if you ask for something, you will get something good, although it may not be what you asked for. I know that there is a bigger theological question in here for which this only approaches a sufficient answer, but it's what I've got. As for the question of whether God can be found, I don't think that any of the verses in either column of that page are intended to suggest a general principle, but are apropos to certain specific situations and people.
In verse 12, Jesus gives a formulation of the Golden Rule, as it's widely known, and the SAB like most of us, is a fan. However, it then asks if the OT is supposedly summed up with the Golden Rule (which Jesus is far from the only Jew to have made such a claim) why does it have so much cruelty and violence? It's a bigger question than I'm prepared to address in this post, but I'll readily admit it's food for thought, and worth asking.
In verses 13-14, Jesus does indeed seem to be saying that most people will go to Hell. I don't know that the claim that "He seems to be OK with that." is warranted. If Jesus was okay with it, then why would he urge people to avoid it?
I'm wondering why verse 15 is marked as good stuff. Perhaps the SAB is all for being aware that the world is full of religious people who will use their religion to manipulate you. I can see how that would make sense.
Verse 19 is very similar to what John the Baptist said a few chapters ago, and once again, my response to the SAB calling it unjust, violent, and intolerant is to say that it's just an observation.
Verse 21 has a claim that's a real big deal, and something that should cause a Christian to pause. Jesus is saying that there are people who will look and maybe act like Christians, but they're not saved. while I can give a suggestion as to the significance of this apparent disparity, I have to admit that my suggestion is reading more into the verses in the "Yes." column of this page than is immediately apparent. My suggestion is that it's more than simply calling on God, but that there is some degree of sincerity in the call. Part of the problem with this reading is that in verses 22-23, these people seem to be quite surprised that the things they have done are not in line with "the will of my Father which is in Heaven." Admittedly, it seems strange to me that these people would not know that they lacked the proper sincerity.
Especially since they seem to have had the authority to do something like casting out devils as the SAB questions on two very similar pages. I'm going to use the latter page, as it breaks these verses out into three categories that I think are worth discussing. I think that the principle being illustrated by the passages in Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:49 is that Christians aren't a singular, monolithic group. I think that the people who were casting out demons in those verses were Christians, just not ones that traveled with Jesus. While I don't know that my personal view on the matter is a popular one among Christians, it's been my view for some time that there are people out there in the world who are going to be saved that aren't Christians in the manner one usually thinks of. These people may believe in Christ but they don't go to a church, or they may not know the full truth of Christianity but are still seeking the will of God, I don't know. I think such people are going to be spiritually like Christians even if they aren't like Christians in appearance or action. Just a theory. (I may owe some of this to C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, and an odd plot twist towards the end of that novel.) As for the comparison between our current passage and Mark 16:17, I think Jesus is saying that every Christian can potentially cast out demons, but just because you cast out demons doesn't mean that you're a Christian.
Verses 3-4 have a bit of hyperbolic language that the SAB seems to understand, since it doesn't mark them as absurd. A funny metaphor that Jesus paints, he suggests that the average person who wants to pick at a tiny piece of sawdust in another person's eye might not realize they have a big plank of wood in their own eye blocking their view.
I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, so I'm not sure what to say about the note on verse 6. Actually, I'd have to admit that verse 6 is another one in this passage that I really have very little idea as to what it means.
Verses 7-11 seem to talk about the power of prayer, and the SAB has, perhaps rightly, an issue with the claims made here. Jesus seems to be suggesting that prayer is a sort of blank check we have with God, and we can simply get whatever we want whatsoever. There are few people that really believe this to be the case, so what does it mean? Well, one thing that can be said is that verse 11 specifies "good things" and the distinction is important. If my kids asked me for candy, would I be a good parent if I simply always gave it to them? I think there's a sense in which this is really saying that if you ask for something, you will get something good, although it may not be what you asked for. I know that there is a bigger theological question in here for which this only approaches a sufficient answer, but it's what I've got. As for the question of whether God can be found, I don't think that any of the verses in either column of that page are intended to suggest a general principle, but are apropos to certain specific situations and people.
In verse 12, Jesus gives a formulation of the Golden Rule, as it's widely known, and the SAB like most of us, is a fan. However, it then asks if the OT is supposedly summed up with the Golden Rule (which Jesus is far from the only Jew to have made such a claim) why does it have so much cruelty and violence? It's a bigger question than I'm prepared to address in this post, but I'll readily admit it's food for thought, and worth asking.
In verses 13-14, Jesus does indeed seem to be saying that most people will go to Hell. I don't know that the claim that "He seems to be OK with that." is warranted. If Jesus was okay with it, then why would he urge people to avoid it?
I'm wondering why verse 15 is marked as good stuff. Perhaps the SAB is all for being aware that the world is full of religious people who will use their religion to manipulate you. I can see how that would make sense.
Verse 19 is very similar to what John the Baptist said a few chapters ago, and once again, my response to the SAB calling it unjust, violent, and intolerant is to say that it's just an observation.
Verse 21 has a claim that's a real big deal, and something that should cause a Christian to pause. Jesus is saying that there are people who will look and maybe act like Christians, but they're not saved. while I can give a suggestion as to the significance of this apparent disparity, I have to admit that my suggestion is reading more into the verses in the "Yes." column of this page than is immediately apparent. My suggestion is that it's more than simply calling on God, but that there is some degree of sincerity in the call. Part of the problem with this reading is that in verses 22-23, these people seem to be quite surprised that the things they have done are not in line with "the will of my Father which is in Heaven." Admittedly, it seems strange to me that these people would not know that they lacked the proper sincerity.
Especially since they seem to have had the authority to do something like casting out devils as the SAB questions on two very similar pages. I'm going to use the latter page, as it breaks these verses out into three categories that I think are worth discussing. I think that the principle being illustrated by the passages in Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:49 is that Christians aren't a singular, monolithic group. I think that the people who were casting out demons in those verses were Christians, just not ones that traveled with Jesus. While I don't know that my personal view on the matter is a popular one among Christians, it's been my view for some time that there are people out there in the world who are going to be saved that aren't Christians in the manner one usually thinks of. These people may believe in Christ but they don't go to a church, or they may not know the full truth of Christianity but are still seeking the will of God, I don't know. I think such people are going to be spiritually like Christians even if they aren't like Christians in appearance or action. Just a theory. (I may owe some of this to C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, and an odd plot twist towards the end of that novel.) As for the comparison between our current passage and Mark 16:17, I think Jesus is saying that every Christian can potentially cast out demons, but just because you cast out demons doesn't mean that you're a Christian.
Monday, September 09, 2013
He taught them as one having authority (Matthew 5)
So, we move on to Matthew 5 and the "Sermon on the Mount" as it is called. Of course it's called that because Matthew 5:1 says that he went up on a mountain to preach it, but is this correct? The SAB points out that Luke 6 has Jesus giving this sermon on a plain. Yeah, this could be a contradiction, but I do have a couple thoughts on this. First of all, the sermon starting in Luke 6 is not exactly the same as the sermon here, and while it could be two different recollections of the same sermon (Luke's Gospel is, I believe, not purporting to be a first-hand account as the other three are) it's also possible that these are two different sermons, each of which was in a different place. Another thing to consider, although I'm not sure it quite covers the wording of Luke, is that I don't think Jesus was literally standing on top of a mountain anyway, as such a setting would afford very poor acoustics. Jesus was probably on a flat spot in a mountainous area where his audience would be standing on a slope overlooking him in a sort of natural amphitheater. At least, that's how I've always imagined it.
The SAB marks a few lines in the sermon as "good stuff", but as often is the case when it does so, I'm perplexed as to the choice. Why verses 5, 7, and 9, but not 6 and 8? I mean, coming from an atheistic point of view, I get why not 10 and 11, but what's wrong with "they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness" and "the pure in heart"? So long as we're not talking about self-righteousness (because who can stand that?) aren't righteousness and purity good things?
Should we let others see our good works? I think this is one of those things that people take too strongly in those verses in which seem to support an answer of "no". I don't think that the issue is whether our good works are seen so much as whether we were doing it to show off. For most people, our intentions are mixed, so it's subtle. Take this blog as an example: as much as I am making these posts to educate people and have a healthy dialogue with the SAB, I think I'm doing a good thing; as much as I'm doing it to show off my debating skills and seem holier-than-thou (which I'm sure I'm not 100% free of) I'm being sort of a jerk. Jesus is saying that doing the right thing matters, and why you do it matters as well.
Jesus takes a moment starting in verse 17 to say he supports the Old Testament law, and it raises some issues for the SAB. I don't think I need to say much for the charge of injustice and violence on verse 17, as that's really a question of how you view the whole of the OT, and I don't see me addressing such a big question here. What I can address, although it's pretty big too, is whether Christians have to obey the OT law. There's an important distinction to be made with most of the verses in the "yes" column on that page, and this passage as well: they're addressed to Jews living in Israel. It's always been my position that the OT laws were binding to the nation of Israel and not to gentile Christians, but I'll admit that such an assessment leaves some gray area. Jewish Christians? People living in modern Israel? I don't know, but I don't think so. The thing that I know is that whether the OT law must be followed, Jesus is saying it's important, and he's certainly not going to replace it with lawlessness.
Will the earth last forever? There are a couple things to say about this. First and simply, I think verse 18 is poetic language, and rather than implying that earth will be destroyed, Jesus is saying that the OT is something that is more durable than even the earth itself. That being said, I do think that the Bible teaches that the earth is a temporary thing, albeit an incredibly long-lived thing. I think in most of the passages where the Bible says that the earth is given "for ever" it's really saying "as long as you live", which is long enough for anyone. I think there is a more complicated theological view that the earth will last as long as time, which will itself last for a finite amount.
There are many questions on verse 20, but I think I can respond to them all with another appeal to poetic language. when Jesus says "your righteousness shall exceed..." he's not giving a formula for salvation, he's saying "Think of the most righteous person you can think of; that's not righteous enough to be saved on account of righteousness." The point is not to set the bar high, but to say that the bar is higher than you can possibly imagine.
I don't think that Jesus is saying that saying the word "fool" gives someone an immediate one-way ticket to Hell. I think what he's saying is that anger leads to violence, so people should be careful about what they say.
I have to admit that I am probably just as confused by verse 28 as the SAB is. While I think I understand it as a symbolic principle, that is, that lusting is in many ways as bad as actually committing sexual sin, taking it fully literally is confusing. (And there are people who insist that we should take it that way!) The SAB asks if this means that someone who lusts should be given the punishment of an adulterer, i.e. death. In fact, it seems to be asking whether the woman being lusted after should be killed as well, which highlights to me the real absurdity of comparing lust to adultery in completely equivalent terms: in the former case, the woman hasn't done anything, has she? I think in this matter as in much of this sermon, Jesus is utilizing hyperbole.
Case in point, in the next two verses, Jesus says that people should pluck out their eyes and cut off their hands to avoid sin. The reason I think this is hyperbolic language (and I'm far from the only one to make such a judgment) is that a person who is struggling with lust doesn't have a problem with their hands or eyes, they have a problem with their brains, and you can't pluck those out. Sure, if you have an issue with masturbation, cutting off your hands will stop it, but it's not going to stop the lust that's driving it.
Is divorce ever permissible? While the SAB is astute in noticing that Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 don't mention any exceptions, it is of course generally understood that when there has been adultery, the wronged party has divorce as an option. (Yes, as the SAB points out, the case of an unfaithful wife is the only one mentioned and not the gender reverse, but most modern churches interpret these passages with gender neutrality.) Deuteronomy 24:1-2 refers to adultery, in my opinion, and 1Corinthians 7:15, although odd, makes some sense, as it would be unfair to make someone stay married to someone who had abandoned them.
The matter of whether one should ever make an oath is also hyperbole, and I covered it in the second-to-last paragraph of this entry. Basically Jesus is saying it's better to just be an honest person than someone who has to make a special oath in order to be believed.
It may be that the hyperbole in verses 39-41 may have some cultural significance. I've heard it said that in respect to verse 41, there was a custom in the Roman empire that a Roman soldier could compel a person to carry their pack for them for up to a mile. Jesus is saying here in many ways that even people you don't like (such as members of an occupying foreign army) are opportunities to show kindness, and you should love your enemy. Clearly the Bible is full of people not loving their enemies, but I don't think that renders the principle void. (The theological question of how God should treat His enemies is a bigger issue I'm not going to try to tackle here.)
So to finish up this chapter, which has already gone on far too long, I'm going to dismiss verse 45 as being poetic as well, and the point thereof being that people of all levels of righteousness have to live in the same world, and not to categorize what level of righteousness any particular person might have. As for the question raised by the SAB on verse 48...maybe there's something there, but I'm not sure what to say at this point. As it comes up in the next chapter, maybe I'll pick it up there.
The SAB marks a few lines in the sermon as "good stuff", but as often is the case when it does so, I'm perplexed as to the choice. Why verses 5, 7, and 9, but not 6 and 8? I mean, coming from an atheistic point of view, I get why not 10 and 11, but what's wrong with "they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness" and "the pure in heart"? So long as we're not talking about self-righteousness (because who can stand that?) aren't righteousness and purity good things?
Should we let others see our good works? I think this is one of those things that people take too strongly in those verses in which seem to support an answer of "no". I don't think that the issue is whether our good works are seen so much as whether we were doing it to show off. For most people, our intentions are mixed, so it's subtle. Take this blog as an example: as much as I am making these posts to educate people and have a healthy dialogue with the SAB, I think I'm doing a good thing; as much as I'm doing it to show off my debating skills and seem holier-than-thou (which I'm sure I'm not 100% free of) I'm being sort of a jerk. Jesus is saying that doing the right thing matters, and why you do it matters as well.
Jesus takes a moment starting in verse 17 to say he supports the Old Testament law, and it raises some issues for the SAB. I don't think I need to say much for the charge of injustice and violence on verse 17, as that's really a question of how you view the whole of the OT, and I don't see me addressing such a big question here. What I can address, although it's pretty big too, is whether Christians have to obey the OT law. There's an important distinction to be made with most of the verses in the "yes" column on that page, and this passage as well: they're addressed to Jews living in Israel. It's always been my position that the OT laws were binding to the nation of Israel and not to gentile Christians, but I'll admit that such an assessment leaves some gray area. Jewish Christians? People living in modern Israel? I don't know, but I don't think so. The thing that I know is that whether the OT law must be followed, Jesus is saying it's important, and he's certainly not going to replace it with lawlessness.
Will the earth last forever? There are a couple things to say about this. First and simply, I think verse 18 is poetic language, and rather than implying that earth will be destroyed, Jesus is saying that the OT is something that is more durable than even the earth itself. That being said, I do think that the Bible teaches that the earth is a temporary thing, albeit an incredibly long-lived thing. I think in most of the passages where the Bible says that the earth is given "for ever" it's really saying "as long as you live", which is long enough for anyone. I think there is a more complicated theological view that the earth will last as long as time, which will itself last for a finite amount.
There are many questions on verse 20, but I think I can respond to them all with another appeal to poetic language. when Jesus says "your righteousness shall exceed..." he's not giving a formula for salvation, he's saying "Think of the most righteous person you can think of; that's not righteous enough to be saved on account of righteousness." The point is not to set the bar high, but to say that the bar is higher than you can possibly imagine.
I don't think that Jesus is saying that saying the word "fool" gives someone an immediate one-way ticket to Hell. I think what he's saying is that anger leads to violence, so people should be careful about what they say.
I have to admit that I am probably just as confused by verse 28 as the SAB is. While I think I understand it as a symbolic principle, that is, that lusting is in many ways as bad as actually committing sexual sin, taking it fully literally is confusing. (And there are people who insist that we should take it that way!) The SAB asks if this means that someone who lusts should be given the punishment of an adulterer, i.e. death. In fact, it seems to be asking whether the woman being lusted after should be killed as well, which highlights to me the real absurdity of comparing lust to adultery in completely equivalent terms: in the former case, the woman hasn't done anything, has she? I think in this matter as in much of this sermon, Jesus is utilizing hyperbole.
Case in point, in the next two verses, Jesus says that people should pluck out their eyes and cut off their hands to avoid sin. The reason I think this is hyperbolic language (and I'm far from the only one to make such a judgment) is that a person who is struggling with lust doesn't have a problem with their hands or eyes, they have a problem with their brains, and you can't pluck those out. Sure, if you have an issue with masturbation, cutting off your hands will stop it, but it's not going to stop the lust that's driving it.
Is divorce ever permissible? While the SAB is astute in noticing that Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 don't mention any exceptions, it is of course generally understood that when there has been adultery, the wronged party has divorce as an option. (Yes, as the SAB points out, the case of an unfaithful wife is the only one mentioned and not the gender reverse, but most modern churches interpret these passages with gender neutrality.) Deuteronomy 24:1-2 refers to adultery, in my opinion, and 1Corinthians 7:15, although odd, makes some sense, as it would be unfair to make someone stay married to someone who had abandoned them.
The matter of whether one should ever make an oath is also hyperbole, and I covered it in the second-to-last paragraph of this entry. Basically Jesus is saying it's better to just be an honest person than someone who has to make a special oath in order to be believed.
It may be that the hyperbole in verses 39-41 may have some cultural significance. I've heard it said that in respect to verse 41, there was a custom in the Roman empire that a Roman soldier could compel a person to carry their pack for them for up to a mile. Jesus is saying here in many ways that even people you don't like (such as members of an occupying foreign army) are opportunities to show kindness, and you should love your enemy. Clearly the Bible is full of people not loving their enemies, but I don't think that renders the principle void. (The theological question of how God should treat His enemies is a bigger issue I'm not going to try to tackle here.)
So to finish up this chapter, which has already gone on far too long, I'm going to dismiss verse 45 as being poetic as well, and the point thereof being that people of all levels of righteousness have to live in the same world, and not to categorize what level of righteousness any particular person might have. As for the question raised by the SAB on verse 48...maybe there's something there, but I'm not sure what to say at this point. As it comes up in the next chapter, maybe I'll pick it up there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
