1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul and the Shema, part I of II

Posted on Saturday, June 7, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 2 comments

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

//These are the words of Paul. Scholars have long wondered if Paul was purposefully echoing the Shema of the Old Testament. That verse reads like this:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD –Deuteronomy 6:4

This echo, then, may be a subtle indication of Paul’s christology … meaning, Paul believed Jesus was divine, a part of the Godhead. The argument is that Paul, being a strict monotheist, was making an explicit claim that Jesus and God are One. But does that mean Paul is actually including Jesus in the divine entity? Scholars are divided.

For myself, I just can’t see it. I don’t think Paul thought of Jesus as anything like today’s concept of the second part of the Trinity. The verse before this one in Paul’s letter to Corinth reads like this:

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many)

So Paul seems to me to be saying there are lots of gods, and lots of lords but we recognize only one god and we recognize only one lord. In separating “lord” from “god,” it is significant that Paul simply never calls God “Lord” the way he does Jesus. There is no “Lord God” in Paul’s writings; only “Lord Jesus,” but there are many, many references in Paul’s writings that treat “God” and the “Lord” as separate entities.

There is no christological claim in Paul’s Shema echo except to identify Jesus as the anointed one of God; the one God chose to be Lord. More tomorrow.

Leviticus 26:29, Driven to Cannibalism

Posted on Thursday, June 5, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 1 comment

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.

//The book of Leviticus predicts that if Israel isn’t obedient, they will be put under siege, and the famine caused by the war will be so bad they they will be forced to eat their own children. Impossible, you say?

It happened … not once, not twice, but three times.

2 Kings 6 tells about a famine during the time of Elisha, when a woman is robbed of a meal. She appeals to the king:

And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.

Lamentations chapter 4 tells of the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem, and the famine then:

The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people.

Finally, we have this warning in the gospels about the upcoming siege of Jerusalem:

How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! –Mark 13:17

The Jewish historian Josephus, writing about the war described by the gospels, tells of a woman from Bethezob who came to Jerusalem to worship and was trapped there by the Romans. She boiled and ate her own son. The Zealots (Jewish freedom fighters), smelling the meat, broke into her house and demanded their share, but when they saw what the poor woman ate, they left her alone.

Revelation 12:5-6, Israel as a Woman in Labor, Part II of II

Posted on Wednesday, June 4, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

//Yesterday, I pointed out that Revelation’s “great wonder,” a woman in heaven in labor, surely refers to Israel. I pointed out other scriptural passages which speak of Israel as a woman in labor.

Today, I want to refine this definition a little. Revelation is a study of contrast: good versus evil, the Lamb versus the beast, the New Jerusalem replacing the old Jerusalem … and the whore of Babylon contrasts with the woman in heaven.

This is a story of the birth of a new “nation,” guided by the holy child, Jesus. Revelation posits that a new Israel–the Christians–will escape from the old Jerusalem, which is destined for destruction. But what does this mean?

Read again today’s verse about the woman fleeing into the wilderness. It could refer to the literal escape of the Christians from Jerusalem just before it was put under siege by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians left Jerusalem and lodged in Pella, as told by Eusebius and others. Like Israel’s escape from Egypt to form a new nation, the Christians escape from Jerusalem to forge a new Israel.

The Gospels later chronicle this escape of the Christians (although written, of course, from a prewar point of view). For example, here is Luke 21:20–22: When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

Revelation 12:1-2, Israel as a Woman in Labor, Part I of II

Posted on Tuesday, June 3, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

//Who is this mysterious woman in heaven? In my book about Revelation, I wrote the following:

“Some have prematurely compared the woman to Mary, the mother of Jesus. But Mary’s status within the Christian story grew over time; at the writing of Revelation, she played a part nowhere near the “Virgin Mary, Mother of God” status now portrayed in Catholic tradition. As far as we know, the birth stories we read in Matthew and Luke had not yet even surfaced.

“We can make easier sense of John’s vision if we consider the woman as simply the true believers of Israel, God’s chosen few. This alludes to Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37, where the sun and the moon denote Joseph’s father and mother, and the twelve stars represent him and his eleven brothers” –Revelation: The Way It Happened, p. 139

I offer little explanation for this interpretation in my book, but Israel is actually depicted as a woman in labor several times in the Bible. Here are some examples:

Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. –Isaiah 66:8-9

For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, –Jeremiah 4:31

Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail –Micah 4:10

What is it that makes this interpretation so interesting? More tomorrow.

James 2:14, The Ebionite Church and the Judaizers, Part II of II

Posted on Friday, May 30, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 1 comment

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

//Yesterday, I introduced an offshoot of Christianity called the Ebionites. This church did not ascribe divinity to Jesus, nor did they believe in the virgin birth. They focused on a works-based mission, like today’s verse from the epistle of James. Who were these guys, really, and how did they stray so far from Christianity?

We have no writings from them–we have only later writings rejecting and refuting their views–so we don’t know for sure who they were, how they originated, or what they really taught. You may be familiar with Justin Martyr’s debate with Trypho, a Jew, in the middle of the second century. Justin acknowledges those who call themselves Christians yet do not view Jesus as God. This fits the Ebionites.

It is certain that the Ebionites stemmed from Jewish Christianity, probably as an offshoot of the Jerusalem church. They were probably the remnants of the church which escaped from the city just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and they were probably the “Judaizers” whom Paul vehemently opposed.

Of course, we all know the leader of that first Jerusalem church. It was the brother of Jesus himself: James the Just.

Some critical scholars, such as A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament, propose that the book of James, attributed to the brother of Jesus, actually was penned by his very hand. It does indeed mirror Ebionite thinking, unmystical, ethical and practical, teaching a works-based salvation. Just like the Ebionites. Little surprise that this epistle has gained few followers, even in today’s time. Many Orthodox Christians have questioned whether it is Christian at all, for, as Luther explained (who used to tear it from the Bible whenever he found it), it advocates merely goodness and self-restraint and teaches nothing of justification by faith.

The Ebionites were no more popular than the brother of Jesus who probably founded their church. They survived in any numbers only into the second century, when they were deemed heretical, roundly denounced by Irenaeus as little different from the Jews, and appear to have dissipated over time.

Galatians 2:14, The Ebionite Church and the Judaizers, Part I of II

Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize? –Young’s Literal Translation

//These are the words of Paul, criticizing Peter for spreading a Judaic version of Christianity.

You may have noticed in my writings, including my books about Revelation and John’s Gospel, that I appear sympathetic to a second-century strand of Christianity called the Ebionites. Why do I consider this version of Christianity important? Let me explain.

“Ebionite” is Aramaic for “the poor.” It is a title they applied to themselves. They were strict followers of the Law, and kept both the Sabbath and the Sunday observance of the Lord’s Day. They circumcised, they faced toward Jerusalem when they prayed, and they held daily ritual baths (besides the initiation of Christian baptism), so it seems like they did everything wrong by not discarding Judaic customs. To be fair, though, they did oppose Temple worship and sacrifice.

The scriptures we have condemn these practices, as if our writers were putting words on the lips of Jesus specifically to oppose Ebionite thinking.

It gets worse. Ebionites used some form of the Gospel of Matthew, but omitted the account of the virgin birth. They did not believe in Jesus’ divinity, but saw him as a great new teacher endowed with divine power, in opposition to John the Baptist. They hated Paul, considering him an enemy of the faith, though they agreed with Paul’s adoptionist beliefs. They were probably more frustrated with pseudo-Pauline writings than with Paul’s own ideas. Yet Paul’s claim that Jesus died as a sacrifice appalled them.

Why should we pay any attention to these heretics at all? More tomorrow.

1 Corinthians 1:10, Division in the Church

Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

//Many people seem to have the mistaken idea that there was only one form of Christianity in the first century. That the apostles themselves took the words of Jesus straight to the rest of the world, so that there would be no discrepancy.

The common opinion is that divergent opinions about Jesus, such as Gnostic Christianity, evolved later by heretics attempting to corrupt true Christian teaching. Not true. The earliest Christian writings in our possession…the letters of Paul…show how diverse Christian beliefs were from the very beginning. Paul wrote to the Galatians and the Romans urging them to ignore the teachings of the “Judaizers.” He wrote to the Corinthians trying to persuade them about his understanding of the resurrection (apparently, some believed in life after death but not in the resurrection of the dead.) He tried to clear up divisions and disagreements on the role of the Spirit.

The Ebionites, who probably stemmed from the earliest church in Jerusalem, eschewed Jesus’ divinity and virgin birth. I’ll write more about the Ebionites in future posts, but Jewish Christians worshipped differently than Gentile Christians, and Gentiles were badly splintered. Some followed the teachings of Apollos, some the teachings of Peter, some of Paul. Apollos taught only “the baptism of John the Baptist,” having heard of no other. Some Christians insisted on celibacy, others on strict dietary rules, and some even accepted incest on the basis of Christian freedom.

All these Christian doctrines are described in the Bible. There simply was no established universal system of authority, and no standard belief system. Paul himself went out as a missionary having not consulted with the apostles and disagreeing with much of what the church of Jerusalem taught, and his ideas are preserved in epistle form, so today we tend to think his ideas were the norm, but that is unfair. We cannot rightly speak of “early Christianity,” but of “early Christianities.”

Matthew 27:46,50 One Soldier’s Death

Posted on Monday, May 26, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”  … And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

//A casualty in the war for our freedom.

Have a blessed Memorial Day.

Genesis 3:6, Augustine’s Original Sin and the Evil of Sex

Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 3 comments

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

//St. Augustine was a profound thinker, but he did have an odd hang-up. It was that three-letter word: sex. Have you ever wondered how the most influential theologian of all time justified the doctrine of Original Sin? His logic works like this:

Adam and Eve were rational beings who strayed to irrationality. Where once they were in control of their emotions and passions, that gave way as they ate the apple and learned a new trick: how to make children. Thus, by cooperating in irrationality, mankind was born.

Now, there is no sexual desire accompanying the birth of a child; it comes months beforehand. Indeed, there can be sexual desire even when no child is wanted. Yet arousal is required, which Augustine considered “disordered passion,” meaning the body and emotions were outside the proper control of the mind. It is in this state of “disordered passion” that conception occurs, and children bear the marks of their conception. Thus, every child is born with the mark of sin, even though she committed no sin on her own.

So children do not inherit sinfulness from their parents according to Augustine; they are born in sin. In this way, “original” refers not only to the very first sin in the Garden of Eden, which is then passed on to all future generations, but to the sin in which conception occurs. The sin is “original” in that is the first sin of anyone’s new life. The child cannot help but grow up in sin, a slave to these “disordered passions.” Every facet of our lives is disordered; hence the doctrine of “total depravity.”

Here is where I get lost in the argument. God said if Adam and Eve disobeyed, they would die. If Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened to evil, and if by this evil they began to procreate, doesn’t this mean it was actually their sin which guaranteed everlasting life?

Acts 18:23, Phrygia and the New Jerusalem

Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.

//Phrygia is a region in modern-day Turkey. It’s mentioned three times in the book of Acts, telling of how the Gospel was spread there. But do you know its true Christian claim to fame?

It starts with this verse in Revelation:

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. –Revelation 21:2

In the second century, a man named Montanus started a new movement. He believed the age of the Holy Spirit had dawned, and that it dwelt in him bodily. Thus, the end of the world was at hand, and it was time for the New Jerusalem to descend. (Revelation teaches that the New Jerusalem floats down out of heaven to land on earth).

Montanus hailed from Phrygia, and insisted that’s where it was coming down. While Revelation hints that the New Jerusalem will land on Mount Zion, Montanus though it was headed for Turkey, the region of Phrygia, in a small village called Papuza.

While highly influential (you have probably heard of Tertullian, who was originally a Montanist), Montanus’ views couldn’t break into mainstream Christianity. He was excommunicated by the church in Phrygia. The New Jerusalem must have found a different place to locate.

John 4:6, Jonah and the Gourd

Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.

//Ever try to take refuge in the shade of the gourd? This must be a monster gourd, right?

It was Jerome in the fourth century who translated the Bible into Latin–the version we call the Vulgate–and it was he who decided the plant that sheltered Jonah was a gourd. Previous to this, it was an ivy. The truth is, nobody, to this day, really knows what type of plant sheltered Jonah in this story. Many scholars believe it was a castor bean plant.

But a gourd? This was too much. For many people, calling the ivy a gourd was scandalous. They ridiculed Jerome, saying he must like gourds better than ivy so that he has a place to stash away his drink!

But the idea of a gourd stuck, and made it into the King James Version. Sadly, most of today’s translations duck the controversy by calling it a “leafy plant.”

Proverbs 15:3, The Biblical God

Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

//“The Biblical God” is is a phrase that’s starting to get on my nerves. I usually hear it in context of someone claiming my idea of God differs from the Bible’s description. But there is no single “Biblical God.” Opinions about God change from book to book in the Bible. The God of Genesis is different from the God of the prophets, which is different from the God of the Writings, which is different from the God of the Synoptic Gospels, which is different from the God of Paul or the Gospel of John. When we mash all of these opinions together and try to come up with a composite description of God, all we accomplish is to misrepresent all of the Bible’s authors.

Think God is omniscient? See http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/11/proverbs-153-dont-make-me-come-down-there.html

Think God is jealous? See http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/02/exodus-205-a-jealous-god.html

Think God is merciful? See http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/12/psalm-305-gods-anger.html

Think God hates evil? See http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/02/habakkuk-113-does-god-hate-evil.html

Pretty much any attribute of God you name, you can find a Bible author who disagrees. We cannot speak of “the Biblical God” but of one of the “Biblical Gods.” That these varying Bible opinions have been merged into one rather universal Church opinion is only a symptom of our very human desire to pin God down.

Revelation 22:12, Behold, I Come Suddenly?

Posted on Monday, May 19, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

//I just finished reading another book which tried to pull Revelation out of its first-century setting by suggesting an odd translation of the promise in today’s verse. The phrase “Behold, I come quickly” appears word-for-word three times in Revelation, and there are a number of other places where Jesus affirms his coming without delay. Unless we greatly misinterpret the words (particularly the Greek word tachy), there is simply no way that Jesus was saying it would be 2,000 years before he came.

Still, some readers, noting that the return of Christ didn’t happen the way they expected, suggest an alternative reading. They suggest that the word “quickly” should be replaced by “suddenly,” meaning unexpected and instantaneous. But this simply isn’t the way the word is used anywhere else in the Bible. Ignoring, for now, all of Revelation’s promises of immediacy and concentrating on just the Greek word tachy, let’s note all the other verses where the Bible’s writers used this word:

Agree with thine adversary quickly [tachy], whiles thou art in the way with him; –Matthew 5:25

And go quickly [tachy], and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; –Matthew 28:7

And they departed quickly [tachy] from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; –Matthew 28:8

There is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly [tachy] speak evil of me. –Mark 9:39

And they went out quickly [tachy], and fled from the sepulchre; –Mark 16:8

As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly [tachy], and came unto him. –John 11:29

Did you have any luck replacing the word “quickly” (tachy) with “about 2,000 years later?”

Revelation 14:4, Who are the Firstfruits?

Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

//Revelation tells of 144,000 faithful people who stand on Mount Zion, singing praises to God. It is said they were redeemed from the earth. They are said to be the “firstfruits.” But who are they?

This question comes up often in the forums I participate in online. Many think this gathering of the firstfruits is still in our future; but that wouldn’t make them first, would it?

The Old Testament law tells us that in the new harvest, the firstfruits are given to God. It means the very first of the crop each year. The firstfruits among Christians would therefore be the first ones redeemed.

This is the understanding provided by Paul as well. In 1 Corinthians 16:15, he names the household of Stephanas as the firstfruits of Achaia. Likewise, in Romans 16:5, Paul indicates that Epaenetus is the firstfruits of Asia Minor. Compare these two translations of the same verse:

Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. –KJV

Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. –NIV

So “firstfruits” means “first Christians to convert” in this example. There is no reason to believe Revelation doesn’t use the word in the same way.

Matthew 9:13, The Door to Heaven is Mercy

Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’

//Some time ago, I discussed what Jesus said in Matthew 5 about those who are merciful. They, said Jesus, are the ones who will receive mercy. Perhaps you believe you’re saved by grace; perhaps you believe you’re saved by works. But Jesus says you’re saved if and only if you’re merciful.

With this in mind, it’s enlightening to look at some of the parables Jesus told:

— The story of the Good Samaritan teaches us to have mercy.

— The story of the Wicked Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) is about punishment for a man who refused to show mercy.

— In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man is not condemned for any wrongdoing; only for not showing mercy.

— In the parable of the goats and the sheep (Matthew 25:31-45), the only criterion separating the goats from the sheep is mercy.

Mercy would seem to be a cornerstone of Jesus’ teachings.

Matthew 5:41, Jesus and Nonresistance

Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

//This verse sounds like it encourages camaraderie. If someone requests your presence to walk a mile, walk with him two. I used to read it this way.

But this is surely not what Jesus meant. Read it in context: If somebody hits you on the cheek, turn the other one to him. If someone takes you to court to take away your coat, give him your cloak, too. And now today’s verse: If someone demands that you help him, do so willingly … in fact, do double what he demands.

In Jesus’ day, Roman soldiers had the legal right to impress the labor of Jewish residents. Jesus is commending loving service without resistance, even to your enemy. Thus, the New Living Translation translates this verse this way:

If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.

Matthew 5:22, Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca

Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

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.

//I think today’s verse is commonly misunderstood. “Raca” in this verse (taken from the King James Version) is Aramaic for “empty-headed” or “worthless.” It’s roughly equivalent to saying “Thou fool.” A person who says “Raca” to his brother is in danger of the council.

But what is the council? Jesus is not talking about the Sanhedrin, or any earthly council. He’s talking about the heavenly Sanhedrin, or heavenly court. Jewish literature described God’s heavenly tribunal as a supreme court, like the one on earth. This court has the power to condemn one to everlasting life or to hell fire.

It’s not my intention to delve into the meaning of “everlasting life” or “hell fire”; that’s a topic all of its own. Today’s point is that this verse isn’t comparing three different offenses and listing three different punishments. It’s saying if you get angry with your brother without cause, or call him empty-headed, or say “you fool” to him, you’re in danger. Your act will be remembered in the coming age of God’s rule, when it will be brought before the heavenly court. You’ll be in danger of being judged and sentenced to hell fire.

So be nice to your brother.

Matthew 1:19, Mary’s Betrothal

Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

//This verse is often confusing to readers unfamiliar with Bible customs. Joseph is not yet married to Mary when she is found pregnant, but he is called her husband because they are betrothed. Typically, betrothal was arranged by the parents of the youngsters (the woman usually about age 14, the man about 18), but with the approval of those to be married.

Betrothal means the two were pledged to each other, usually for a period of about a year. In Galilee (though not necessarily in Judea), it was expected that the man and woman would remain separate, never seen alone together.

The husband-to-be pays a bride price to the father of the bride, and the father of the bride sets aside a dowry for her. Thus, even though they were not officially married, Joseph and Mary were legally bound and divorce was required to break the pledge. If Joseph chose to publicly charge Mary of infidelity before a judge, he would have been able to recover the bride price and even acquire the dowry she had been given.

On the other hand, for Joseph to do this, he would need to publicly shame Mary before a judge. The punishment for adultery was stoning, though it was rarely enforced by this time in Israel’s history, but the dishonor she would earn would be punishment aplenty; she would most likely never be able to find another husband, leaving her without support if she ever left her parents or if they died.

It’s not unlikely that Joseph cared enough about Mary to want to spare her this, especially if the child was his. Whether Joseph was the father, or another man, or the Holy Spirit, the two put their heads together and decided on a story. God, they apparently decided to say, came down to earth and impregnated Mary. (This is Matthew’s version of the virgin birth.)

So bizarre is their concocted story that it’s hard to believe the two would make this up. Does that mean we should believe in the virgin birth?

Genesis 3:6, Vitamin C and the Tree of Knowledge

Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

//In the Garden of Eden, the serpent convinces Eve that the fruit of the tree of knowledge won’t kill her. So she eats, and gives some to her husband Adam. Against God’s warning, they gobble down the fruit, and with it, a precious commodity: vitamin C.

Eating from the tree of knowledge must have put within us a rabid curiosity to learn. For example, we’ve since learned that vitamin C is necessary for our health. We have to have that fruit. Nearly all animals are able to synthesize their own vitamin C, but a rare few–notably, humans and our closest relative, chimpanzees–don’t. We have to have it in our diet. Without it, we develop scurvy.

We’ve also learned that chimpanzees and humans share a defective DNA. When scientists decoded the genome, they found that humans and chimpanzees actually do possess the gene for synthesizing vitamin C, in the same position that other mammals do. But in humans and chimps, the gene is broken. Apparently, somewhere in the evolutionary branch shared by humans and chimps, a mutation made the gene go wrong, leaving behind very strong evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Of course, many Christians find that evolution contradicts the story of Adam and Eve, and the very apple which provides the life-giving elixir needed to overcome this evolutionary malfunction.

A bit ironic, isn’t it? The tree of knowledge didn’t kill our bodies–it actually saved us. God said if we eat it, we die. But instead it was our simple, unquestioning trust in a literal interpretation of the Bible that died. That’s what the apple killed, as we learned more about its life-saving quality.

Is God toying with our minds?

Luke 13:35, Your House is Left Desolate

Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

//The desolation of the “house” in Luke’s writing probably refers to the Temple of God in Jerusalem. It was often named the “House” of God in scripture. As we all know, the Temple was destined to be destroyed only 40 years after Jesus died.

This “house of God” phrase may be taken from the song of Psalm 118:26:

Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.

Note not only the reference to the house of God in Psalms, but to “he that comes in the name of the Lord.” Now we move to another Lukan verse, 19:38, which tells how it is Jesus who came in the name of the Lord:

Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

See how the verse in Psalms ties the two verses in Luke together? This last verse tells how the psalm was sung about Jesus as he approached Jerusalem. Jesus has, according to Luke’s theology, replaced the Temple. He has become the Temple of God. It may take two or three readings to catch the subtle meaning.