Missing The Dubious Disciple?

We've moved! Please join us at www.dubiousdisciple.com. If you wish to continue a feed, you will need to get the new RSS feed address at the new address.

Thanks for your understanding!

We have moved!!

Please continue to follow us at http://www.dubiousdisciple.com

Galatians 3:29, How Gentiles Become Jews, Part I of II

If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

//The apostle Paul was known for taking Jesus to the multitudes ... the gentiles. How did he get away with this? By what authority did he steal the Jesus story from a very Jewish setting and give it to gentiles?

Through some very insightful theological wrangling, that's how. The Jews were the children of promise, through the covenant of Abraham. More than that, this covenant dictated circumcision, a practice Paul didn't even bother to try to talk gentiles into. This is hardly a minor issue, as the covenant makes clear:

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. -- Genesis 17:10-11

Indeed, three verses later, God makes it clear that anyone who doesn't submit to circumcision has broken the covenant. 

Yet in Romans 4 and Galatians 3, Paul twice makes the argument that uncircumcised gentiles can be children of Abraham, too! How can this be?

The answer tomorrow.

Book review: Where God Comes From

by Ira Livingston

★★★★

We humans are a curious lot, aren’t we? Always digging for meaning.

Ira Livingston once found a miracle message in a plate of noodles that tasted so incredibly good it overcame a deep funk. It was as if God had left a pick-me-up message just for him, embedded in noodles. As the Jews and Chinese say, Food is Love.

From noodly transubstantiation, Ira progresses to a million dollar question: Where does God come from?

Do understand that this is not really a book about God. It is an eccentric and intelligent philosophical road trip. The subtitle is Reflections On Science, Systems and the Sublime. The topic meanders around aimlessly like a good philosophy book should, until near the end you realize you've been circling something meaningful, if also something melancholy, the whole time.

"Where God comes from" is not the same question as "Who is God?" Says Livingston's beloved professor, "I've got no particular quarrel with any of these explanations [of God]—inflated parent, synaptic ghost, social glue—all fine, though obviously too reductive—but at the same time, I also don't object to various personalizations of God—an old guy with a beard, or a wafer or whatever." 

The problem with God (or evolution or a mechanistic universe) as a concept is that it casts the miraculously complex as something familiar. Says the professor, "the problem is not in how we use God or evolution or mechanism as ways of thinking about these things but as ways not to think about them."

…and therein lies the problem with Livingston’s book. It makes you think.

1 Corinthians 11:14-16, A Woman's Hair

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.  If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God. 

//This is a topic that remains fascinating to me, because I grew up in a Christian sect that emphasized the importance of women not only keeping their hair long, but wearing it up, as a covering, instead of loose. Having been subjected to numerous arguments on both sides of the debate, I can hardly pretend there is an easy answer. This is a complex passage of scripture. Adding to the complexity are the traditions of Paul's day, where attire and hair style demonstrated status, availability for marriage, and in the extreme, prostitution. Not, really, that much different from today! So I can weigh in with what the words of Paul feel like to me. Consider the verses that lead into this discussion to the Corinthians:

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. --1 Corinthians 11:5-6

Paul hardly wanted women to use their public position in the church to advertise their availability, but it goes further than this. A woman's dress and hair, when Christians gather, should reflect well on any position of authority she has been granted (women held leadership roles as well as men in Paul's day). Therefore, when she prays or prophesies, she should be appropriately groomed according to the traditions of the day, showing respect for her role.

I don’t think Paul meant anything more general than this.

Matthew 6:11, What kind of bread??

Give us this day our epiousios bread.

//Lest anyone think that today we have a perfect understanding of what Bible writers meant as they wrote, I provide today's verse as a contrary example. We assume “daily” bread, of course, but who’s to say for sure? It is what's called a hapex legomena, a word that appears only once in the Bible, and which must therefore be interpreted based entirely upon the surrounding context or word construction. While it's true that two books (Matthew and Luke) speak of this “daily bread”, both are quoting the same saying of Jesus.

There are some 1500 hapex legomena words in the Old Testament, 686 in the New Testament. Translations of these words are no more than educated, logical guesses, though they grow more accurate over time as we uncover more ancient documents to provide more context. We still don't know, for example, what gopher wood is (the material used to construct Noah's Ark.)  And as many times as we've repeated the Lord's Prayer, we don't really know what kind of bread we're praying for. Not once have we found that word in any other classical Greek literature.

In the 20th century, we thought we had finally discovered a confirmation of its use, written next to the names of several grocery items on what appears to be an ancient shopping list. Upon reexamination of the papyrus in 1998, however, it was determined that the word was not epiousi but elaiou (oil).

So we still don't know what kind of bread Jesus wanted us to eat. Something gluten-free would be my guess.

Genesis 30:32, How To Breed Spotted Goats

Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages.

//Here's the story. Jacob is discussing the proper wages for his service to Laban. He and Laban agree that Jacob will keep all the speckled animals of the flock.

But Jacob has a trick up his sleeve. He has figured out how to make speckled animals.

He cuts off the branches of trees, and peels the bark back to make white strips on the branches. When the animals are in heat, he places the sticks in the watering troughs so that when they come to drink, they will see spots of dark and white. There, with spots in their eyes, they mate and produce speckled offspring.

This works very well. In fact too well. All of the animals are getting speckled. So Jacob watches to see whether the females in heat are strong or weak. He puts spots in front of the eyes of the strong animals only, and leaves the weak ones for Laban.

Thus Jacob "grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys."

Book review: The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails

by Randal Rauser

★★★★★

My kind of Christian apologetics! A friend on Goodreads recommended this book to me, and he guessed right. I loved it.

Rauser leads us into a quaint little coffee shop for an afternoon of friendly argument, where he spies the perfect target: an atheist named Sheridan who is versed in apologetics just enough to make the conversation interesting. Sheridan argues that the geographic distribution of various types of believers proves that religion isn’t objective; he wonders why Zeus isn’t just as likely to be a real god as Rauser’s Most Perfect Being; he insists that morals are an evolutionary accident, with no need for divine intervention; he confronts Rauser with the problem of evil, and in particular the absurdity of everlasting punishment; and he argues that what Christians recognize as signs from God are no more than coincidences. Except for the whole “Yahweh condones evil” thing (where Rauser’s best defense is to shrug and admit that he’s not a defender for the “home team” but rather a pursuer of truth), Sheridan’s objections to Christianity get shot down.

You might recognize already that Rauser’s idea of apologetics is not about debating atheists until they succumb to logic and beg for baptism, but “rigorously pursuing truth in conversation.” This book isn’t going to shoot the moon. None of that “I can prove Jesus rose from the dead” stuff. Just reasonable exploration leading to a reasonable conclusion that Christian beliefs are not unreasonable.

I hope you don’t take this as a spoiler, but here’s my take on the coffee house conversation: Rauser provides some solid argument for the possibility of some sort of unexplained, intelligent creator and guide, who could be just about anyone but Yahweh of the Old Testament (as least the way its writers understood Him, since surely a “perfect being” wouldn’t really condone the genocide that was done in His name). Some arguments are better than others, and like I said, Rauser provides no conclusive proof that Christianity is the One True Religion. So, we’re left with a mystery, but one that should at least keep us from sneering at those who choose a Christian interface with this mystery.

All in all, this is a really fun book. Randal, if you write more, please consider more Dubious Disciple reviews!

Genesis 8:5, Where is Noah's Ark?

And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

//Whatever happened to Noah's gopher-wood Ark? Expeditions to Ararat have tried to find it, but so far, nothing very convincing has been discovered.

Today's verse tells how the ark ran aground, presumably on Mount Ararat, the tallest mountain in Turkey. It was another three months before the "tops of the mountains" were seen. This would refer to the remaining, lower-elevation mountains in the range, right? But no green vegetation could be seen yet.

Another forty days' wait and Noah starts sending birds out to scout the land. In time, a dove returns with an olive branch in its mouth, evidence that the waters had receded down to the green stuff, so Noah knows it's time to exit the ark. But whatever happened to the ark?

Maybe the answer is in plain sight. 

And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. --Genesis 8:20

One estimate of the number of clean animals would be 192 species, plus about a comparable number of now-extinct species. Many of them quite bulky. Atop the glacier-capped mountain of Ararat, way above the tree line, where did Noah get the wood for all these burnt offerings? Would gopher wood work?

Psalm 83:18, How do you say Jehovah?

That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

//How do you pronounce the name of God? Most scholars sneer at the common pronunciation of "Jehovah" and opt instead for "Yahweh." Why?

It's a long story. It helps to understand that the name of God (or any god) in antiquity is sacred. It dare not be spoken aloud. It helps also to understand that ancient Hebrew did not include vowels. Thus we have only YHWH in the written record, and the tradition that it should never be spoken out loud. Readers of scripture would actually substitute the word Adonai, meaning "my Lord," when reading. Small wonder that today we no longer know how to pronounce God’s name.

Here's part of the problem. Maybe you've heard of the Masoretic Text, the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament used between the 7th and 10th centuries. When the Masoretes transcribed the original Hebrew, they went back and added vowels to the consonants. However, they had a conundrum. If they put the correct vowels in place for YHWH, people would pronounce the name of God; a sin to be avoided at all costs. So, as the story goes (and it is probably true), they took the vowels from the word Adonai and inserted them into YHWH. That way, if you tried to pronounce God's name, you would be wrong. Adding these vowels produced the English word Jehovah.

So how do you pronounce the name of God? Well, we don't know for sure, but the one thing we do suspect is that it could be anything but Jehovah.

Book review: Drops Like Stars

by Rob Bell

★★★★★

Here's a short little booklet you can read over your lunch hour. Rob Bell, the controversial emergent mega-church pastor and best-selling author of Love Wins, tackles the subject of grief. 

Bell is a minister, but doesn't turn this into a book about God. It's not tough love and it's not sappy sentiment. Just words to think about and draw inspiration from.

If you're thinking about buying this as a gift book, I wouldn't say that it's appropriate for the deep-in-grief stage, but rather the help-me-stand-up-again stage. As Bell says, he's less concerned about the "why this?" than the "what now?"

Never heard Bell preach, but I'm sure beginning to like him as a person. I guess that's the important thing for a good spiritual adviser.

1 Corinthians 7:32-24, Why We Shouldn't Marry

I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord.  But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. 

//In both of my books, Revelation and John's Gospel, I make an off-hand mention of Paul's suggestion that it's better not to marry. I've had questions about this, so maybe I can address this issue in a Dubious Disciple post.

The reason Paul's readers were not to marry was because, according to him, his readers were living on the cusp of a new age. As Paul explains, 

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; --1 Corinthians 7:28-29

Paul was absolutely convinced of the immediate return of Christ! He was apparently wrong, but his conviction on this matter is very clear. Paul, in a vision, had seen the risen Christ, which to him was irreproachable proof that the general resurrection had begun ... with Christ as the first to resurrect. People were rising from the dead, and the new world was just around the corner. Don't bother getting married, guys and gals, there's no time to bother with that, it'll just distract you from preparing for the new age.

Psalm 23:6 How Long Is Forever?

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

//Here is one of the most well-known verses in the Bible, certainly a favorite for funerals. We find great comfort in this idea of dwelling forever in the house of the Lord, once this life ends.

The meaning of "forever," however, was not at all then what it means to us today. The first half of the verse lends the context we need to better fit this verse into an ancient Hebrew worldview, which simply did not extend into the afterlife. No such expectation existed at that time for everlasting, eternal life up in heaven.

Instead, a more accurate translation might be "And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord to the end of my days." But who wants to hear that at a funeral?

Book review: Caiaphas, The High Priest

by Adele Reinhartz

★★★★★

I really didn't know quite what to expect of this book, but I'm such a first-century history geek that I couldn't resist taking it on. Would it be a dry history lesson? A bit of speculative guesswork, given that the historical record is so sparse? As much as a book about an ancient priest can be considered a page-turner, this one was for me. It was just an enjoyable read from cover to cover.

Caiaphas is, of course, the Jerusalem high priest in the time of Jesus. The unscrupulous, conniving villain who orchestrated Jesus’ death. Or did he? The Gospels—all four of them—portray Caiaphas as not much more than a neutral minor player.

But in the early centuries of Christianity, our church fathers quickly glommed onto Caiaphas as an antihero. An anonymous collection of "chief priests and scribes" as the God-killer wouldn't do; a proper villain was needed. Caiaphas filled the role splendidly, especially as anti-Semitism developed within the Church.

The Gospel account of Caiaphas “prophesying” in John 11:52 proved particularly troubling for the early church. How could such an ungodly character be a prophet? Origin spends a great deal of time on this conundrum, finally concluding that somehow, the despicable fellow managed to rather accidentally utter a prophecy.

Reinhartz then takes us on an enlightening romp through artwork, literature, theater, and Hollywood, exposing the dastardly role Caiaphas plays. Finally, the journey culminates in a more serious look at the Caiaphas of history, and the priestly role in general. Reinhartz’s visible fascination with this ancient character has made for a highly readable account.

Leviticus 15:25, The Plague of Uncleanness Spreads!

When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

//This matter of separating the clean from the unclean is a serious thing! A woman during her period is naturally unclean, but if the blood flow continues after the normal time of her period, she remains unclean. She cannot be touched. If she touches anything, then what she touches cannot be touched. Anyone who touches anything she touches likewise becomes unclean, and like a plague, uncleanness inadvertently begins spreading through the camp. The possibility for an outbreak of uncleanness becomes a serious threat.

One time, the plague threatened to get out of control. Consider these verses in Luke chapter 8:

And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her. She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak …"Who touched me?" Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you."

This poor woman had an “issue of blood” (the KJV wording) for twelve years! She remained perpetually unclean! Here she touches Jesus and turns him unclean, and everybody is jostling up against Jesus. Can you imagine the crowd panic when it’s discovered that a seed of uncleanness had been planted? Is there any chance of getting this plague under control?

Piece of cake. Turns out that a little human contact doesn’t start a plague, it just heals the one who is suffering. Probably, this was Jesus’ most important lesson of the day. 

Romans 16:7, The First Woman Apostle?

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

//Yesterday, I wondered whether Paul taught that men were granted a divine right to lord it over women. Let’s put things in perspective today with a look back at the church in the time of Paul.

According to the book of Romans, women seemed to hold positions of leadership in the early church, even being considered "apostles." But this equality between the sexes quickly fell into disfavor in the Church. Author Eldon Jay Epp writes in his book, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, about how Junia's role was buried through mistranslation and editing of her name so that it was rendered as a man's name instead. To preserve male authority, Junia became Junias, a man's name, in Latin, and remains this way today—see today's verse in the NIV. The gender debate is nearly over, however: that she was a woman is seldom contested today among Christian theologians.

Instead, those who would deny female leadership now focus on the meaning of "apostle." Did the term mean the equivalent of Paul, Timothy and Silas? Or should the translation read not "well-regarded apostles" but "well-known to the apostles?"

The debate continues, but my own position is settled. Junia may be the only named woman "apostle" in the Bible, but she is hardly the only woman in a position of respect, even leadership. You can read also about Phoebe, Prisca, Tryphaena and Tryphosa.

Genesis 3:16, The Man Shall Rule Over the Woman

To the woman [God] said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

//This comes from the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge. God said don't eat the fruit, they ate it anyway, and consequences came. To the woman, God said your husband will rule over you.

This may not be so much a command as it is a sad prediction. Sin had been unleashed. God in essence says, "I created you as equals, but you've gone and screwed everything up. From now on, someone will always want to be lording it over someone else." 

And so it became, particularly in marriage, a sad state of affairs that lasted well into our day. Paul wrote about this, admitting that the woman should submit to the man:

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. --Ephesians 5:23-24

Paul errs, however, when he provides his reason for this:

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. - 1 Corinthians 11:9

See also 1 Timothy chapter 2, if you imagine that book to be penned by Paul. Thus, Paul backs up the time of man's dominion over woman to the day of creation, rather than the day of their sin. But then we have this odd statement by Paul about the new age of Christ:

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. -- Galatians 3:26-28

So which is it? Did Paul misunderstand about God's intentions about men and women, or did he misunderstand the new age of Christ? Do men still get to lord it over women or not?

The Four Evangelists

The picture on the left is the proposed cover of my new book, John’s Gospel: The Way It Happened. I’ll give you the scoop on the artwork, if you’ll tell me what you think!

"The Four Evangelists," by the 17th century Flemish artist Jacob Jordaens, presumably depicts the authors of our four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many think the four evangelists are portrayed left-to-right in the same order as the Gospels, and point to this mysterious verse in Mark to identify the boy:

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. --Mark 14:51-52.

But was Mark really writing about himself? Could the lad in these verses be young John the Apostle, with his trademark angelic face and curly hair? John is universally thought to be the youngest of the Twelve. Is Jordaens hiding a secret unshared, by wrapping John in a white linen?

The story continues in Mark with Peter following from a distance, but the Gospel of John tells a different story: A second unnamed disciple follows Jesus with Peter. This mystery disciple is thought by most to be John the Apostle. Might it also be the same lad who fled, leaving his outer garment?

A few days later in Mark's story, a young man dressed in a white robe sits outside the tomb, informing visitors that Jesus has risen. Is this young man Mark? John? An angel, as depicted in later Gospel tradition?

Adding to the mystique of the painting is the dispute over whether it was titled "The Four Evangelists" at all. Some art historians argue that the lad is simply too young to be one of the evangelists. Also, he appears to wear what may be a prayer shawl, as may have been worn in the Temple, rather than a "linen garment." These historians therefore identify the painting as “Jesus Among the Sages,” a depiction of the twelve-year-old Jesus conversing with the teachers in the Jerusalem Temple (see Luke 2:46-47).

The mystery remains. Since my book encourages us to embrace mystery and ambiguity in the scripture, I fell in love with the painting as a cover theme.

 

(heh - editorial note: The picture has been reversed for the book cover, so they are no longer Matthew/Mark/Luke/John from "left to right" but "right to left".)