The Dubious Disciple has moved!

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If this does not happen, visit
http://dubiousdisciple.com
and update your bookmarks.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Luke 1:36, Was Jesus really a cousin to John the Baptist?

Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren

//Were Jesus and John, son of Elizabeth, really related? Most scholars doubt it, assuming this relationship to be a literary creation of Luke. Or, equally likely, a story Luke had collected. More evidence points to the idea that Jesus was originally a follower of John the Baptist. I've discussed this topic before, so I won't repeat myself.

But if it isn't true, why does Luke report them as cousins? It seems to be Luke's personal conclusion, based on a typology of Old Testament relations. Here's how it works.

Jesus' mother's name is Mary. John's mother's name, according to Luke (only), is Elizabeth. The only other Elizabeth (written in Hebrew as Elisheba) in the Bible is the wife of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Moses' sister's name was Miriam, a form of Mary. So, in the story of Moses, Mary and Elizabeth are sisters-in-law, and their offspring would be first cousins. 

Thus, concludes Luke, Jesus and John were also cousins.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Deuteronomy 23:2, No Bastards Allowed

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

//Maybe the most famous bastard of all time is the offspring of Tamar and Judah. Judah, hoping to find a little action, is one day deceived by his daughter-in-law Tamar, who pretends to be a temple prostitute. They do the deed. Then, in Genesis 38:24, About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant."

They have a child named Perez. We turn now to the book of Matthew, and the genealogy listed there:

Judah begat Perez
Perez begat Hezron
Hezron begat Ram
Ram begat Amminadab
Amminadab begat Nahshon
Nahshon begat Salmon
Salmon begat Boaz
Boaz begat Obed
Obed begat Jesse
Jesse begat David

Thus, after only nine generations of begatting (from Perez forward), we come to King David. Didn’t today’s verse promise ten generations of excommunication? Apparently, God relented.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

1 Kings 22:43, Did Jehoshaphat remove the high places?

In everything he walked in the ways of his father Asa and did not stray from them; he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD. The high places, however, were not removed, and the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

//There are many contradictions in the Bible—I can quote several—and here's another apparent one. Doesn't the parallel verse in Chronicles say just the opposite?

2 Chronicles 17:6, His heart was devoted to the ways of the LORD; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah.

I've seen this topic quoted multiple times as a biblical contradiction. But, in fact, it is not. Anyone who quotes these verses to discredit the Bible is doing some sloppy homework. Three chapters later in Chronicles comes the true parallel passage, including this verse:

2 Chronicles 20:33 The high places, however, were not removed, and the people still had not set their hearts on the God of their fathers.

It appears Jehoshaphat started out on the straight and narrow, but the idolatry of the people crept back over the course of his 25-year reign.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Romans 1:3-4, Jesus Becomes God's Son

[C]oncerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.  

//Here's a question that intrigued early Christians. At what point did Jesus become God's son?

We all know the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and their claim that God impregnated Mary and conceived a son. Surely that is the moment Jesus became the Son of God?

Another, probably earlier, tradition comes from the book of John. John mentions nothing at all about a virgin birth, and instead tells how Jesus was anointed as the Son of God at his baptism. (Technically, John doesn't mention the baptism itself, but we may infer the event.) So could this be the day? Many early Christians accepted this "adoptionist" explanation and saw nothing heretical in it.

An even earlier tradition is found in Paul's letter to the Romans. In today's verse, Paul cites a probable creed that Jesus was born of the flesh (of the lineage of King David) and became the Son of God only after the resurrection! Surprisingly, the book of Acts, which was authored by the same person as the Gospel of Luke and its virgin birth story, appears to side with Paul! 

"God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.' And that He raised Him from the dead ..." - Acts 13:32-33

Scholars generally consider this passage in Acts to be a primitive tradition that long predated the day it was copied by Luke. Most likely, the understanding was that Jesus rose from the dead and immediately ascended to heaven, having been adopted by God. So we have several traditions that show a bit of a progression:

[1] The earliest: Jesus became God's son when resurrected.

[2] A bit later: Jesus became God's son when anointed by the Spirit at his baptism.

[3] Later still: Jesus is the literal offspring of God and a human woman, and became God's son at conception.

[4] As doctrines merged, church fathers began to entangle the incarnating (anointing) Spirit with its human host, and decided Jesus had been the Son of God since before time.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Book review: The Pilgrim Church

by E. H. Broadbent

★★★★★

Broadbent writes with the dramatic flair of an apologist, but with the atonal precision of an historian. This is obviously a topic dear to his heart. It’s not an exciting read, but an awful lot of data is presented, and if you're seriously interested in the topic, you’ll find it captivating. I did, so much so that I was able to forgive Broadbent’s bias (he tends to classify everyone into three divisions: Catholic, heathen and Christian).

Broadbent was born in England in 1861, and this is a reprint of a 1935 book. Broadbent's thesis is that God has preserved a remnant of faithful underground believers through the ages, who depended solely upon the Spirit and strict Biblical teachings, and who resisted the institutionalization of the Catholic Church. He treks methodically through the centuries from Christ to about the year 1900, highlighting individuals and groups that appear to fit the mold of true Christianity. This means meeting in inauspicious groups (usually private homes), identifying by no name except perhaps that of Christian or Brethen, and denying any reliance upon authoritative structure with the exception of local guiding elders (Christ alone is the "head" of the church). These tiny Christian gatherings objected to taking the name of anyone as their founder. Seeking to mimic only Bible teachings, they refused to venerate the cross, denied transubstantiation, discouraged infant baptism and sprinkling, and most important of all, displayed a willingness to stand true in the face of great persecution. So many thousands of believers died for their convictions that I quit counting. Broadbent is particularly appreciative of Christian martyrs, so much so that he seems to consider it a primary identifying mark of the "Pilgrim Church." Constantine’s conversion afforded no relief, since persecution only intensified under the Catholic Church. Systematic beheading, burning, and drowning persisted throughout church history.

The rest of my review will give you a run-down of Broadbent's favored selections. In the first couple centuries of Christian development, Broadbent praises Origin and appears sympathetic to the Montanist movement, perhaps because of their emphasis on direction by the Spirit. He uncovers an anonymous letter sent to Diognetus which provides not a word of doctrine, but mimics the tone of the earliest believers. The letter indicates that Christians "pass their days on earth, but are citizens of heaven," enduring all things as if foreigners even in their own land.

Broadbent denounces Arianism, but praises Athanaius for "maintaining a valiant witness to the true divinity of the Savior." Priscillian kept true, but Augustine was a man of good intentions with “strong affections and quick and tender sympathies” who nevertheless departed from principles of Scripture. In particular, Augustine was unable to embrace the Donatists. From the third to the fifth centuries, true Christians kept their distance from four false teachings: Manichaeism (attributing the natural world to an evil creator), Arianism (which taught that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh), Pelagianism (which denies the sinful state of man), and Sacerdotalism (dependency upon the Church for salvation).

Several early movements do display evidence of the Spirit’s leading, though. Broadbent approves of the Paulicians, Bogomils, Waldenses (Vaudois), Albigenses, Lollards, and others. Broadbent explains: “No authority of any man was allowed to set aside the authority of Scripture. Yet, throughout the centuries, and in all countries, they confessed the same truths and had the same practices.” The Waldenses in the Alpine valleys especially earned Broadbent’s praise. Waldensian “apostles” (a travelling ministry) left property, goods, home and family to travel in simplicity, without money, their needs being supplied by the believers among whom they ministered. They always went two and two, an elder with a younger man. The name “Friends of God” was often given to them.

These collections of believers rarely named themselves, but were named by their opponents. One exception is a period in the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries when some were wont to name their elders after men of the Bible, and their gatherings after churches of the Bible (Achaia, Philip, Colosse, etc.) All claimed apostolic tradition, some believed in apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. Yet one must be very careful in rightly divining which groups are Godly, because such groups are invariably slandered, and one must read between the lines of the smears. As with martyrdom, a prime determinant of a Spirit-led church is one which the Catholic church denounces.

Around the time of the Reformation, the Pilgrim Church blossomed. This is not due to Luther’s influence, for though Luther began on the straight and narrow, he didn’t fully return to the Scriptures. Perhaps the growth of the Pilgrim Church can be attributed to a period of little persecution, or perhaps to the printing press and the ready availability of translated Bibles. Even so, they never used written prayers; instead, an elder among them would “begin to pray and continue for a longer or shorter time as it may seem suitable to him.” They memorized the scripture in their mother tongue from much reading. They held seven points of faith, including a Triune God and that this God chose for Himself a spotless church. Among this resurgence was found the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Puritans, and Lollards. Clusters of believers sprang up in place after place, known among themselves as “the Friends,” but derisively called Quakers. Relief from persecution was again short-lived; Anabaptists were tortured or banished from their homelands, and seldom were there less than a thousand Friends in prison at a time.

These groups were not of one mind on all points, such as whether it was appropriate to bear arms, but they were of like character and appreciation for the Bible’s primitive teachings. John Wesley, an influential Christian figure, nearly adopted the righteous teachings of a group named the Moravians. A Methodist group in North Carolina took the name of “Republican Methodists” but soon rightfully abandoned the name, acknowledging no head of the Church but Christ, and no creed or rules, but accepted the Scripture alone for their guidance. Soon after, a similar movement originated among Baptists. The “Christian Connection” formed. These movements, although arising independently and only discovering each other later, held much in common. Even in Russia, a group began to form, forsaking their church for “meetings,” calling each other brethren. They were reproachfully labeled “Stundists.” In Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania numerous congregations sprang up calling themselves Nazarenes, and living quietly below the radar.

As groups proliferated, a new danger surfaced; that of the ease in which any particular spiritual movement could crystallize into a sect. In the 19th century, John Nelson Darby was influential in teaching a humble Spirit-led church, encouraging the independence of each congregation, though he later shifted from that ground and adopted the Catholic position of an organized body of churches. Many churches followed Darby into error, condemning others and excluding all churches outside their own circle subject to central authority, but others endeavored to carry out the principles of Scripture, refusing to cut off one another but recognizing that minute differences—particularly non-scriptural differences—did not necessitate division. Broadbent concludes his research with a plea to recognize the Church as One, members of one Pilgrim Church, acknowledging as our fellow-pilgrims all who tread the Way of Life.

Monday, March 26, 2012

1 Kings 11:3 How many wives did Solomon have?


And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.

//According to this verse, Solomon kept a thousand wives and concubines. But when Solomon himself tells the story, it becomes a much more manageable number.

There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number (Song of Solomon 6:8).

Oh, thank Goodness! 140 women in the rotation sounds lots easier to handle. Nice to have all those virgins available, too. Question is, why did Solomon fudge the number? Was it just kingly humility?

Turns out Solomon was speaking to his "one and only," his "beloved one," his "dove." He couldn't hardly admit to having 999 more girlfriends, could he? 140 is about as much as one man can get away with.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Book review: The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus

A discussion led by The Dalai Lama

★★★★

The premise for this book is fantastic! Talk His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, into speaking before a Christian audience in Middlesex University, London. Call it The Good Heart, emphasizing the humanitarian aspects of both Christianity and Buddhism. Give him eight passages of Gospel scripture to read in preparation for the seminar, and hear what he has to say.

The eight chosen passages are:

Matthew 5:38-48, Love Your Enemy
Matthew 5:1-10, The Beatitudes
Mark 3:31-35, Equanimity
Mark 4:36-24, The Kingdom of God
Luke 9:28-36, The Transfiguration
Luke 9:1-6, The Mission
John 12:44-50, Faith
John 20:10-18, The Resurrection

From the outset, The Dalai Lama assured his listeners that he had no intention of sowing seeds of doubt, and instead encouraged listeners to "experience the value of one's own religious tradition." He taught that the authentication of all religion is the realization of a good heart. He acknowledged similarities between Christianity and Buddhism, especially in regards to compassion, brotherhood and forgiveness, and strongly encouraged meetings between people from different religious traditions (not scholars but "genuine practitioners" interested in “sharing insights”). Yet he feels it does a disservice to both religions not to acknowledge their uniqueness. The Dalai Lama would rather we remain Christian than try to "put a yak's head on a sheep's body" and call ourselves Buddhist-Christians.

He spoke, as always, with insight and humility, and his take on Christian scriptures was wonderfully fresh and simple. My respect for the Dalai Lama increased even more. Yet I was a little disappointed; invariably, the discussion of Christian scriptures steered into comparisons with Buddhism—to be expected, I'm sure—but Buddhist thought is so ingrained in the Dalai Lama that much of the discussion felt foreign to me. Not that I couldn't follow his thinking, and not that I don't appreciate the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism and their common goal of compassion, but Eastern thinking is just ... well ... different.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Revelation 11:8, Who is Babylon? Part IV of IV

Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

//We're discussing the identification of Babylon in the book of Revelation, and why it should be recognized not as Rome but as Jerusalem. Yesterday, I pointed out how Babylon is called "the great city." A few more verses should settle the argument once and for all that Babylon, the "great city," equates to Jerusalem.

Today's verse speaks of the death of two witnesses in the city of Jerusalem. They are killed and left in the streets of the "great city," where also their Lord was crucified. How could any identification be more clear than this? So let's nail this down tight, by discussing every verse in Revelation that refers to "the great city."

[1] Today's verse explicitly identifies the great city as Jerusalem.

[2] Yesterday's verse, 16:19, tells of the destruction of the great city. I propose that this happened in 70 CE, during the Jerusalem war.

[3] Verses 14:8 and 18:10 label the great city as Babylon.

[4] Verse 17:18 says BABYLON THE GREAT, MOTHER OF HARLOTS is that great city. This leads to a tirade against the harlot, and closely parallels Ezekiel chapter 16 about Jerusalem.

[5] The only other reference in Revelation to "the great city," verse 21:10, refers to her replacement: The New Jerusalem.

Revelation depicts a great city gone wrong, who flirts with the Beast (Rome), and who is destroyed for her iniquities. Unquestionably, this city is Jerusalem itself. John of Patmos witnessed that destruction, and wrote about it in his famous apocalypse. This is the single most important insight to understanding Revelation.

You can read more about Revelation’s historical connections in my book: http://www.thewayithappened.com

Friday, March 23, 2012

Revelation 16:19, Who is Babylon? Part III of IV

The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

//We're still talking about the identification of the Whore of Babylon, and why we should recognize her as Jerusalem, not the city of Rome.

In today's verse, God "remembers" Babylon, a very covenantal phrase, adding evidence that Revelation meant its Babylon to be Jerusalem, not Rome or some current-day city. In the Old Testament, whenever God "remembers" the sins of a nation, he refers to a covenantal promise. Of course, no such covenant ever existed with any nation except Israel. Moreover, Revelation is nearly a chapter-by-chapter rewrite of the book of Ezekiel, and if you read Revelation chapters 17 and 18 about Babylon carefully, you'll note many parallels with Ezekiel chapter 16, which concerns Jerusalem. I won't bore you with details; feel free to study this on your own, if interested. This allusion to Jerusalem could not have gone unnoticed by Revelation’s intended first-century audience.

But can we really label Jerusalem a "great city," as today’s verse reads? Pliny the Elder describes Jerusalem as "by far the most famous city of the ancient Orient," but had its dreams shriveled to a fretful reminiscence of Solomon's day? Josephus, when describing the utter desolation of Jerusalem after the war of 70 CE writes, "Where is that great city, the metropolis of the Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the instruments prepared for war, and which had so many tens of thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to its very foundation."

If you read my book about Revelation, you'll recognize that John of Patmos echoes a lot of the same language as Josephus in his book, The War of the Jews. Here is one more instance, discussing the "great city" and her destruction, as prophesied by Revelation.

God was required by his covenant to destroy the "great city" of Jerusalem, and in 70 CE he does so. More tomorrow, when I'll  bring up some verses that leave little doubt about this interpretation.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Revelation 18:24, Who is Babylon? Part II of IV

In [Babylon] was found the blood of the prophets and of the saints.

//Yesterday, I described Babylon, Revelation's mystery whore, and promised her unveiling today. Most scholars lean toward Rome as Babylon’s identification. I listed several of her qualities, and a couple of them do sound an awful lot like Rome. But at least one seems like it can't possibly match Rome (all the prophets and saints shed their blood there). Yet there is one identification—again, a city—that matches all the qualifications ... if you think like a first-century prophet.

Babylon, I'm absolutely certain, refers to Jerusalem. Remember, we are not at all concerned with modern day Rome or Jerusalem, but what was in John's mind as he penned the book of Revelation, and how his first-century audience would have interpreted the role of Babylon.

Throughout scripture, the prophets repeatedly condemn Israel as a harlot and end up stoned in Jerusalem. No, not in a good way. To Revelation's first readers, the image of a harlot would have automatically brought to mind a myriad of prophetic pronouncements against Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Certainly, Matthew would agree: in 23:34-38, Jesus bemoans the desolate state of Jerusalem because she killed the prophets and stoned those sent to her, and declares that upon Jerusalem will come “all the righteous blood that has been shed on the earth.”

Perhaps we need to view the two cities, Jerusalem and Rome, from an early Christian perspective: as hopelessly entwined, in rule and custom, and inseparable. Jerusalem had lived under the occupation and rule of Rome for 100 years, and just as the original Babylon 600 years earlier swallowed up God's people, the Jews again could not avoid integration.

Roman and Jewish leaders conspired to crucify Jesus, to raise abominable pagan idols and places of worship, to build seaports for trade, and reportedly even conspired with Nero Caesar to bring about the great persecution of the Christians that Revelation talks about. As Babylon rides upon the Beast, so does Jerusalem throw in her lot with Rome. "Babylon" denotes the city of Jerusalem as a city polluted with the influence of Rome.

What makes me so certain of this identification? More tomorrow.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Revelation 17:5, Who is Babylon? Part I of IV

This title was written on her forehead: Mystery Babylon the Great The Mother of Prostitutes And of the Abominations of the Earth. 

//Is it possible to solve the great mystery of Revelation’s Babylon? Around the turn of the first century, Christians began to equate Babylon in Revelation (and other contemporary apocalyptic writings) with Rome, by associating Babylon with the Beast. But a few centuries later, with Constantine's help, Rome redeemed itself, and Christians began thinking of Babylon as merely all apostates, even competing Christian sects. It helped Rome's reputation, of course, that Christianity had established a solid foundation in Rome. Then a thousand years later, with the Reformation, many Christians reversed course and again decided Babylon must be Rome, perhaps because this aided in denouncing the Catholic church. But all this begs the question. Who did John of Patmos mean by Babylon in the first place?

Over and over, it’s called a city. It's still quite common today for Bible scholars to link Babylon with the Beast, and thus with Rome. There's little question that, at least in certain passages, the Beast can be identified as Rome. And it's also true that Babylon and the Beast are forever entwined, because Babylon rides upon the Beast. This doesn't quite mean Babylon is the Beast ... in fact, it probably means just the opposite ... but they are clearly allies.

Let's list some of the qualities of Babylon and see if you reach the same conclusion that most scholars reach.

[1] The Whore of Babylon sits upon seven mountains, just like Babylon rides the Beast. (There are seven famous hills in Rome).

[2] This great city rules over the kings of the earth.

[3] The kings of the earth fornicate with her and weep over her destruction. 

[4] Merchants grow rich buying and selling there and also lament her destruction.

[5] All the prophets and saints shed their blood there.

[6] God calls his people out of Babylon before its destruction.

[7] When she falls, so do the cities of the nations.

[8] Heaven rejoices over her downfall.

Does it still sound like Rome? Except to first-century readers, Babylon's identity veils itself well. Tomorrow we'll unveil her.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Book review: The Case for Christmas

by Lee Strobel

★★

This little book is excerpted from an earlier 1998 book by Lee Strobel: The Case for Christ. Like others of the series, Strobel’s MO is to interview other believing scholars and present his findings as a sort of scientific approach to uncovering the truth about Jesus.

Let me start by saying that I’ve never found much inspiration in Strobel’s “The Case for …” series. It feels to me like he demeans the beauty and mystery of Christianity by trying to bring it down to earth, proving the unprovable. But when I noticed this little book attempting to prove the Christmas story, my curiosity won out. There are many valid arguments against the two conflicting birth stories in the Bible, and nothing whatsoever that I could think of as evidence for treating them literally, so I couldn’t resist.

Strobel got on my wrong side right away with a blatant misquote of the Gospel of John:

John, who begins his gospel by eloquently affirming the incarnation—that is, “the Word,” or Jesus, “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” on the first Christmas.

At least Strobel knew where to drop the quotation marks! But the reference to “the first Christmas” is misleading and untrue to John’s Gospel. John wants nothing to do with the virgin birth, instead pointing out multiple times that Jesus’ father was Joseph. Conservative Christians may read the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and then read the incarnation story in John, and naturally try to overlay the two, but this would insult John. John’s theology is one of eternal pre-existence, not of a miraculous birth, and John clearly describes the moment of incarnation at the Jordan river … not at birth.

Strobel never does provide proof of the virgin birth, but rather attempts an indirect route, disproving the debunkers. Luke tells the story of Jesus’ miraculous birth, so Strobel stokes Luke as a careful historian, pointing out many places where Luke has been proven accurate, and uses that to deflect a major problem in Luke’s report: That governor Quirinius and King Herod seem to serve simultaneously, though Herod died ten years before Quirinius arrived as governor. Strobel’s “proof” that Luke’s account is historical: a coin dated to 11 B.C., bearing Quirinius’s name. Perhaps there were two governor Quiriniuses? But the rumor is absolutely not true; there exists no such coin, and Strobel should have done his homework. Strobel also neglects to mention the obvious: we know precisely who governed Syria in the years surrounding Herod’s death. It was Quintilius.

Strobel jumps into the argument over whether Isaiah prophesied a virgin birth or whether the original Hebrew says only that a child will be born to a young woman. It’s a fun argument, but totally irrelevant, because just a few verses later, Isaiah makes it clear that he’s not predicting an event hundreds of years in the future, but in his own lifetime.

Strobel’s best attempt is to argue for an early writing of the Gospels and traditional authorship. Then he deduces that these authors surely would not misrepresent the story so quickly after Jesus lived, because there would be others around to correct them.  He manages to uncover one reasonable scholar (Blomberg) who agrees with this dating. The vast majority of Bible scholars do not.

Strobel concludes that everything in the scripture about the Messiah has been fulfilled, and this proves Jesus’ identity. I am growing so tired of hearing this. Any knowledgeable Jew would be totally baffled by this claim, because Jesus didn’t fulfill any of the prophecies important to them! He didn’t gather the Jews back to Jerusalem, he didn’t rebuild the Temple, he didn’t reestablish the Jews as God’s favored people, he didn’t bring world peace, he didn’t unite the entire world in worship of one God, the list goes on. Perhaps we believe Jesus will come back and do all these things someday, but can we quit saying Jesus fulfilled the prophecies? He most assuredly did not … not in the political way the Old Testament expected.

I’m starting to get argumentative, so this is probably a good place to close. Can we just leave things to faith which belong in the realm of faith?

Monday, March 19, 2012

Galations 1:11-12, Paul's Authority

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

//Paul remains such an enigma to me! Driven beyond the endurance of superheroes, his influence in undeniable. But is it fair to label Paul the founder of Christianity?

Two books I’ve reviewed recently sit side-by-side in my library. I love studying from all angles, and these are five-star books that deal with Paul’s accomplishment from two different directions: Barrie Wilson’s How Jesus Became Christian and Tom Holland’s Contours of Pauline Theology.
You can find lots of books on the topic of Paul’s brand of Christianity. Some are happy to call Paul a founder, arguing that the message he espoused radically differed from the message of other apostles. Paul's influence among the Gentiles, they insist, overwhelmed that of the more Jewish version of Christianity centered in Jerusalem. 

Certainly Paul stood up for his understanding and adamantly preached his beliefs. In today's verse, Paul makes clear his authority to preach: Jesus, himself, gave him his revelation! Nobody taught him this stuff. It didn't come from the Jerusalem church or from any other men.

When those irritants back in Jerusalem accused Paul of lacking credentials to speak for Jesus, he angrily insisted "I am not in the least inferior to the 'super-apostles'" (2 Corinthians 12:11). Earlier in this chapter Paul tells how he was caught up to the third heaven (whether in or out of body, he wasn't sure) and how, there in Paradise, he "heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell."

One can hardly blame Paul for standing true to his convictions!

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Hebrews 9:19-22, The Hebrew Club

When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood ...

//When we were kids, we formed clubs and built forts and tree houses. We hung up signs that said, "No girls allowed." We made up secret handshakes and lots of rules. We scavenged for used cigarette butts and snuck them into the fort, where we smoked what was left of them with reverence, sitting around a tin cup of exhausted filters.

When we grew up, we took down the "No girls allowed" sign. Turns out they're human, too. We swapped the secret handshakes for embraces, and the rituals lost meaning.

I'm not Jewish, but I wonder ... do Jews sometimes look back on their history with the same sort of embarrassed nostalgia? All that playing with animal blood, all the dress-up games, all those rules, meant only to draw lines in the desert sand delineating the Hebrew Club? 

Sometimes when I read the book of Hebrews, I get the feeling that's how its author felt.


SK3U4SMGFKXX

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Book review: Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation

by Elaine Pagels

★★★★★

Look. If Pagels writes a book, go buy it. You don't need a review, you just need a reminder that it's ready for purchase. But then I'd feel like I wasn't doing my job, so ...

I’ve been looking forward to Pagel's new book, hoping I would read her views on how to interpret Revelation, but this wasn't her focus. Pagels begins by discussing the apocalyptic writings of the early Christian period. The title, Revelations, is not a misspelling of the final book in our Bible; she really does mean "revelations" in the plural. She highlights several other visionary writings, including The Revelation of Peter, The Secret Revelation of James, and The Secret Revelation of John. It turns out the unexpected focus didn't disappoint me.

Pagels then progresses through the next few hundred years of Christianity, detailing how Revelation was received (or not!) by the Church, the argument over its authorship, and how its prophecies were used to bolster or condemn. Irenaeus and Justin the Philosopher strongly championed John’s Apocalypse, both of them certain that its promise of tribulation could be seen plainly in the Christian persecution they were already witnessing. Tertullian praised John for the courage to portray Rome as Babylon, "proud of her power, and victorious over the saints," but damned and doomed. Even Constantine got in on the act, claiming that his rival, Licinius, was represented in Revelation by the dragon. Constantine wrote in a letter to Eusebius that he had restored "liberty to the human race" after he drove “that dragon out of public administration." Still, the vengeful book of Revelation barely squeaked into the Christian canon.

In the few instances where Pagels does attempt an interpretation of the original meaning of Revelation, her perspective is strongly influenced by her exhaustive studies in the Gnostic Gospels—the Nag Hammadi findings—and this emphasis shines a different light on the topic. For example, she compares Revelation to 4 Ezra (the Revelation of Ezra), a Jewish book somewhat contemporary with Revelation. Revelation is Christian, Ezra is not. But because she dates them concurrently (early 90's) and notes their similarities, she lets one aid in the interpretation of the other.

I loved the book, but I can’t help contributing my two cents. I disagree with her approach to interpretation, believing that we can date Revelation to perhaps fifteen years earlier, so its teachings should stand more firmly on their own. History and Christian thought were changing rapidly during this period, and even fifteen years makes a major difference. One example: In a discussion of the hated "Babylon" in Revelation, I believe its original meaning referred not to Rome, but to Jerusalem. Only later, when Revelation's dreams failed to quickly materialize, did Christians lose interest in Jerusalem and shift to interpreting Babylon as Rome. Far more clues point to Jerusalem as the original intended meaning, and I think I'll run a blog series shortly with the arguments for Jerusalem. Keep an eye on my blog at www.dubiousdisciple.com.

SK3U4SMGFKXX

Friday, March 16, 2012

Matthew 24:14, the Great Commission

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

//These are Matthew's words, and it seemed to be an understanding shared by Paul and others. The Gospel must be preached to the ends of the earth before Jesus comes back. Matthew, in telling us what to expect before the Lord's return, lists only one "sign of the times" for us to anticipate: the completion of this world mission. We've even made up a name for this evangelism ... we call it the "Great Commission." 

Paul seemed to consider himself the primary evangelist in this movement, concerned that he had little time to accomplish the task before Jesus arrived, and was on his way to Spain, the very end of the earth, to complete this purpose before his plans were finally derailed in Rome, where he would presumably spend the rest of his life. 

Whether or not Paul himself felt satisfied with his success, later biblical writers would agree that Paul properly fulfilled his commission. The author of Colossians would write, Every creature under heaven has heard the Word, and all over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing.

The book of Titus would affirm that Paul succeeded in his mission: For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, and as such the time had come, and they sought that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.

The book of Timothy also affirms that Paul's world mission has come to a close, and now the end would arrive quickly.

But life goes on. I guess the world turned out to be a little bigger than they thought.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Revelation 7:1, The Four Corners of the Earth

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

//Ever wonder where the four corners of the earth hide? It's a little hard to find a corner on a sphere. Even if we grant that Bible writers imagined a flat earth, they never imagined it to be square! Take this verse in Isaiah 40:22, speaking of God:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Thus, God chooses a vantage point above a circular earth, where he can keep an eye on all its inhabitants. He stretches the heavens over the earth like a tent, protecting a flat surface. This matches the description in Genesis of a flat earth, covered by a dome of sorts. The sun and the moon ride tracks daily across the underside of the dome. Yes, the Bible often assumes a flat earth. But where are its corners?

Let me ask you this. When you hear the phrase today, do you imagine corners on the earth? Of course not. It's a figure of speech, meaning from all over the globe. It was a figure of speech in Bible days as well (see Ezekiel 7:2 and Isaiah 11:12) where it came to mean from all over the flat circle of the earth. Tell any ancient Hebrew that the earth is square, and he'll laugh you to scorn. You don't see any corner edges in the sky dome, do you? 

Moreover, the Hebrew word Kaneph is better translated as "edge" or "extremity" than "corner," for which more precise Hebrew words exist if the writers really meant corner. And "four" in today’s verse surely refers to the four directions, North, South, East, and West, as attested by its reference to the four winds. There is no insinuation that the land has four sides. In fact, anyone can see that the creation continues on beyond the edge of the land, and can feel the winds originating from over the water beyond the land's edge.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Book review: Near Death Experiences: The Rest of the Story

by P.M.H. Atwater

★★★★

Before I begin this review, I should explain my interest in NDE’s from a religious viewpoint. It’s not just that they hint of a possible afterlife, because I honestly don’t know what to make of that. It’s that they dig down below the surface of religion to what Atwater labels a “core experience.” Says Atwater,

“The core truth or root of all religions and all sacred traditions is virtually the same throughout the world and always has been. It is the spiritual. It is that personal experience of Source/Deity/Allah/God. The majority of near-death experiencers glimpse that core truth in a moment of self-surrender they neither understood nor were prepared for, and they are forever changed.” (p. 104)

Atwater is not a scientist, and doesn’t approach her research from that direction. No double-blind studies with a control group. But she has logged 43 years of research, involving nearly 7,000 people. She explains,

“I am an observer and analyst who specializes in fieldwork … My protocol is that of a police investigator. I cross-check my findings with different people in different parts of our country at different times.” (p. 238)

By the way, I'm an outsider. An estimated one in twenty people remember a near-death experience, and Atwater has enjoyed three herself. But No NDE for me, even though I should qualify, having drowned once. I’m still peeved that I got nothing out of that. 

Atwater’s new book is not as much about the experiences themselves as it is about the profound affect they have on those who survive them. People are changed by this brush with the divine, whether we label it a religious experience or not. I do enjoy when Atwater lets the experiencers speak for themselves, leaving it up to us to make sense of the mysteries. When she jumps in, speaking in her exotic language, using phrases like "electromagnetic spectrum," I tend to lose focus. I’m a newbie to the paranormal, sorry.

This is a world where animals often speak and angels often fly on wings. I say "often," because different people, with different backgrounds, have different experiences. Hell is only hot and fiery if you're a Christian fundamentalist. Most others recalled hellish NDE’s as cold and clammy. Dark tunnels often connect this world to the next, but they didn't used to. Tunnels with a light at the end were quite rare in NDE’s before Robert Moody's book Life After Life became a bestseller, and the public began to fixate on tunnels. Too bad; everybody loves afterlife tunnels and the explanations they provide for wormholes, time travel, and shamanic visions.  

But one commonality in these experiences is that they are life-altering, and for that reason alone, the rest of us should not ignore what we can't explain. What these people experience will probably never be a part of our worldview—most of us are trapped in a reality wrapped around matter—but  NDE experiencers' connection often remains after the event, like a window left open to the supernatural. They are suddenly changed. Experiencers begin to remember the future before it happens, see auras of energy, see dead people. Atwater helps experiencers adapt back to a world that has become foreign, and helps the rest of us adapt to experiencers who have been radically changed. This is no trivial issue; 21% of experiencers in Atwater’s research attempted suicide afterward. 75% divorced. Both spouses usually voiced the same complaint: “I don’t know that person anymore.” The vast majority return from their experiences convinced that there is a “plan” for life, yet two-thirds leave organized religion, or never have a religious commitment to begin with.

Atwater loses me when she delves into her otherworldly explanations for these phenomenon, talking about holograms and power punches and colloidal conditions. When she shifts from paranormal language into scientific explanations, I get at least a glimpse of what she's talking about, but can't really relate the explanations to scientific principles other than as vague parallels meant to describe the indescribable. "Superfluidity" doesn't really explain how out-of-body travelers can go through walls. "Quantum entanglement" has a long way to go before it explains entangled minds. “Multiverses” is a concept I find more than a little disturbing. But these comparisons do help me relate. In many ways, Atwater's book will feel like home to experiencers but leave outsiders like me still out in the cold. Four stars for the research and fascinating peek into a world that remains a bizarre mystery to the uninitiated.

One final note: Atwater’s opinions about Jesus and the Bible don’t increase her credibility. She should probably have left that to the Jesus scholars.  :-)

2W86CJBWT22T

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

2 Samuel 1:26, Was King David Gay?

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

//This is a long-standing debate, and while I don't pretend to have the answer, I will weigh in with my guess after presenting some of the verses Bible readers point to.

1 Samuel 18:1, After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. (NIV)

1 Samuel 19:1, And Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan, Saul's son, delighted much in David. (RSV)

1 Samuel 20:30, Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? (RSV)

The ambiguity of these passages is evident. The problem, of course, is that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. Leviticus 20:13 states this plainly: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. This new law was recorded hundreds of years after David lived, and as such, the law could not have impacted its past, but it could have impacted the time in which the scriptures were written down! At the time the stories of David were collated into scripture, a definite anti-gay bias existed, and this may have affected how the stories were presented. The language may have been purposefully toned down.

I promised my own guess, and it's this: David should not be called gay. As best I can tell, there simply was no clear distinction at the time he lived; no designation of gays or straights, simply a sliding scale of preference, and everybody fell somewhere on that scale. How gay sex grew into such an abomination in the eyes of Israel's later lawmakers, I don't know.

Monday, March 12, 2012

1 John 4:1, What is the Spirit like?

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

//Maybe you can help me with today's topic. We're instructed to try the spirits to see if they mesh with God. If they don’t, discard ‘em. But what is God's spirit like? Here are a couple examples from the Bible:

Galatians 5:22-23, But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.

Judges 15:14-15, and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him ... And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.

The latter verse is Samson, of course, a fellow who solved his problems with brawn, and the first verse comes from Paul, whose writings sometimes seem so saturated with brotherly love that it fills me with hope. With these two extremes in mind, what can we conclude about the Spirit of God? Perhaps only this: everybody finds in God whatever spirit they are looking for.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Book review: Revelation for Everyone

by N. T. Wright

★★★★

This is a friendly, feel-good peek at the bloodiest book in the Bible. As one who has written about Revelation from a historical-critical viewpoint, detailing all the gory first-century details which inspired the Book of Revelation, Wright’s approach felt a little to me like bouncing happily along the surface. This is not a criticism; Wright’s Revelation is more palatable than mine, certainly more inspirational for a 21st-century audience.

Given Wright's more conservative brand of Christianity, it's eerie how often he and I agree on the meaning of the Bible's most mysterious book. Wright recognizes the conflict between Christianity and Caesar worship pulsating through Revelation. He recognizes (as does nearly every serious scholar of Revelation) that the "Beast of the Sea," identified by the hideous number 666, refers to Nero Caesar, and Wright pays homage to the rumor that Nero had come back to life. He counts, like I do, the seven kings of Revelation beginning with Augustus, not Julius Caesar, the popular choice among preterists. He even acknowledges the frightening urgency in the tone of Revelation, because its prophecies were expected by John to be fulfilled immediately. Indeed, some had already occurred, like the two witnesses of Revelation, before John put pen to paper.

Yet in all these cases, Wright glosses over the historical connections and emphasizes, instead, Revelation's relevance to today. His focus is for Christians of today, recognizing that we still await the moment of Christ’s return. The “earthquakes” of Revelation (which should be read non-literally as merely earth-shattering events) remind us of the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the smashing of the Twin Towers. That’s a relevant stance, yet it did leave me feeling like Wright’s treatment was a bit artificial, regardless of his claim … that Revelation “in fact offers one of the clearest and sharpest visions of God’s ultimate purpose for the whole creation.”

This highlights the fascinating thing about scripture, and in particular the book of Revelation. Its vivid imagery and Christian lessons relate to followers of every century. Unless you read the book of Revelation literally—a method of reading that was appropriate only to one age and audience, the people of Asia Minor to whom John was actually writing—Revelation continues to be just as meaningful and "true" today as then.

Do not miss the final chapters, about the New Jerusalem! Wright reminds us that “Jesus, according to the whole New Testament, is already reigning.” He points out the fascinating verse in Ephesians 2:6, where the church is “seated in heavenly places in the Messiah Jesus.” As to the binding of Satan, Jesus had already accomplished this (Matthew 12:29). What it all means is the great promise: God has come to dwell with humans. So many readers of Revelation assume that the final description would be about heaven that they fail to see the glory of God's New Jerusalem on earth—a "newness" we can share in today. Heaven and earth are forever joined together.