Matthew 6:10, Hermeneutics and Exegetics

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

//Hermeneutics and Exegetics—two big buzzwords that Bible scholars love to use. Just being able to pronounce these buggers is enough to establish your scholarly credibility, right?

Don’t be intimidated. Let me give it to you simply, so you understand what they mean, and how you can practice them yourself.

Exegetics is the study of the original meaning of a text. It requires historical context. Hermeneutics is the next step: how is that understanding relevant to today’s world? Proper hermeneutics is always founded on solid exegetics, but most people want to skip the original meaning and jump right into its current-day application.

Let’s use the topic of the Lord’s Prayer as an example, because it’s still on my mind from my recent review of Robert Cornwall’s book, Ultimate Allegiance. Consider this line: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” Reflective exegesis of this prayer recognizes that the earliest Christians were calling for a new age to begin. They held a vision of a kingdom on earth ruled by God. This new age they called the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven. Hermeneutics without exegesis, however, will invariably focus on the heaven part of the verse to the exclusion of the earth part, because today’s Christians dream of living with God up in heaven. Christians today often pray this prayer thinking, “God, come take us up to your home with you,” whereas if they flavored their hermeneutics with proper exegetics they would think, “God, come down and make your presence known in this world.”

Guest Post: Did Jesus' Death Save Us From Sin?

After reading the first of Christian Piatt’s Banned Questions series, I contacted him asking if I could borrow a page from the book as a guest page. Now, having read and equally enjoyed the second book of the series, I contacted him again, asking about running a second guest post from this book. I chose this short discussion by Phil Snider.

Phil was asked to answer this question: “Jesus forgave people of their sins before he died. How could he do this if he actually had to die in order to save us from sin?”

//For many years, I sat in church quietly wondering why God’s forgiveness was based on the idea that awful violence had to be inflicted upon Jesus in order for God to save us from sin. I was never comfortable with this idea, but I feared voicing my questions would make my Christian friends think I was a hell-bound heretic.

It was only when I went to seminary that I learned this wasn’t the only way to view Jesus’ death, and I’m glad to say I no longer believe Jesus had to die in order to save us from sin.

As it turns out, the idea that Jesus had to die on the cross in order for God to forgive our sins took nearly a thousand years to develop, and numerous theologians have pointed to its problematic implications. Chief among these concerns are questions related to God’s power and God’s character. In terms of God’s power, why is it necessary for God to sacrifice God’s Son in order to grant forgiveness? Is there, as Frederiek Depoortere says, “some higher authority or necessity above God with whom God has to comply in doing this”?

In terms of God’s character, can’t such a belief make God out to be “a perverse subject who plays obscene games with humanity and His own Son,” like the narcissistic governess from Patricia Highsmith’s Heroine who sets the family house on fire in order to be able to prove her devotion to the family by bravely saving the children from the raging flames?

Instead, my Christian faith is grounded in the affirmation that God’s love is unconditional, which leads me to believe that God’s forgiveness is unconditional as well. All of which means that Jesus’ unconditional forgiveness—offered before he died—is one of the things that makes him most Godlike!

Book review: Ultimate Allegiance

by Robert D. Cornwall

★★★★

This little 60-page booklet breaks down the Lord's Prayer, providing a line-by-line explanation. The provocative subtitle is The Subversive Nature of the Lord's Prayer, planting images in my mind of a prayer that drives me trembling to my knees, but that isn't quite the way Robert means it. The preface explains, "Prayer that is subversive is prayer that engages 'the powers that be.'"

Christians have for a couple thousand years recited this prayer—the Didache advises believers to pray these words at least three times each day—but do we recognize it as a pledge of action on our part, a statement of ultimate allegiance to God's purpose of establishing a kingdom on earth? The following observation by Robert is critical, particularly with the Lord’s Prayer:

While prayer has a vertical dimension, uniting human beings with the divine, it also has a horizontal dimension. As with the two great commandments, our prayers link us to God and to neighbor.

In this light, the Lord's Prayer affirms our personal role in inaugurating the Kingdom of Heaven, under God's guidance. "Thy kingdom come," we beg, and in so doing, we are accepting an active role alongside our brethren. If we choose to participate in God's reign, we're committing ourselves to do God's will on earth as in heaven, and therefore engaging in the mission of God.

Deuteronomy 22:21, Thou Fool, part II of II

[S]he shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

//In my verse yesterday, Jesus said if you call somebody a fool, you're on your way to hell. So, I thought I'd provide a bit  of ambiance, describing what happened to "fools" in the Old Testament. Here's another one:

Joshua 7:15, He who is caught with the devoted things shall be destroyed by fire, along with all that belongs to him. He has violated the covenant of the LORD and has done a disgraceful thing in Israel!'"

So, people who disobey the law of God are to be stoned or burned. Probably both … killed with stones, then the body destroyed by fire. But what does this have to do with fools? We go back to the promise of Jesus in Matthew 5:21, the verse I quoted yesterday. Say to your brother, Raca, and you might have to go before the judge (Raca is an expression of contempt, like calling him stupid.) But say Thou Fool, and you're in danger of hell fire.

It's our interpretation that makes this hard to understand. "Thou fool" sounds quaint next to "hey, stupid!" But the Greek word translated "fool" actually speaks of something far more sinister than mere stupidity. Think of it as someone practicing idolatry or worse. It's no sin to be stupid, but it's a sin to be stupid about God's directives. That's why the fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1) ... not because he's an idiot, but because he justifies his sin with unbelief.

Which brings us to another point. When Jesus promised “hell fire,” the Greek word he used was Gehennah, which is not hell at all. It’s a once-pleasant valley on the south side of Jerusalem, but which drew the disfavor of God because of idolatry practiced there. Gehennah eventually evolved into a garbage dump that burned perpetually, a sort of fiery symbol for contemptuous destruction. The King James version of the Bible leaped to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking symbolically of eternal damnation, but scholars continue to argue about just what this image of Gehennah was meant to convey. A closer translation than eternal punishment might be the promise in Joshua 7:15, above, where the punishment is to be killed, and the body burned ... exactly how the valley of Gehennah was once used; as a fiery disposal of the bodies of the enemy. 

We may never grasp just what this distasteful image of Gehennah was meant to convey. But if I were you, I'd stick to just calling my brother stupid.

Matthew 5:22, Thou Fool, part I of II

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

//Pretty strong words coming from Jesus. Call somebody a fool, and you're headed for hell. Now, check out the following passage, also in Matthew, and also the words of Jesus:

Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Hey, what's going on? Is Jesus headed to hell for calling people fools? Or did Matthew forget what he promised a few chapters earlier? I'll let you worry about this overnight, and return to the topic tomorrow.

Book review: The Meaning of Jesus

by Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright

★★★★★

Two of my favorite scholars, Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright, debate the meaning of Jesus. One is decidedly more conservative, but both are thoughtful and well-studied. And, raising hope for the future of Christianity, I would venture a guess that they are best friends despite their differences.

Wright believes the gospels are what they are “because their authors thought the events they were recording—all of them, not just some—actually happened.” This may sound self-evident to conservative Christians, but it is not the way Borg sees it. Two terms he uses to describe gospel writing are “metaphor historicized,” and its complement, “history metaphorized.” Borg just can’t jump on board with a literal reading of the gospels; he describes this outdated way of reading the Bible with five adjectives: literalistic, doctrinal, moralistic, exclusivistic, and afterlife oriented. This view, he says, has ceased to work for a large number of people, who find that if they must take the Bible literally, they cannot take it at all.

According to Borg, the “single most important difference” between these two scholars is their opinion about whether or not Jesus saw himself as the messiah. Wright says yes, Jesus understood his role as central to the salvation of the Jewish nation and, by extension, the world. Borg says no, Jesus’ role as messiah grew after his death and resurrection, as the understanding of his followers evolved.

In my opinion, the single most important difference in the thinking of these two scholars is not Jesus’ self-understanding, but the manner of his resurrection. Wright says Jesus rose in body, and showed himself physically to his disciples. Never mind that this new body could somehow walk through walls and disappear at will. “Resurrection,” to a Jew, meant a physical rising in body. Wright argues that only an event of this magnitude could have triggered the devotion and dedication of the Jesus movement that continued on after his death. In contrast, Borg seems unconcerned with the empty tomb, and interprets the resurrection in a more spiritual manner. I’m oversimplifying his position, but Borg sees Jesus being “raised to God’s right hand” as simply meaning Jesus has captured the position of Lord in the lives in his disciples. He is “raised up” by his followers after his death.

As I said, these are two of my favorite Jesus scholars. I believe Borg and Wright encapsulate liberal and conservative Christianity at their basic levels, and studying the two in tandem helps us appreciate the arguments of both sides. Great book!

Luke 9:28-31 The Second Exodus

And it came to pass about eight days after these sayings, [Jesus] took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistening. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. (KJV)

//Here’s a puzzle for you. There’s one word I want to emphasize in today’s verses. It’s the word “decease.” Jesus spoke of his “decease,” which he should “accomplish” at Jerusalem.

Sounds logical—that’s where Jesus went to die on the cross—but most current versions of the Bible translate this word differently. Most read “departure,” not “decease.” The King James version, and a couple others, naturally assume that Jesus’ “departure” means his death, since that’s what they see being “accomplished” in Jerusalem. So they translate the word into “decease.”

The New Living Translation actually contains the correct translation … by realizing that the word needs no translating at all. The original Greek word is exodos, translated “exodus,” which does indeed mean “departure” … but which is also pregnant with meaning. We, today, equate the word exodus  with Israel’s escape from Egypt, when Moses led God’s people to the promised land … and you can be sure that today’s verses’ original reference to the exodus would have been recognized just as plainly by first-century readers. Jesus planned to accomplish an exodus in Jerusalem, just like the one in Egypt.

So, apparently, the reference to Moses in this passage is not coincidental. Many Jews expected the coming Messiah figure to be patterned after Moses, and many anticipated some sort of second exodus. So, in this verse, as Jesus plans his trip to Jerusalem with Moses, he appears to be not leaving his disciples, but leading them to a new land! But that begs the obvious question: Where is he leading them?

Genesis 29:17, Leah's Eyes

Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

 

//You know the story. Jacob has gotten ahead in life through trickery, deceiving both his brother and his father at different times, and now he gets a taste of his own medicine. He agrees to serve a man named Laban for seven years in exchange for his daughter, Rachel. Laban had two daughters; Leah was "tender eyed," but Rachel was beautiful, and Jacob loved Rachel.

"Tender eyed" is the King James translation. Other translations are not so kind. The most common translation is that Leah had weak eyes, though other versions call her eyes blue (apparently a real turn-off), or dull, or soft, or lacking sparkle. Bishop John Shelby Spong interprets the text to mean she had "eyes that popped out of her head like those of a cow." Whatever the true meaning—the text is indeed difficult to translate—it’s clear there was no compliment intended.

As the story goes, Jacob works seven years for Laban, who then awards him his daughter, and Jacob consummates their marriage, only to wake up next to his wife in the morning to find ... Leah! He has taken to wife the daughter with ugly eyes! This bit of chicanery on the part of Laban is taken in stride by Jacob—after all, deception is only the way of life he knows—and he agrees to serve Laban another seven years for the second daughter. We're told she was worth it.

(p.s., Don't be distressed about poor Jacob. In the end, he devises a nasty plot to steal the best of Laban's herds, and thus gets the best of Laban after all.)

Book review: Why Men Hate Going to Church

by David Murrow

★★★★★

I have a confession to make. I accepted this book for review thinking it might be good for a few laughs. Get a guy through the church doors? What are you gonna do, turn it into a sports bar?

I was wrong about David’s book. Oh, I laughed alright—a lot!—but all the time I was chuckling, I was nodding. David has nailed it.

Funny thing is, speaking as a guy, we don’t know why we hate church. We just know it’s uncomfortable. The awkwardness has to be explained to us … and when it is, we finally nod knowingly.

David probably thinks his book is for pastors. No, it’s for couples. Ladies, if you want your guy sitting next to you in the pew, read this. Then find a new church together. One where the pastor has read the book, too.

Acts 2:38, The Meaning of Baptism

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

//Today’s post isn’t meant to instruct or entertain, but to pose a question. I’m not a scholar of current-day religion, so help me out, here. In my observation, baptism is a step that nearly all Christians agree is important, but few agree entirely on its meaning. Perhaps its meaning is meant to be obscure, something personal between the initiate and God. I remember my own baptism as a teenager with a bit of confusion. It seemed to be mostly an initiation into the church, a way for the church to accept me into its ranks, and it had something to do with asking me to cut my hair, which had apparently grown too long for a nice Christian boy. Odd, the things I remember.

So why do we baptize? Can we draw some idea of this ritual’s meaning from the New Testament? John the Baptist portrayed baptism as a necessary repentance. Paul saw baptism as a reenactment of the death and resurrection of Christ. The book of Acts associates it with the remission of sins. John’s Gospel seems to consider it an antiquated picture of spiritual rebirth, and takes pains to point out that Jesus never performed any water baptisms; the new baptism of the Kingdom would be by fire and Spirit, not water.

How about if we dig deeper, going back to pre-Christian scripture? How about Isaiah 4:4, referring to seven sinful women: The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. Or Ezekiel 36:25-26: I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. In both these cases, “baptism” is a cleansing performed by God alone, with spirit.

We can find parallels to Christian baptism in the practices of the Essenes, and in the rebirth ceremonies of mystery cults, but it is its Christian interpretation that eludes me. I’d be curious to hear your opinion.

1 Corinthians 11:8, Why men get to be the boss

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;

//Women are probably more familiar with the Apostle Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 than men, precisely because this is the chapter that demands women be in subjection to men. “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

Why is this necessary? It goes back to Adam and Eve, according to Paul. Not so much that Eve was the cause of man's downfall, but that Adam came first, and woman was made from man ... not vice versa. Eve was constructed out of a rib removed from Adam's side. Strange biology indeed, but if it makes me the boss, I can live with it.

Paul’s theology lasted 1500 years! When Vesalius in 1543 showed that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy … and ruined a good thing.

Book review: Gilgamesh, A New Rendering in English Verse

by David Ferry

★★★★★

Gilgamesh is the story of a legendary Mesopotamian king who embarks on a quest for immortality. The Gilgamesh Epic has two primary claims to fame: (1) it may be the oldest surviving written story on earth, and (2) it contains a passage eerily similar to the story of Noah and the Ark. A man builds a big boat, saving his family and lots of animals from a monstrous flood. Like Noah, the flood survivor in Gilgamesh sends out birds (a dove, then a swallow, then a raven) from his “ark” after the rain stops to see if there is dry land anywhere. Like Noah, after exiting the ark he offers a sacrifice to the gods.

Ferry’s interpretation is not really an interpretation; it is a retelling based on other scholars’ translations. It’s a poetic rendition meant to artistically recreate the flavor of the original cuneiform, but in English. The preface calls Ferry’s work “verbal art.” He does take liberties here and there, most times because all of our copies of the Gilgamesh story are fragmentary, even after piecing them together. Yet, he makes a strong effort to be respectful of the best scholarly translations, thus remaining as true to the original as “feasible” (his word).

I haven’t studied any other translations so I can’t vouch for the authenticity of Ferry’s version, but I certainly enjoyed reading it!

Genesis 1:1, Did God Create the Universe?

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

//In the beginning. The Greek word translated “beginning” can be either a verb or a noun; either “beginning” or “began.” It’s a toss-up. Either our Bible starts with “In the Beginning, God created …” or it starts with “When God began to create …” In the first, we have creation ex nihilo, out of nothing. But in the second, when God begins to create, the formless void of the earth is already there. Creation is the act of bringing stability to chaos.

This second interpretation actually fits better with other stories of creation in the Bible. For example, the book of Job, chapter 38, describes creation as a struggle between God and the primordial forces of chaos. God overcomes and controls a monstrous personification of the formless, watery deep that existed before the world began.

Psalm 74 also envisions creation as establishing cosmic order out of chaos:

It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters.

It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

It was you who opened up springs and streams; you dried up the ever flowing rivers.

The day is yours, and yours also the night; you established the sun and moon.

It was you who set all the boundaries of the earth; you made both summer and winter. –Psalm 74:13-17

In Proverbs chapter 8, God has a co-creator (wisdom), and this version of creation is reflected by the prologue of John’s Gospel (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”). But, again, the creation is a matter of setting boundaries for the sea, and fixing the foundations of the earth.

By all accounts, then, we have mistranslated Genesis 1:1. God did not create the universe; he merely brought order to a chaotic existence.

1 Samuel 6:19, Don't look in there!

Then He struck the men of Beth Shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. He struck fifty thousand and seventy men of the people, and the people lamented because the LORD had struck the people with a great slaughter.

//There's some confusion in translating this verse; most ancient Hebrew texts read 70 men, not 5,070. Some say the correct reading is 70 men and 50 oxen.

But what's the big deal? They peeked in the ark, and God struck them down. Shades of the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark (which does, indeed, draw themes from today's verse).

Here's the deal. The Law, capital L, resided within the ark. The tablets of the covenant, which Moses brought down the mountain from God, were frightening and often meant death. But sitting atop the ark was God's "mercy seat," and from there, from between two cherubim, God spoke to Moses (see Numbers 7:89). The Mercy Seat served as a covering for the ark, a reconciliation.

So, for the people to peek in the ark, they had to first remove its covering of mercy, exposing the Law's undiluted, frightful power. Pow!

Book review: What the Bible Really Tells Us

by T. J. Wray

★★★★★

Wray starts her book with a five-question quiz, which any faithful Bible reader should pass with ease, but the vast majority cannot. It’s the same quiz she uses to open each new course at Salve Regina University, where she teaches as an Associate Professor of Religious Studies. When she next recommends that I go purchase a Bible and read her book with the Bible open in front of me, I felt a nostalgic flashback to my University days. :)

After the pop quiz opening, I expected the book to be a Bible Introduction course, and I worried that perhaps it wouldn’t hold my interest. I was wrong. It’s true, Wray writes down to the level of readers who know little or nothing about the Bible, but her writing is insightful and fun. Wray “seeks to address the real and urgent problem of contemporary biblical illiteracy,” not by teaching us everything that’s in the Bible, but by stimulating a curiosity about it, so that we’ll read it for ourselves.

So this book is not a Bible overview. It is instead, after a short Bible Basics lead-in, an insightful discussion of seven critical issues that we should all find vital to our philosophy of life and spiritual well-being. Precisely the sort of instruction we expect to find by turning to our Bibles—yet most of us hold an erroneous assumption about what the Bible really says. These seven topics are:

[1] Why do we suffer?

[2] Heaven and hell

[3] What the Bible says about wealth and riches

[4] Sexuality and gender

[5] Biblical law and justice

[6] The Bible and the environment

[7] Prayer and worship

All seven proved to be great reading! Made me want to sign up for her class.

1 Timothy 6:16, No one has ever seen God, part II of II

Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

//Continuing the topic from yesterday, we're talking about people who have "seen God." 1 Timothy repeats the claim of John's Gospel, noting that no man has seen nor can see God. But what exactly do these verses mean? Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, Samson's parents, Isaiah, and Daniel all saw God in yesterday’s verses. Once, all the seventy elders of Israel saw God. We can't just pretend that the writers of John's Gospel and 1 Timothy didn't know the scripture.

The reason no one has ever seen God, according to 1 Timothy, is because God lives in "unapproachable light." This brings to mind the day Paul saw Jesus as a blinding light from heaven.

John, in similar fashion, makes the claim that no one has ever seen God in his prologue. I provided that verse yesterday.  There, Jesus is described as "the true light that gives light to every man." The logical conclusion is that the many who had seen God before never witnessed the blinding glory of God, until Jesus arrived and put that glory on display. John then makes clear that the only way one really "sees" Jesus is to be born again ... to receive new sight.

It turns out that there is one more verse on this topic:

1 John 4:12, No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Putting it all together, may we conclude that no one in the Old Testament had “seen” God, but thanks to the coming of Jesus, every loving Christian since that day has?

John 1:18, No one has ever seen God, part I of II

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

//Here's an interesting topic. Is it true that nobody has ever seen God? I would enjoy hearing your thoughts after I post the second half tomorrow. Let me start the topic by presenting a list of verses where people DID see God:

Genesis 32:30, So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Exodus 24:9-11, Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Genesis 17:1, When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.

Exodus 33:21-22, "Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. (Y'all recognize this as God speaking to Moses, right?)

Numbers 12:7-8, But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. (See also Exodus 33:11)

Judges 13:22, "We are doomed to die!" [Samson's father] said to his wife. "We have seen God!"

Job 42:5, My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.

Isaiah 6:1, In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.

Daniel 7:9, "As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze."

Book review: Banned Questions about Jesus

by Christian Piatt and others

★★★★★

Let me say first that this is shaping up into a great series! This is the second book, following closely on the heels of Banned Questions About the Bible. As with book one, Piatt’s MO here is to collect a number of uncomfortable questions, typically issues that we would feel awkward about discussing with our pastor, and then pose the questions to contributors. There are fifty questions in each book.

While it deserves a five-star review in its own way, I found the second book a little different in flavor from the first. Book two is more inspiring and comforting, less thought-provoking. Less puzzle-solving and more opinions. Or maybe it just seemed that way.

Partly, the differing flavor is because some of the questions are simply impossible to answer with only a Bible in your hand! Was Jesus ever sick? How soon did he know he was divine? Was he ever wrong? Yeah, we all want answers to these questions, but who’s got them? Contributors in book two are forced to dig inside themselves, and discover what Jesus’ life really means.

But the book has its theological doozies as well. When Jesus participates in the Last Supper, doesn’t that mean he’s eating his own body and drinking his own blood? If Jesus had to die in order to save us from sin, how did he get away with forgiving people of their sin before he died?

As with book one, I loved it and hope to see the series continue!

Matthew 7:24-27, Jesus, the Rabbi

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

//Scholars have often pointed out that the sayings of Jesus often mimic those of the rabbis. I’ve even heard the Jewish opinion that “anything good in the gospels is nothing new; anything new is nothing good.” If you thought Jesus’ manner of speaking in parables was unique for his times, that’s just not true; Jewish literature preserves more than four thousand rabbinic parables. Today’s verses may be a derivation of one such rabbinic saying:

A person in whom there are good deeds and who has studied the Torah extensively, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] stones and then afterwards [of] mud bricks. Even if a large quantity of water were to collect beside the stones, it would not destroy them. But a person in whom there are not good deeds, though he has studied Torah, what is he like? A man who builds first [of] mud bricks and then afterwards [of] stones. Even if only a little water collects, it immediately undermines them.

Jeremiah 23:5, Jesus, the Branch

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

//A branch? (Hebrew: nazar). Who wants to be governed by a branch?

Jeremiah means, of course, a descendant of David, and this was indeed a strong expectation of the coming Messiah. He must have the blood of the great warrior-king David surging through him.

Fast-forward to the book of Matthew, and this curious verse about Jesus (Mat. 2:23): And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Where did Matthew get this curious idea, that the prophets promised a Nazarene? What is a Nazarene, anyway?

It certainly isn't someone from Nazareth, or at least it didn’t used to be. Rather, the word probably stems from the Hebrew word nazar, or branch, and may have been Matthew's own creation. Because, as we all know, Jesus was supposed to come from Bethlehem, not his true hometown of Nazareth. Matthew's play on words ingeniously excuses Jesus' Galilean origins in Nazareth.

Book Review: Hebrews: From Flawed to Flawless Fulfilled!

by T. Everett Denton

★★★★

A good exposition! But before delving into the book’s emphasis, maybe I should lay out its axiomatic suppositions. Denton writes from the perspective that Hebrews was authored by the apostle Paul, sometime in the early 60’s. He presents a minimal argument for Paul as the writer (an exhaustive argument would be outside the scope of the book), and this forces the authorship of Hebrews to pre-war days.

Without known authorship, the dating of Hebrews is difficult, made doubly so because much of its focus is in comparing Christ to the Jewish priesthood. Hebrews sometimes appears to be saying the priesthood still exists (thus, its writing must be dated before 70 A.D.), and sometimes appears to be saying the priesthood has been disbanded (therefore written after the war, when the Temple was leveled). Compare verse 7:23 with 8:4 for an example. I think Denton’s stance is that Hebrews was originally written from a pre-war perspective, but later redactors, after the war, changed the reading to reflect a post-war perspective … and missed a few passages. If I’ve misunderstood, I apologize!

Denton’s argument may be reasonable, but I do want to point out that it’s daring; most Bible scholars date the book of Hebrews to the mid-80s, believing that it reflects a period of persecution, probably under Domitian, and a post-war let-down, when some of the Jewish Christians dreamed of returning to Judaism after Christ failed to reappear. This, if correct, means it cannot be written by Paul.

Pauline authorship, however, allows Denton to evaluate many of Hebrew’s passages under the light of Paul’s letters. For example, he can compare the New Covenant with the New Jerusalem (Galatians 4:24-26). It also turns the many references to the fall of the priesthood into prophecies, not explanations. Paul, as we know, had an uncanny sense of impending doom, and was proven right.

Denton’s eschatology also differs from the traditional futuristic view. The Heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:12) is not some city in the sky, it’s a spiritual kingdom, the New Testament kingdom.

Now that you understand the premise of Denton’s writing, I have to say it’s very good. You’ll appreciate Denton’s research regardless of your own beliefs. Hebrews’ hangup about Melchizedek finally makes sense. Hebrews’ theme of Christ bringing a superior kingdom, in every way, stands out. More than a verse-by-verse exposition, this is essentially a word-by-word exposition! The writing isn’t as smooth as I would have liked—it reads a little like a collection of notes—but it’s easy to follow. The research is deep and meaningful, and you’ll be keeping it handy as a reference long after you’re done reading.

1 Chronicles 21:5, That's a big army!

Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.

//Here's David's army that day: 1,100,000 from Israel and 470,000 from Judah. 

Wikipedia lists the number of current, active-duty soldiers in the United States armed forces at 1.4 million. In other words, David, a little tribal king in 1,000 B.C., has a larger army than the United States of America does today!

A bit later, Abijah stands on a little rolling hill and addresses two opposing armies: one with 400,000 fighting men, the other with twice that many. That’s 1,200,000 listeners, and no sound system. Abijah must have had quite a big voice!

Are you impressed? Don't be. Revelation says that in the great war of Armageddon, an army of 200,000,000 will be defeated. That's 142 times the size of the U.S. forces!

There's no way in the world Bible writers meant their numbers to be read literally. They are highly exaggerated and meant to make a point.

Job 14:12, Are you awake down there?

So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. 

//Here's something Christians continue to wonder about two thousand years after Christianity's beginnings. Are dead people conscious down (up) there, or will they remain unconscious until resurrected? Multiple verses tell of the dead "sleeping with their fathers," connoting unconsciousness. And here's one to chew on:

Ecclesiastes 9:5, For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing.

One day, King Saul finds a witch to help him commune with Samuel, who has died. When she "brings up" Samuel, he is pretty cranky about being disturbed.

But what about the parable of Lazarus and Divas? After they die, Lazarus rests in the bosom of Abraham, while Divas looks on from hell.

What about 1 Peter 3:19, where Jesus descends to hell, to preach to the disobedient? Does Jesus have to wake them up first, before preaching?

I take consolation in this: If I go to the bad place, I might be allowed to sleep through it all.

Book review: Atheist Universe

by David Mills

★★★★★

This is a well-written, concise, interesting overview of the argument against Christian fundamentalism … particularly Creationism.

How did the universe come into being? We don’t know. But new discoveries in quantum theory, as well as research done by Stephen Hawking and his colleagues, have demonstrated that matter can and does arise quite spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of “empty” space.

Intelligent Design? Mills states that “ID’s greatest triumph … has been in convincing the general public that there is a controversy raging among scientists over Intelligent Design. There is no scientific controversy whatever.”

So how did life begin? Well, we know God isn’t necessary. There is no need for spontaneous creation of complex cells; the first cells contained no nucleus at all, consisting mainly of an exterior membrane. Biological membranes form easily and spontaneously from a mixture of water and simple lipids. From there, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and Mills carefully refutes argument after argument posed by creationists.

Life after death? Forget having science on your side, here. For example, if the law of the conservation of mass/energy necessitates consciousness after death (because mass/energy can be neither destroyed nor created) then the same law requires consciousness before conception.

There just isn’t any real debate among scientists in these matters. A study in 1998 revealed that, of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7 percent believed in a personal God, and even fewer in Creation Science or Intelligent Design. The point I took away from the book is this: Religious beliefs must remain beliefs; no more or less. The Bible’s creationist claims are not and cannot be supported by science.

1 Kings 19:2, Jezebel's Vow

So Jezebel sent this message to Elijah: "May the gods strike me and even kill me if by this time tomorrow I have not killed you just as you killed them."

//In this verse, the wicked queen Jezebel promises to slay Elijah, in the same manner as Elijah killed all the prophets of Baal in the prior chapter. Jezebel never accomplished her vow. Or did she?

In the New Testament, John the Baptist is compared to Elijah multiple times, and is even spoken of as Elijah redivivus. So how did the New Testament Elijah lose his life?

By the instruction of another queen named Herodias, who demanded the head of John the Baptist on a charger.

Is Herodias, then, the second coming of Jezebel, finally fulfilling her vow?

Jeremiah 22:30, Jahoiakim, the Missing Man

This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

//Here's a frustrating fellow. Jahoiakim was a Judean king in the lineage of David, son of Josiah, father of Jeconiah. 1 Chronicles 3 lists his genealogy. 

But Matthew, when he traces the genealogy of Jesus back to king David, leaves Jahoiakim out in the cold. Skips right over him. Matthew 1:11, And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

Why did Jahoiakim get written out of the New Testament by Matthew? A clue comes from today's verse. The man whose descendants will never sit on the throne of David is this very fellow, Jahoiakim. This promise is repeated in Jeremiah 36:30.

Matthew, knowing that his genealogy contained a major problem ... it prevented Jesus from ever "sitting on the throne of David" ... does the best he can. He ignores Jahoiakim in the list, perhaps hoping we'll forget about him. Because, as Luke explains in verse 1:32,  the Lord God shall give unto [Jesus] the throne of his father David.

Of course, Matthew himself never said Jesus would sit on the throne of David, and Luke, while making that claim, comes up with a different genealogy that doesn't route through Jahoiakim. Wow, this guy must have really been a pain to work around.

Book review: 365 Read-Aloud Bedtime Bible Stories

by Daniel Partner

★★★★

I have been on the lookout for a good introductory book for adults to the stories in the Bible, and someone told me this children’s book would actually be a good one. They were right, I read through every story and enjoyed it! It’s a one-year collection of short Bible stories; you get 211 from the Old Testament, and 154 from the New (mostly Acts and the Gospels).

Do be aware that its target audience really is young children. You won’t find any of the Bible’s “adult themes” herein. Rahab isn’t a harlot; she’s just a nice lady. Mary isn’t a virgin. I guess that would be a little too complicated to explain.

365 days wasn’t quite enough for Partner to get through the Bible, probably because of an overemphasis on the teachings of Jesus, so you won’t find a full coverage of the Bible. For example, if there was anything at all about Ezekiel, one of the Bible’s more important prophets, I missed it. I was a little surprised at this, since Ezekiel’s dreams and publicity stunts would make for memorable children’s lessons.

You will, however, find a great deal of attention given to the kings of Israel and Judah, to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, to the deportation into captivity, to the release from captivity and rebuilding of the Holy Land. Excellent; I’m in favor of this emphasis. Few Christians grow up knowing anything at all about Judaism’s past, its defeats, sufferings, and desperate hopes for redemption. This is, after all, the atmosphere which birthed Christianity, for Christ means “Messiah,” the long-awaited redeemer.

Great book, cute pictures, and even I could understand the simple writing. :)

Hebrews 2:13, Another year, another resolution

And again, I will put my trust in him.

//As we kick off another new year, let me wish you all good tidings! In whatever form you worship, or wherever you find awe in this wonderful creation, may your happiness and purpose continue!

2011 was the first full year of cyber publishing for The Dubious Disciple. There remains just two of us operating the site, and we’ve had a blast. 2011 was a busy year, with blog posts hitting the web on 363 out of 365 days. I’ve made a number of new friends and had a number of great discussions on various forums where The DD feeds. I want to thank all of the authors and publishers who have shared review copies of their work.

We will be slowing down a little in 2012, but not by much! We plan to continue posting about five days a week, though we’re undecided about which days. Any advice is welcome!

Shalom.