*Today we will look at the claims Paul makes about his early life in the letters (epistles) in the Bible that are attributed to him. Some of the letters are considered by some experts to be forgeries, but we won't get into that now.
-Almost every letter begins with Paul claiming to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, appointed by God.
-Roman 15:17-21, Paul claims he is obeying God by preaching to the Gentiles, and that his ambition is always to preach where christ was not known, so he is not building on someone else's foundation. That also is convenient, because he won't have knowledgable people contradicting him or calling him a liar. He can indoctrinate them into his own way of thinking before anyone else gets to them. The ignorant are easier to sway. Remember, in Galations chapter 1 Paul pronounced a curse on anyone who teaches a different gospel. That's one way to ensure that the superstitious remain faithful.
-1 Corinthians 9:1-2, Paul claims he has seen Jesus the lord. Plus, he may not be an apostle to others, but he is an apostle to the Corinthians. He says they are the seal of his apostleship. This leads me to wonder if others were claiming Paul was not an apostle. When Paul says he has seen Jesus, it was not in the flesh but must have been in a vision if some kind. Are visions trustworthy?
-1 Corinthians 15:5-11, Paul names those who saw Jesus after his resurrection. He says Peter was first, then the twelve, then five hundred believers, then James (this James must not have been one of the twelve), then to all the apostles (??? That's strange. Aren't the apostles supposed to be the same as the twelve disciples?). Last of all, Jesus appeared to Paul, obviously in a vision. Paul says he is the least of the apostles and doesn't even deserve to be one because he persecuted the church, confirming what he said in Galatians 1:13. Nevertheless, Paul claims to have worked harder than all the other apostles preaching Jesus's death burial and resurrection.
-2 Corinthians 11:22-23, Paul says he is a Hebrew, an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, and a servant of the messiah, just like others who claim to be apostles. Plus, he's worked harder and been through more hardships than any other apostle.
-2 Corinthians 12, Paul claims to know a guy, obviously himself, who was caught up to the third heaven, or paradise. He's not sure whether it was an out of body experience or not. While there, he heard inexpressible things, some things which he is not permitted to tell. Fascinating. Also, so he wouldn't be conceited about this marvelous privilege, Paul was given a "thorn in the flesh" to torment him. This thorn in the flesh is not described by Paul, though there has been plenty of extra-biblical speculation. Paul also claims to be just as much an apostle as any other by virtue of signs, wonders and miracles he has performed.
-Philippians 3:5-10, Paul says he is a circumcised Hebrew, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, he is legalistically faultless, and once was a persecutor of the church. But none of that means anything to him compared to the righteousness found through faith in the messiah, which he hopes will somehow help him attain resurrection from the dead.
*If some of that seems rather vague, I can't help it. That's as much as I could find in Paul's letters. He does not mention the events on the road to Damascus, found in the book of Acts, which I will discuss in the next post. Details about his conversion are conspicuously lacking. Also, there is no mention of his birthplace, supposedly Tarsus, or his Roman citizenship, or a divinely appointed name change. At no time in his letters. does he say his name was once Saul. Also, his mission appears to be to teach about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, not about Jesus's actual life, miracles, or teachings.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Galatians chapter 1 part 3
*Verses 11 and 12: Paul wants the Galatians to know that the gospel he preached to them was not something a man made up or something he got from some other man. Oh, no, he got it by revelation from Jesus Christ himself! Jesus, if he existed, should have been quite dead. Think of what that means. Paul heard a voice that no one else heard with a message that no one else recieved. Paul believed it came from the messiah named Jesus. Paul is asking, and expects, his readers to believe this solely on his word, without evidence. Personally, I side with Thomas Paine who pointed out that a revelation to one man is not necessarily a revelation to all. Why should we believe Paul?
*Verses 13-17: Paul tells the readers about his former life. He intensely persecuted those of the church or assembly of God and tried to destroy it. Were these christian churches? This would have been within 10 years of Jesus's death, if he actually lived and died as reported in the first 4 books of the New Testament, which were written decades after this book. Or were they just Jewish meet up groups that followed the teachings of a particular rabbi? There are no christian writings preserved from those early days before Paul. Paul believed he was specially appointed by God to preach to the Gentiles (non jews) about the revelation he recieved about god's son. He emphasizes that he didn't consult anyone else, especially any of the apostles in Jerusalem, after he recieved his revelation, but went straight to Arabia, then later returned to Damascus. The apostles in Jerusalem would have been much more knowledgable about Jesus and his teachings, but Paul seems to think it is important to show that he was not influenced by them. In the next couple of posts we will compare all the accounts of the event of Paul's special revelation.
* Verses 18-24: We are not told here how long Paul was in Arabia or what he did there. Three years after he returned to Damascus, he went to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter. The only other apostle he saw was James, who he calls "the lord's brother." Was this James one of the original twelve disciples or an actual sibling of Jesus? No one can say for sure. After meeting with Peter and James, Paul went to Syria and Cilicia. For some reason Paul thinks it is important to stress how few people in Judea had ever met him. All they knew about him was he was once persecuting them, now he was preaching the faith.
*Verses 13-17: Paul tells the readers about his former life. He intensely persecuted those of the church or assembly of God and tried to destroy it. Were these christian churches? This would have been within 10 years of Jesus's death, if he actually lived and died as reported in the first 4 books of the New Testament, which were written decades after this book. Or were they just Jewish meet up groups that followed the teachings of a particular rabbi? There are no christian writings preserved from those early days before Paul. Paul believed he was specially appointed by God to preach to the Gentiles (non jews) about the revelation he recieved about god's son. He emphasizes that he didn't consult anyone else, especially any of the apostles in Jerusalem, after he recieved his revelation, but went straight to Arabia, then later returned to Damascus. The apostles in Jerusalem would have been much more knowledgable about Jesus and his teachings, but Paul seems to think it is important to show that he was not influenced by them. In the next couple of posts we will compare all the accounts of the event of Paul's special revelation.
* Verses 18-24: We are not told here how long Paul was in Arabia or what he did there. Three years after he returned to Damascus, he went to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter. The only other apostle he saw was James, who he calls "the lord's brother." Was this James one of the original twelve disciples or an actual sibling of Jesus? No one can say for sure. After meeting with Peter and James, Paul went to Syria and Cilicia. For some reason Paul thinks it is important to stress how few people in Judea had ever met him. All they knew about him was he was once persecuting them, now he was preaching the faith.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Galatians chapter 1 part 2
*Verses 3-5 show us that Paul believed the messiah Jesus gave himself for the sins of the people to rescue them from the "present evil age." What were the sins of the people? What was different about that age that made it so evil? Nothing really, except that Paul was living in it and experiencing it first hand. The world for humans was carrying on pretty much the same it always had been for thousands of years, life and death, peace and war, conquest and revolution. Paul lived during the Pax Romana which was broken by the first Jewish-Roman war, aka the fall of Jerusalem, after he died. Of course, the Jews were uneasy under the yoke of Rome. Plus the Romans.were pagans and worshipped many other gods instead of yahweh. The Jews, and the newer christ followers, should have been used to that, having been surrounded by polytheists most of their existence.
(Many people, especially christians, consider this an especially evil age, maybe the most evil age ever, because they are so focused on the rise of secular society and the reduction of christian influence.)
*Verses 6-9 talk about "the gospel of Christ" without actually saying what that gospel is. Presumably the Galatians know what Paul is talking about because he also says he preached this gospel to them. The word gospel carries the connotation of a message or proclamation of good news. Paul is very concerned that the gospel he preached is being undermined and perverted, throwing the receivers of his message into confusion. Remember that this book is supposed to have been written between 47 and 60 C.E. That means that as little as 14-27 years after Jesus's estimated death (a very problematic 33C.E.) there were divisions among the believers or proponents of a gospel based on Jesus the messiah. Paul says the gospel he originally preached is the one and only true gospel and if anyone else, including himself, dares to change the message they will be eternally condemned, twice!
*In verse 10, Paul offers as proof of his sincerity, the fact that he is trying to please God, not men, otherwise he wouldn't be a servant of Jesus. The problem is all the sincerity in the world doesn't prove something is true.
(Many people, especially christians, consider this an especially evil age, maybe the most evil age ever, because they are so focused on the rise of secular society and the reduction of christian influence.)
*Verses 6-9 talk about "the gospel of Christ" without actually saying what that gospel is. Presumably the Galatians know what Paul is talking about because he also says he preached this gospel to them. The word gospel carries the connotation of a message or proclamation of good news. Paul is very concerned that the gospel he preached is being undermined and perverted, throwing the receivers of his message into confusion. Remember that this book is supposed to have been written between 47 and 60 C.E. That means that as little as 14-27 years after Jesus's estimated death (a very problematic 33C.E.) there were divisions among the believers or proponents of a gospel based on Jesus the messiah. Paul says the gospel he originally preached is the one and only true gospel and if anyone else, including himself, dares to change the message they will be eternally condemned, twice!
*In verse 10, Paul offers as proof of his sincerity, the fact that he is trying to please God, not men, otherwise he wouldn't be a servant of Jesus. The problem is all the sincerity in the world doesn't prove something is true.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Galatians chapter 1 part 1
After reading chapter 1:
*The first five verses are the letter's greeting, telling who it is from and to whom it is written. Paul describes himself as an apostle, sent not from man nor by men but by Jesus christ and God the father. An apostle is someone who is sent, or a messenger, basically a missionary. Who sent Paul? He claims Jesus and God sent him. Let's be clear though, he is not talking about the living physical man Jesus. As far as the bible shows, Paul never encountered him. Paul is talking of a Christ (messiah) named Jesus (literally Joshua) who he believes is resurrected from the dead. How did he recieve this commission from a formerly dead person? We will find out later in this book.
*A common mistake some modern christians make is to assume that this kind of resurrected messiah talk was unusual in the first century. The truth is the Jews had and still have multiple messianic teachings, and arguments for and against them.. Plus, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Messiah ben Joseph (son of Joseph)
Messiah in Judaism
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Jewish Eschatology (scroll down to "messianism")
*From reading the above articles we can see that the idea of a messiah was multifaceted and complicated, with many schools of thought. The Old Testament prophetic writings were sometimes read as a code that needed to be deciphered, just as many christians treat the book of Revelation today. There was no overarching consensus about the who, how, where, and when of this messiah. Paul as a first century educated Pharisee, before the fall of Jerusalem, would have been steeped in the traditions, arguments,and teachings of his day. They were not confined to the biblical literature we now call scripture. There were intertestamental writings and the Jews had a rich oral tradition. These people weren't just looking for a messiah. They were willing to see it anywhere, just like christians of today who see the end times and parallels with Revelation in modern events, even stretching facts to make them fit.
*We can see that Paul lived in a world and among a people that expected a leader, one whose name might be recognized as one of the great Israelite heroes, a Moses, an Elijah, a Joseph, a David, or maybe even a Joshua? Maybe that person would be a reincarnation or resurrection of that hero of old. Maybe he would perform similar acts, in reality or symbolically. Paul also lived in a world that was familiar with Hellenic philosophy. He could have been aware of or influenced by the Platonists, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and more, including Hellenistic Jews like Philo of Alexandria. I included all this information because I think it is very important to remember that Paul did not live in a "biblical" bubble as we continue on.
*The first five verses are the letter's greeting, telling who it is from and to whom it is written. Paul describes himself as an apostle, sent not from man nor by men but by Jesus christ and God the father. An apostle is someone who is sent, or a messenger, basically a missionary. Who sent Paul? He claims Jesus and God sent him. Let's be clear though, he is not talking about the living physical man Jesus. As far as the bible shows, Paul never encountered him. Paul is talking of a Christ (messiah) named Jesus (literally Joshua) who he believes is resurrected from the dead. How did he recieve this commission from a formerly dead person? We will find out later in this book.
*A common mistake some modern christians make is to assume that this kind of resurrected messiah talk was unusual in the first century. The truth is the Jews had and still have multiple messianic teachings, and arguments for and against them.. Plus, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Messiah ben Joseph (son of Joseph)
Messiah in Judaism
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Jewish Eschatology (scroll down to "messianism")
*From reading the above articles we can see that the idea of a messiah was multifaceted and complicated, with many schools of thought. The Old Testament prophetic writings were sometimes read as a code that needed to be deciphered, just as many christians treat the book of Revelation today. There was no overarching consensus about the who, how, where, and when of this messiah. Paul as a first century educated Pharisee, before the fall of Jerusalem, would have been steeped in the traditions, arguments,and teachings of his day. They were not confined to the biblical literature we now call scripture. There were intertestamental writings and the Jews had a rich oral tradition. These people weren't just looking for a messiah. They were willing to see it anywhere, just like christians of today who see the end times and parallels with Revelation in modern events, even stretching facts to make them fit.
*We can see that Paul lived in a world and among a people that expected a leader, one whose name might be recognized as one of the great Israelite heroes, a Moses, an Elijah, a Joseph, a David, or maybe even a Joshua? Maybe that person would be a reincarnation or resurrection of that hero of old. Maybe he would perform similar acts, in reality or symbolically. Paul also lived in a world that was familiar with Hellenic philosophy. He could have been aware of or influenced by the Platonists, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and more, including Hellenistic Jews like Philo of Alexandria. I included all this information because I think it is very important to remember that Paul did not live in a "biblical" bubble as we continue on.
Friday, November 18, 2016
Introduction to Galatians
First read about the letter to the Galatians here.
Read about the land where the Galatians lived here. Pay attention to what the article says about Galatia as a Roman province.
Notice that there are no originals of this letter and the oldest copies are from around 200 B.C.E. The date of writing is thought to be in the general range of 47 to 60 B.C., after Paul's first or second missionary journey as described in Acts, depending on which theories you ascribe to. This is before the fall of Jerusalem. Not many people dispute that the letter is actually from Paul as described in the letter.
There is a possibility that this is the earliest of Paul's letters in existence. Others think the earliest may be 1 Thessalonians. I chose Galatians because in it Paul gives a mini history of himself and pours out a lot of his personal doctrine, much of which is foundational in modern christianity. There is a lot of stuff to cover in the six short chapters of this book. Not only will we look at what Paul says, but what he doesn't say, especially about Jesus.
Read about the land where the Galatians lived here. Pay attention to what the article says about Galatia as a Roman province.
Notice that there are no originals of this letter and the oldest copies are from around 200 B.C.E. The date of writing is thought to be in the general range of 47 to 60 B.C., after Paul's first or second missionary journey as described in Acts, depending on which theories you ascribe to. This is before the fall of Jerusalem. Not many people dispute that the letter is actually from Paul as described in the letter.
There is a possibility that this is the earliest of Paul's letters in existence. Others think the earliest may be 1 Thessalonians. I chose Galatians because in it Paul gives a mini history of himself and pours out a lot of his personal doctrine, much of which is foundational in modern christianity. There is a lot of stuff to cover in the six short chapters of this book. Not only will we look at what Paul says, but what he doesn't say, especially about Jesus.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
James- wrap up
*After reading the book of James, I've come to the personal conclusion that it is a book by a Jew, possibly of the Pharisee sect, for Jews, possibly those in jewish communities scattered around the world after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. The first verse clearly gives that impression. Succeeding verses are addressed to "brothers" referring back to that first mention of the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. Also, we have no idea who this James is, and it is not likely that he was one of the Jameses mentioned in the gospel accounts. Significantly, his name is actually Jacob, the name of the founder of the 12 Israelite tribes. James does not claim to be writing the words of God or to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
*There is nothing said in this book which would contradict a Jewish identity, except the two phrases mentioning the lord Jesus Christ, which easily could have been added. There is nothing in this book which would identify it as specifically christian, except those two phrases. There is no mention of Jesus as a person, his birth, life, ministry, words, death, or resurrection. There is no mention of any other New Testament characters. There is a mention of demons, but not Angels. There is a suggestion of eternal reward and punishment, but it is not specific. There is no hint of a trinitarian doctrine. There is a reference to the Jewish Shema that says the lord our God is one. There is a reference to meetings in a synagogue. There are multiple references to Old Testament people and scripture. There is no mention of a gospel or good news of salvation from sins, once and for all by a sacrifice of the life of a man/God. There is a reference about waiting for a messaiah. However, it does not indicate that the messiah has been here already and will return. The Jews of that day were waiting for a messiah. There is no reference to baptism. Sins are forgiven through prayer.
*In chapter 3 of the English NIV translation, the text mentions heaven, hell, and the devil. The phrase in greek translated "from heaven" is literally "from above." The phrase translated "of the devil" literally means "demonic," not referring to a specific being. It has the same root as the demons that shudder in James 2:19. The word hell is translated from gehenna.
*James's focus seemed to be on the Jews in the diaspora maintaining their faith and identity, and especially how they treated each other as a community. He stressed treating the poor among them with respect and dignity, in word and action. This was done by suggesting that the poor have an advantage over the wealthy in the virtue of faith. He stressed good deeds, self control of the tongue, and humility. He denigrated the desire for wealth. He vehemently denied that faith is enough to maintain a right standing with God.
*Next, I think I will tackle the book of Galatians as our introduction to Paul and his letters. We will probably compare and contrast the Paul in the epistles to the one in Acts. The epistles were most likely written before the gospels and the book of Acts. For now, I will leave you with an existential thought from James 4:14--"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while then vanishes."
*There is nothing said in this book which would contradict a Jewish identity, except the two phrases mentioning the lord Jesus Christ, which easily could have been added. There is nothing in this book which would identify it as specifically christian, except those two phrases. There is no mention of Jesus as a person, his birth, life, ministry, words, death, or resurrection. There is no mention of any other New Testament characters. There is a mention of demons, but not Angels. There is a suggestion of eternal reward and punishment, but it is not specific. There is no hint of a trinitarian doctrine. There is a reference to the Jewish Shema that says the lord our God is one. There is a reference to meetings in a synagogue. There are multiple references to Old Testament people and scripture. There is no mention of a gospel or good news of salvation from sins, once and for all by a sacrifice of the life of a man/God. There is a reference about waiting for a messaiah. However, it does not indicate that the messiah has been here already and will return. The Jews of that day were waiting for a messiah. There is no reference to baptism. Sins are forgiven through prayer.
*In chapter 3 of the English NIV translation, the text mentions heaven, hell, and the devil. The phrase in greek translated "from heaven" is literally "from above." The phrase translated "of the devil" literally means "demonic," not referring to a specific being. It has the same root as the demons that shudder in James 2:19. The word hell is translated from gehenna.
*James's focus seemed to be on the Jews in the diaspora maintaining their faith and identity, and especially how they treated each other as a community. He stressed treating the poor among them with respect and dignity, in word and action. This was done by suggesting that the poor have an advantage over the wealthy in the virtue of faith. He stressed good deeds, self control of the tongue, and humility. He denigrated the desire for wealth. He vehemently denied that faith is enough to maintain a right standing with God.
*Next, I think I will tackle the book of Galatians as our introduction to Paul and his letters. We will probably compare and contrast the Paul in the epistles to the one in Acts. The epistles were most likely written before the gospels and the book of Acts. For now, I will leave you with an existential thought from James 4:14--"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while then vanishes."
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
James chapter 5 part 2
*The rest of the chapter addresses prayer in times of trouble and sickness. James claims that prayer plus faith equals forgiveness of sins and physical healing. Here we see the ancient assumption that illness is associated with, or a result of, "sin." Illness was once considered a spiritual condition manifesting itself in physical symptoms. Some of this thinking persists today, in spite of advances in medical knowledge.
* James says a sick person should have the elders of the church pray over them and anoint them with oil. I don't know that the oil was any more effective than the prayer, depending on the physical cause of the illness. I guess it served the same purpose by making them feel like they were doing something to help. You might look at the word church here and say it is proof that this was a christian letter. However, the greek word is ecclesia which means "called out." It is a greek word for an assembly and did not originally refer to the christian church, though it eventually came to mean that. In fact, in Matthew 18:17, Jesus refers to "the church." Presuming Jesus actually said that, he was speaking to Jews about Jews. He would have been speaking about a Jewish assembly, perhaps in a synagogue. There was no christian church at the time.
*Elijah is given as an example of a righteous man who prayed and got exactly what he asked for. Notice that all the human examples and role models in this book are from the Old Testament. We have had Abraham, Rahab, Job, and now Elijah. There is no mention of the actions of Jesus or the disciples.
*Last of all, James encourages his fellow Jews in the diaspora to bring back anyone who has "wandered from the truth" in order to save them from death. Which truth? Judaism or Christianity?
* James says a sick person should have the elders of the church pray over them and anoint them with oil. I don't know that the oil was any more effective than the prayer, depending on the physical cause of the illness. I guess it served the same purpose by making them feel like they were doing something to help. You might look at the word church here and say it is proof that this was a christian letter. However, the greek word is ecclesia which means "called out." It is a greek word for an assembly and did not originally refer to the christian church, though it eventually came to mean that. In fact, in Matthew 18:17, Jesus refers to "the church." Presuming Jesus actually said that, he was speaking to Jews about Jews. He would have been speaking about a Jewish assembly, perhaps in a synagogue. There was no christian church at the time.
*Elijah is given as an example of a righteous man who prayed and got exactly what he asked for. Notice that all the human examples and role models in this book are from the Old Testament. We have had Abraham, Rahab, Job, and now Elijah. There is no mention of the actions of Jesus or the disciples.
*Last of all, James encourages his fellow Jews in the diaspora to bring back anyone who has "wandered from the truth" in order to save them from death. Which truth? Judaism or Christianity?
Saturday, November 12, 2016
James chapter 5 part 1
After reading chapter 5:
*Verses 1-6 are a warning to the rich. They will be sorry. Horrible things have happened to their wealth and possessions. The destruction will be a testimony against them, because they oppressed the poor and didn't pay the wages of those they hired. They lived in luxury and self indulgence. They condemned innocent people who were not opposing them. Sounds like Donald Trump. This passage says the cries of the oppressed have reached the ears of the lord. I'm guessing rich oppressors don't actually believe that or they wouldn't do what they do. Very rarely do they have to pay for the full extent of their crimes in this life, and never afterward. Job recognized that. Threats of eternal destruction slip off them like water off a duck's back. I'm not saying every rich person is an oppressor, but when the shoe fits...
*After the rant of the last few verses, James changes his tone. In fact, reading back over the text, the apocalyptic style rant seems out of place, and the continuity of the text would not be broken if it was removed. It would actually make more sense. Now James tells his fellow Jews to be patient until the lord's coming. Christians believe he is talking about the return of Jesus, but he very well could be talking about the Jewish expectation of the appearance of a messiah. James tells them to wait without grumbling against each other or judging each other. They are to take the example of the prophets' patience and Job's perserverence. Look what Job got after he persevered, everything that he had lost and more. That would certainly speak to displaced Jews.
*Verse 12 is another piece that feels out of place in the text. It is about taking oaths, swearing by heaven, earth, or anything else. They will be condemned if they do. This is one passage that gets ignored by many christians. Some, like the Quakers, have made a point of following it. One thing that makes this passage strange is that there was plenty of swearing in the Old Testament that was not condemned. Another thing is the phrase "above all." Surely James did not think this was the most important thing in his letter!"
*Verses 1-6 are a warning to the rich. They will be sorry. Horrible things have happened to their wealth and possessions. The destruction will be a testimony against them, because they oppressed the poor and didn't pay the wages of those they hired. They lived in luxury and self indulgence. They condemned innocent people who were not opposing them. Sounds like Donald Trump. This passage says the cries of the oppressed have reached the ears of the lord. I'm guessing rich oppressors don't actually believe that or they wouldn't do what they do. Very rarely do they have to pay for the full extent of their crimes in this life, and never afterward. Job recognized that. Threats of eternal destruction slip off them like water off a duck's back. I'm not saying every rich person is an oppressor, but when the shoe fits...
*After the rant of the last few verses, James changes his tone. In fact, reading back over the text, the apocalyptic style rant seems out of place, and the continuity of the text would not be broken if it was removed. It would actually make more sense. Now James tells his fellow Jews to be patient until the lord's coming. Christians believe he is talking about the return of Jesus, but he very well could be talking about the Jewish expectation of the appearance of a messiah. James tells them to wait without grumbling against each other or judging each other. They are to take the example of the prophets' patience and Job's perserverence. Look what Job got after he persevered, everything that he had lost and more. That would certainly speak to displaced Jews.
*Verse 12 is another piece that feels out of place in the text. It is about taking oaths, swearing by heaven, earth, or anything else. They will be condemned if they do. This is one passage that gets ignored by many christians. Some, like the Quakers, have made a point of following it. One thing that makes this passage strange is that there was plenty of swearing in the Old Testament that was not condemned. Another thing is the phrase "above all." Surely James did not think this was the most important thing in his letter!"
Thursday, November 10, 2016
James 4 part 2
*From verses 13 on, James addresses boasting about the future. He says that saying you are going to do certain things in the future without the caveat "if it is the lord's will" is boasting or bragging. On the surface it may sound kind of silly to have to repeat that phrase every single time you mention something you plan to do on a day that is not today. "Tomorrow we will do the laundry, if it is the lord's will." "Tomorrow I will clean toilets, if it is the lord's will." However, if James is addressing a known problem with this letter, I don't think it is everyday plans he is concerned about.
*In verse 13 he mentions people saying "we will go to this city or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." This is the kind of talk James finds offensive. Why? Because this is something a talented or well educated and wealthy, or a person who wants to be wealthy, might say. James has already told us the poor are special because of their richness of faith and the well off need to humbly recognize that. Openly speaking of personal plans to do things a poor person may never hope to do is boasting and bragging, which James thinks is evil. It certainly isn't considerate. Saying "if we live and it is the lord's will" softens the blow to the poor persons psyche. Of course, everything is god's will to the true believer, even the states of poverty and wealth. The richness of the poor person's faith may exceed that of the wealthy, but James thinks everyone needs to be reminded of god's will.
*The last verse says "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." This one passage has given centuries of christians reason to be afraid. There are millions of good things that could be done every day, but most people pick and choose. It is impossible to do all the good things that ought to be done. People have personal priorities and they know it. The conclusion: sins of omission are inescapable. So, christianity came up with the idea to pray for forgiveness for their sins of omission, then they are covered. Except some of them still feel guilty and torture themselves over it. But was James actually talking bout every single good thing that hasn't been done? Or was he talking about the preceding topic of saying "if it is the lord's will?" He also could be referring to what follows in chapter five, which addresses the way the rich treat the poor. There were no chapter and verse breaks in the manuscripts from which we get the book of James. Those are a much later addition.
*Just to be clear, for an atheist, there is no "will" that is deciding the life paths of individuals. People make decisions based on the cards life has dealt them. Sometimes life gives you a bad hand. Some people are much luckier than others. Poverty is not a virtue, neither is wealth. Different from a card game, the winner is not the one who had the best hand at the end of the game. That only passes his cards on to his heirs. The end of the game is the same for everyone, death. The wealthy have a human obligation to consider how to help those who have not been as lucky they have. It is right because it is a good thing to relieve human suffering, not because a god or the bible says so.
*In verse 13 he mentions people saying "we will go to this city or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." This is the kind of talk James finds offensive. Why? Because this is something a talented or well educated and wealthy, or a person who wants to be wealthy, might say. James has already told us the poor are special because of their richness of faith and the well off need to humbly recognize that. Openly speaking of personal plans to do things a poor person may never hope to do is boasting and bragging, which James thinks is evil. It certainly isn't considerate. Saying "if we live and it is the lord's will" softens the blow to the poor persons psyche. Of course, everything is god's will to the true believer, even the states of poverty and wealth. The richness of the poor person's faith may exceed that of the wealthy, but James thinks everyone needs to be reminded of god's will.
*The last verse says "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." This one passage has given centuries of christians reason to be afraid. There are millions of good things that could be done every day, but most people pick and choose. It is impossible to do all the good things that ought to be done. People have personal priorities and they know it. The conclusion: sins of omission are inescapable. So, christianity came up with the idea to pray for forgiveness for their sins of omission, then they are covered. Except some of them still feel guilty and torture themselves over it. But was James actually talking bout every single good thing that hasn't been done? Or was he talking about the preceding topic of saying "if it is the lord's will?" He also could be referring to what follows in chapter five, which addresses the way the rich treat the poor. There were no chapter and verse breaks in the manuscripts from which we get the book of James. Those are a much later addition.
*Just to be clear, for an atheist, there is no "will" that is deciding the life paths of individuals. People make decisions based on the cards life has dealt them. Sometimes life gives you a bad hand. Some people are much luckier than others. Poverty is not a virtue, neither is wealth. Different from a card game, the winner is not the one who had the best hand at the end of the game. That only passes his cards on to his heirs. The end of the game is the same for everyone, death. The wealthy have a human obligation to consider how to help those who have not been as lucky they have. It is right because it is a good thing to relieve human suffering, not because a god or the bible says so.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
James chapter 4 Part 1
After reading chapter 4:
*There must have been fights and quarrels happening among the Jews in the diaspora, because James feels the need to address them. He says they happen when people don't get what they want.but that is their own fault, says James. First, they didn't ask God. Second, if they did ask god, it was with the wrong motive-- personal pleasure. Isn't most of what we want for our personal pleasure? Maybe that's why the number of unanswered prayers far outnumbers the answered ones? Surely it can't mean there is no actual God who is listening with invisible and immaterial ears?
*Next James rebukes the readers for trying to be friends of the world (adulterous people, a term used for those unfaithful to the religion, adulteresses in the literal greek translation) which would make them an enemy of God. This echoes the sentiment in James 1:27 that they need to keep themselves from being polluted by the world.
*Verse 5 is strange. It says, "Or do you think scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?" (NIV) A foot note has two other possible wordings for that sentence. Plus, there doesn't appear to be an old or New Testament scripture that actually says that. In the different versions there doesn't appear to be a consensus as to who is doing the yearning, our spirit or God. If it is God, he is longing jealously for our spirit. If it is our spirit, it longs jealously but who knows for what.
*But it's all okay if the readers are humble and not proud. Then comes ten commands: 1. Submit to God. 2. Resist the devil. 4.Come near to God. 5. Wash your hands. 6. Purify your hearts 7. Grieve, mourn and wail. 8. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. (Cheerful lot, eh?) 9. Humble yourselves before the lord. 10. Do not slander a brother (fellow Jew).
*The last few verses expand the theme of slander and speak about those who would judge their brothers ( other jews). They are told only God has the right to be lawgiver and judge, so they need to back off. I'm guessing that was also a problem or James would not have mentioned it.
I am more than ever convinced that this book was written by a Pharisee. Read a Jewish description of Pharisees and their teachings. Jesus is only mentioned twice, and is not even necessary, except to try to establish this letter as christian. The teachings of the first century Pharisees are fully compatible with the teachings of James.
*There must have been fights and quarrels happening among the Jews in the diaspora, because James feels the need to address them. He says they happen when people don't get what they want.but that is their own fault, says James. First, they didn't ask God. Second, if they did ask god, it was with the wrong motive-- personal pleasure. Isn't most of what we want for our personal pleasure? Maybe that's why the number of unanswered prayers far outnumbers the answered ones? Surely it can't mean there is no actual God who is listening with invisible and immaterial ears?
*Next James rebukes the readers for trying to be friends of the world (adulterous people, a term used for those unfaithful to the religion, adulteresses in the literal greek translation) which would make them an enemy of God. This echoes the sentiment in James 1:27 that they need to keep themselves from being polluted by the world.
*Verse 5 is strange. It says, "Or do you think scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?" (NIV) A foot note has two other possible wordings for that sentence. Plus, there doesn't appear to be an old or New Testament scripture that actually says that. In the different versions there doesn't appear to be a consensus as to who is doing the yearning, our spirit or God. If it is God, he is longing jealously for our spirit. If it is our spirit, it longs jealously but who knows for what.
*But it's all okay if the readers are humble and not proud. Then comes ten commands: 1. Submit to God. 2. Resist the devil. 4.Come near to God. 5. Wash your hands. 6. Purify your hearts 7. Grieve, mourn and wail. 8. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. (Cheerful lot, eh?) 9. Humble yourselves before the lord. 10. Do not slander a brother (fellow Jew).
*The last few verses expand the theme of slander and speak about those who would judge their brothers ( other jews). They are told only God has the right to be lawgiver and judge, so they need to back off. I'm guessing that was also a problem or James would not have mentioned it.
I am more than ever convinced that this book was written by a Pharisee. Read a Jewish description of Pharisees and their teachings. Jesus is only mentioned twice, and is not even necessary, except to try to establish this letter as christian. The teachings of the first century Pharisees are fully compatible with the teachings of James.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
James chapter 3
After reading chapter 3:
*The first section of this chapter is about the destructive power of the tongue. In other words, words can hurt ourselves and others. You don't have to be religious to recognize this is a universal truism. James advocates self control when speaking, to keep ourselves out of trouble, earthly and eternal. Earthly trouble can be quite enough.
*James says that no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. (Like a serpent) That is just one of the many metaphors he uses to describe how destructive words can be. The three things he faults the tongue for are: teaching wrong things, great boasts, and cursing other people. James says this is wrong because people are made in the image of the same God whom they praise.
*Suppose we are not made in the image of a god. For what reasons would we wish to refrain from using our words unwisely or hurtfully? One reason is consequences. People don't like liars, braggarts, and insulting people. They often retaliate in kind or terminate the relationship. If you truly value relationships, you refrain from using your words in this way. If you value your job or your place in society, you learn to curb your tongue to continue recieving the benefits you derive from them. It is in your self interest. Another reason might be because you are truly interested in the welfare of all humanity because you are a human too. You want to be the kind of person who is thoughtful and empathetic. You wish others to treat you as you treat them, so you treat them well. In spite of what James says, the tongue can be tamed but it takes desire and conscious effort.
*The second section, starting in verse 13 compares and contrasts "earthly wisdom" with "heavenly wisdom." James says earthly wisdom is comprised of envy and selfish ambition. It is unspiritual, evil, from the devil, and brings about disorder. He says heavenly wisdom is comprised of the qualities of a peacemaker: pureness, consideration, submissiveness, mercy, and sincerity. What is James trying to say? Don't rock the boat? Sit down and shut up? It seems to me that these descriptions could be looked at from different perspectives. A jealous person could see someone who is a go-getter and financially successful as fundamentally selfish, when it might not necessarily be so. Likewise, a person who appears considerate and submissive could be harboring the vilest thoughts. It's hard to see past a façade.
*James's descriptions of wisdom appear to be based on actions and visible qualities, which is not surprising. He is very focussed on deeds. Actions speak louder than words for him and he judges people by what they do and say. If what people do and say doesn't fit James's idea of what is right, then it must be wrong. He's also not too keen on people who have achieved financial prominence in society.
*We all know that the stereotype of the greedy rich person still persists today. How many people pay attention when a poor person is greedy and selfish? Likewise how many people celebrate the kindness and generosity of a rich person? I'm not saying stereotypes are never remotely true, but motives are very hard to accurately judge. "People are people wherever you go." Isn't it better to assume everyone has good intentions until proven otherwise? Wouldn't you want that done for you?
Remember, all generalizations are false.
*The first section of this chapter is about the destructive power of the tongue. In other words, words can hurt ourselves and others. You don't have to be religious to recognize this is a universal truism. James advocates self control when speaking, to keep ourselves out of trouble, earthly and eternal. Earthly trouble can be quite enough.
*James says that no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. (Like a serpent) That is just one of the many metaphors he uses to describe how destructive words can be. The three things he faults the tongue for are: teaching wrong things, great boasts, and cursing other people. James says this is wrong because people are made in the image of the same God whom they praise.
*Suppose we are not made in the image of a god. For what reasons would we wish to refrain from using our words unwisely or hurtfully? One reason is consequences. People don't like liars, braggarts, and insulting people. They often retaliate in kind or terminate the relationship. If you truly value relationships, you refrain from using your words in this way. If you value your job or your place in society, you learn to curb your tongue to continue recieving the benefits you derive from them. It is in your self interest. Another reason might be because you are truly interested in the welfare of all humanity because you are a human too. You want to be the kind of person who is thoughtful and empathetic. You wish others to treat you as you treat them, so you treat them well. In spite of what James says, the tongue can be tamed but it takes desire and conscious effort.
*The second section, starting in verse 13 compares and contrasts "earthly wisdom" with "heavenly wisdom." James says earthly wisdom is comprised of envy and selfish ambition. It is unspiritual, evil, from the devil, and brings about disorder. He says heavenly wisdom is comprised of the qualities of a peacemaker: pureness, consideration, submissiveness, mercy, and sincerity. What is James trying to say? Don't rock the boat? Sit down and shut up? It seems to me that these descriptions could be looked at from different perspectives. A jealous person could see someone who is a go-getter and financially successful as fundamentally selfish, when it might not necessarily be so. Likewise, a person who appears considerate and submissive could be harboring the vilest thoughts. It's hard to see past a façade.
*James's descriptions of wisdom appear to be based on actions and visible qualities, which is not surprising. He is very focussed on deeds. Actions speak louder than words for him and he judges people by what they do and say. If what people do and say doesn't fit James's idea of what is right, then it must be wrong. He's also not too keen on people who have achieved financial prominence in society.
*We all know that the stereotype of the greedy rich person still persists today. How many people pay attention when a poor person is greedy and selfish? Likewise how many people celebrate the kindness and generosity of a rich person? I'm not saying stereotypes are never remotely true, but motives are very hard to accurately judge. "People are people wherever you go." Isn't it better to assume everyone has good intentions until proven otherwise? Wouldn't you want that done for you?
Remember, all generalizations are false.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
James 2 part 2
Before we continue, we need to acknowledge that the first followers of Jesus were clearly Jews and probably did not intend to leave Judaism and create a distinct religion. Nowhere in the stories of Jesus's life does he seem to expect them to do that. The teachings ascribed to Jesus were actually not that different from those that history outside the New Testament ascribes to the pharisees, even though the gospel accounts and modern christianity would have you believe otherwise. The Pharisees were not literalists and believed in a liberal interpretation of scripture using oral tradition. They believed in resurrection and an afterlife. They were populists not elitists. This man James strikes me as possibly being a Pharisee who lived after the destruction of Jerusalem.
*Moving on. The next section, beginning in verse 14 contrasts faith and deeds. Again James addresses "my brothers, " fellow Jews. James asks,"what good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?" This is a question which has plagued christians since the reformation. James says faith not accompanied by action is dead. How do you prove you have faith if you don't do anything to show it. Intellectual and verbal assent that there is one God means nothing, even the demons acknowledge that. The phrase "one God" (NIV) is a reference to the Shema, a Jewish mantra that says " the lord our God is one." In fact other english translations of verse James 2:19 say "God is one." This is problematic for trinitarians who say that God is three in one.
*Verses 20-24 give the example of Abraham as evidence that faith and deeds go together. Abraham showed true faith by offering his son Isaac on the altar (Genesis 15). That is what real faith does. It makes people willing to do crazy things that they otherwise would not have done. We see it happening in the world today. We also hear people say that they would kill their own children if God asked them to, as proof of the sincerity of their faith. A close relative of mine said this to me. True faith is scary stuff.
*James says this proves a person is justified by what he does, not by faith alone. Then he gives another example, Rahab the prostitute who helped the Hebrew spies in Jericho.(Joshua 2). She was considered righteous for what she did, in spite of her occupation. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." I'm guessing Rahab would have been dead if she hadn't helped the spies. Is an active faith the same thing as self preservation? What if I do all the deeds without faith, can I get by? Who will know? No one that's who. People think you are a wonderful christian if you do all the good stuff and keep your mouth shut about what you really believe. Ask me how I know.
*Moving on. The next section, beginning in verse 14 contrasts faith and deeds. Again James addresses "my brothers, " fellow Jews. James asks,"what good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?" This is a question which has plagued christians since the reformation. James says faith not accompanied by action is dead. How do you prove you have faith if you don't do anything to show it. Intellectual and verbal assent that there is one God means nothing, even the demons acknowledge that. The phrase "one God" (NIV) is a reference to the Shema, a Jewish mantra that says " the lord our God is one." In fact other english translations of verse James 2:19 say "God is one." This is problematic for trinitarians who say that God is three in one.
*Verses 20-24 give the example of Abraham as evidence that faith and deeds go together. Abraham showed true faith by offering his son Isaac on the altar (Genesis 15). That is what real faith does. It makes people willing to do crazy things that they otherwise would not have done. We see it happening in the world today. We also hear people say that they would kill their own children if God asked them to, as proof of the sincerity of their faith. A close relative of mine said this to me. True faith is scary stuff.
*James says this proves a person is justified by what he does, not by faith alone. Then he gives another example, Rahab the prostitute who helped the Hebrew spies in Jericho.(Joshua 2). She was considered righteous for what she did, in spite of her occupation. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." I'm guessing Rahab would have been dead if she hadn't helped the spies. Is an active faith the same thing as self preservation? What if I do all the deeds without faith, can I get by? Who will know? No one that's who. People think you are a wonderful christian if you do all the good stuff and keep your mouth shut about what you really believe. Ask me how I know.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
James chapter 2 part 1
Afte reading chapter 2:
*Chapter 2 begins "my brothers" - remember the greeting in chapter 1. James is writing an open letter to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations- Jews in the diaspora, if we take it literally. Next, set off by commas, is the phrase "as believers in our glorious lord Jesus Christ." Reading through the rest of the chapter, I'm personally leaning toward a conviction that the phrases mentioning Jesus may have been added to this letter after it was circulating, by Jews who became christians or possibly christians trying to influence Jews. This is my own idea, I have not read that anywhere else, though others may have considered it.
*Next, we have the theme of the first section, "Don't show favoritism, " specifically favoritism to the rich. So, favoritism must have been a problem. Where was this favoritism taking place? Well, if you are reading this passage in English, it will say "in your assembly" or "in your meeting." The literal translation from the greek is "in your synagogue." In fact this phrase is translated synagogue in other books of the New Testament, but not in James. Very interesting.
*Getting back to favoritism, it seems the rich jews were being given special privileges and treated better than the poor. James says this is insulting to the poor. Why? Because they are human beings worthy of the respect that all humans should accord each other just by virtue of having humanity in common? Nope. Because God has "chosen" the poor to be "rich in faith." Why are they rich in faith? Probably because they've got nothing to lose. By exploiting the poor, the rich are slandering the noble name of him to whom the readers (Jews in the diaspora) belong. The noble name of whom? It is generally assumed to be christ, but it could just as well be Yahweh, the god of the Jews.
*James then says if they keep the royal law, "love your neighbor as yourself" (lev. 19:18), they are doing right. Favoritism is a sin, presumably because the poor Jews are their neighbors just as much as the rich. If they show favoritism among themselves, they are breaking the law. What law? The law of Moses, of course. James goes on to say that breaking the law in one area makes you a lawbreaker, even if you keep the rest of the law well. Their actions need to be governed by the "law that gives freedom." Again, there no reason to believe he is talking about anything other than the law of moses.
What freedom, you may ask. Well, many people find freedom in knowing exactly what they are supposed to do, without having to think about it. A clearly defined path can reduce stress, especially when the world around you is in turmoil.
*The last verse of this chapter is one of the many paradoxes found in the bible. The readers are told to speak and act as though they will be judged because "Judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who is not merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement." Huh? The only sense I can make of it is that people are required to be merciful but God is not. (?)
*Chapter 2 begins "my brothers" - remember the greeting in chapter 1. James is writing an open letter to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations- Jews in the diaspora, if we take it literally. Next, set off by commas, is the phrase "as believers in our glorious lord Jesus Christ." Reading through the rest of the chapter, I'm personally leaning toward a conviction that the phrases mentioning Jesus may have been added to this letter after it was circulating, by Jews who became christians or possibly christians trying to influence Jews. This is my own idea, I have not read that anywhere else, though others may have considered it.
*Next, we have the theme of the first section, "Don't show favoritism, " specifically favoritism to the rich. So, favoritism must have been a problem. Where was this favoritism taking place? Well, if you are reading this passage in English, it will say "in your assembly" or "in your meeting." The literal translation from the greek is "in your synagogue." In fact this phrase is translated synagogue in other books of the New Testament, but not in James. Very interesting.
*Getting back to favoritism, it seems the rich jews were being given special privileges and treated better than the poor. James says this is insulting to the poor. Why? Because they are human beings worthy of the respect that all humans should accord each other just by virtue of having humanity in common? Nope. Because God has "chosen" the poor to be "rich in faith." Why are they rich in faith? Probably because they've got nothing to lose. By exploiting the poor, the rich are slandering the noble name of him to whom the readers (Jews in the diaspora) belong. The noble name of whom? It is generally assumed to be christ, but it could just as well be Yahweh, the god of the Jews.
*James then says if they keep the royal law, "love your neighbor as yourself" (lev. 19:18), they are doing right. Favoritism is a sin, presumably because the poor Jews are their neighbors just as much as the rich. If they show favoritism among themselves, they are breaking the law. What law? The law of Moses, of course. James goes on to say that breaking the law in one area makes you a lawbreaker, even if you keep the rest of the law well. Their actions need to be governed by the "law that gives freedom." Again, there no reason to believe he is talking about anything other than the law of moses.
What freedom, you may ask. Well, many people find freedom in knowing exactly what they are supposed to do, without having to think about it. A clearly defined path can reduce stress, especially when the world around you is in turmoil.
*The last verse of this chapter is one of the many paradoxes found in the bible. The readers are told to speak and act as though they will be judged because "Judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who is not merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement." Huh? The only sense I can make of it is that people are required to be merciful but God is not. (?)
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
James 1 part 2
*Verse 19 gives us the theme for the rest of the chapter, be quick to listen and slow to speak and slow to be angry. Anger is addressed first. In place of anger, the readers are encouraged to accept the word planted in them, which can save them. I think we can assume that many Jews were angry and felt the need to be saved. James says don't be angry, instead listen to "the word" and do what it says. What is the word? Well it is not the New Testament. That didn't exist when James was writing this letter. It can't be the supposed words of Jesus, they were probably not written down yet, and Jews scattered among the nations might not be familiar with them. It is most likely what christians would call the Old Testament.
*James says, "Do not merely listen to the word...do what it says." Jews scattered around the world would have listened to the Torah being read in synagogues. They would not have had personal copies of the scriptures in their homes. He calls what they are listening to, "the perfect law that gives freedom." What else could this be to Jews but the law of Moses? If it wasn't, how would the general Jewish reader know without an explanation? If we take the simplest most obvious explanation, James is encouraging fellow Jews in the diaspora to continue to follow the law of Moses in order to be blessed.
*Lastly, James says a religious person exercises great verbal self control, otherwise his religion is worthless. Then he makes a statement that is very near and dear to more liberal christians,"Religion that is pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. " In the diaspora there would have been many Jewish widows and orphans who needed support and many Jews would have been tempted to leave their faith in order to fit into the societies in which they found themselves.
*So, as I read the first chapter, a man with the same name as the father of the tribe of Israel, Jacob (translated James), is telling Jews in the diaspora to learn to be joyful in their poverty and trials, don't doubt, don't look for ways to get rich, don't blame God, don't get angry, follow the law of Moses, and take care of other Israelites who are unable to take care of themselves. If the phrase "and of the lord Jesus Christ" was not in the first verse, would we think of this as a christian document?
*James says, "Do not merely listen to the word...do what it says." Jews scattered around the world would have listened to the Torah being read in synagogues. They would not have had personal copies of the scriptures in their homes. He calls what they are listening to, "the perfect law that gives freedom." What else could this be to Jews but the law of Moses? If it wasn't, how would the general Jewish reader know without an explanation? If we take the simplest most obvious explanation, James is encouraging fellow Jews in the diaspora to continue to follow the law of Moses in order to be blessed.
*Lastly, James says a religious person exercises great verbal self control, otherwise his religion is worthless. Then he makes a statement that is very near and dear to more liberal christians,"Religion that is pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. " In the diaspora there would have been many Jewish widows and orphans who needed support and many Jews would have been tempted to leave their faith in order to fit into the societies in which they found themselves.
*So, as I read the first chapter, a man with the same name as the father of the tribe of Israel, Jacob (translated James), is telling Jews in the diaspora to learn to be joyful in their poverty and trials, don't doubt, don't look for ways to get rich, don't blame God, don't get angry, follow the law of Moses, and take care of other Israelites who are unable to take care of themselves. If the phrase "and of the lord Jesus Christ" was not in the first verse, would we think of this as a christian document?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)