What did we learn when we read 1 Peter? The author identifies himself as Peter at the beginning and mentions two traditional companions of Peter at the end, Silas and Mark. However, he never mentions anything Peter did or said in the gospel stories, Acts, or Paul's writings. He only says he was a witness to Christ's suffering. It is unclear to me if that is supposed to be literal or metaphorical.
No other New Testament people are mentioned, except Jesus. The author does not claim to be writing the words of god or to be inspired. At the end, it is implied that Silas did the actual physical writing and Peter dictated. The letter claims to be written to Believers in the region of Anatolia/ modern Turkey. This letter actually calls believers christians, which no other other New Testament writer did, except the author of Acts. A phrase at the end of the letter implies it is coming from Rome, but does not directly say that. No other New Testament places are mentioned.
There are no New Testament events mentioned except the crucifixion of Christ. The only Old Testament event mentioned is the story of Noah's flood. Besides Noah, only Abraham and Sarah are mentioned. Several Old Testament scriptures are quoted, sometimes differently than what is found in my Old Testament, and often out of context, as usual.
The author does not seem to be promoting any departure or separation from Judaism. It is clear that he assumes his readers are familiar with Jewish scriptures, which makes them exiled Jews or Gentile followers of Yahweh. It could be a combination of both.
There are no deeds, words, or teachings, of Jesus recorded in this letter. I find that particularly strange from someone who was supposedly his constant companion for one to three years. There are no mentions of any Christian rituals besides baptism, which many people forget was a Jewish ritual before it became a christian one. Angels and the Devil are mentioned. Heaven is waiting.
Unique to this book is the teaching that after Jesus was crucified, he went to the realm of the dead and preached the gospel to the souls that had been imprisoned there since the flood. It has supposedly already happened, not something that will happen in the future as some groups teach. In this book, Jesus is not the high priest of the heavenly temple, but simultaneously its cornerstone and capstone. He is also a stumbling block to nonbelievers. Believers are living stones in this spiritual house, and a holy priesthood. Biblical authors do not have any qualms about mixing metaphors. Jesus is also called the lamb of god, without blemish, chosen before the creation of the world.
To be fair, positive things like hospitality and love are also taught. Malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and slander are not acceptable. These Christians are urged not to repay evil with evil or insult with insult.
The theme of the book appears to be salvation through submission and obedience to all authority, the ultimate authority being god, of course. The reward for obedience is a "crown of glory that will never fade away." The reader is told to expect and rejoice in suffering as a christian, especially if it is for doing good. All this suffering is supposed to be for a short time because "the end of all things is near."
Next, we will look at 2 Peter.
Showing posts with label Abraham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abraham. Show all posts
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Friday, May 31, 2019
1 Peter part four
We have arrived at 1Peter 2:18. Last time, the author was telling his "free" readers to submit to the governing authorities. Now he is telling the slaves to submit to their masters, "with all respect." Not only to the good ones, but also the abusive ones that make them suffer unjustly. Why? Because it's commendable! And who is going to commend them, the bad master? Look what a great job you are doing being brave while he beats you. God loves you for it. Really? Or is this teaching because the author doesn't want christians to have a reputation for fighting against injustice? It's embarrassing and draws unwanted attention. Instead, he wants them to believe that the real credit is in suffering for doing good. The same exact suffering, for rebelling, gets you no points with god.
Then the author tells the readers they were "called" to suffer, because Christ suffered for them, leaving them an example. They should follow in his footsteps. Just so you know, Jesus suffered for about six hours in the entire story of his life, as found in the gospels. So that's all the reader has to suffer, right? The author then tries to stress the suffering of Jesus by quoting Isaiah 53:9, "He committed no sin (had done no violence in stead of committed no sin), and no deceit was found in his mouth." The words in parentheses are what my Old Testament version of that verse says. This committing no sin supposedly happened "when they (who is they?) hurled insults at him." At the time he was suffering, he didn't retaliate, he just trusted god. Be like Jesus, go to your grave suffering in silence.
Then the reader is told that Jesus bore their sins in his body on the tree (presumably referring to the cross.) so that they might "die to sins and live for righteousness." Why? Because they have been healed by his wounds. How does that work? How does one person's physical wounds heal another persons sins? How can a physical body carry the world's sins on it? Sins aren't even actual entities to be carried. They have no weight. They are offenses against an invisible god that does not choose to prove he actually exists.
The next group of people who are told to submit to authority are wives. They are to submit to their husbands in the same way that slaves are to submit to their masters and christ submitted to humiliating suffering. That is what it says. Don't go 'splaining how biblical slavery and biblical marriage was so much better than early American slavery. Didn't we just read about suffering, beatings, insults, and injustice?
Why should the women submit? The author says it's to convince their husbands about the truth of "the word." How are they to do this? They are to forgo finery and all attempts at outward beauty. Instead they are to practice inner beauty by having a "gentle and quiet spirit." That's the way god likes his women. The author tells us that Sarah was submissive like that to Abraham. As if. Go back and read the stories. Sarah was a shrew and possessed such great external beauty that kings and Pharaohs wanted her. The author conveniently forgets that and tells the readers they will be Sarah's daughters if they take her example. He must be writing to Jews. Gentiles would not know anything about Sarah or care if they are her daughters.
Next time we take a look at husbands. Till then. Share this site if you are enjoying the content. Thanks!
Then the author tells the readers they were "called" to suffer, because Christ suffered for them, leaving them an example. They should follow in his footsteps. Just so you know, Jesus suffered for about six hours in the entire story of his life, as found in the gospels. So that's all the reader has to suffer, right? The author then tries to stress the suffering of Jesus by quoting Isaiah 53:9, "He committed no sin (had done no violence in stead of committed no sin), and no deceit was found in his mouth." The words in parentheses are what my Old Testament version of that verse says. This committing no sin supposedly happened "when they (who is they?) hurled insults at him." At the time he was suffering, he didn't retaliate, he just trusted god. Be like Jesus, go to your grave suffering in silence.
Then the reader is told that Jesus bore their sins in his body on the tree (presumably referring to the cross.) so that they might "die to sins and live for righteousness." Why? Because they have been healed by his wounds. How does that work? How does one person's physical wounds heal another persons sins? How can a physical body carry the world's sins on it? Sins aren't even actual entities to be carried. They have no weight. They are offenses against an invisible god that does not choose to prove he actually exists.
The next group of people who are told to submit to authority are wives. They are to submit to their husbands in the same way that slaves are to submit to their masters and christ submitted to humiliating suffering. That is what it says. Don't go 'splaining how biblical slavery and biblical marriage was so much better than early American slavery. Didn't we just read about suffering, beatings, insults, and injustice?
Why should the women submit? The author says it's to convince their husbands about the truth of "the word." How are they to do this? They are to forgo finery and all attempts at outward beauty. Instead they are to practice inner beauty by having a "gentle and quiet spirit." That's the way god likes his women. The author tells us that Sarah was submissive like that to Abraham. As if. Go back and read the stories. Sarah was a shrew and possessed such great external beauty that kings and Pharaohs wanted her. The author conveniently forgets that and tells the readers they will be Sarah's daughters if they take her example. He must be writing to Jews. Gentiles would not know anything about Sarah or care if they are her daughters.
Next time we take a look at husbands. Till then. Share this site if you are enjoying the content. Thanks!
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
Hebrews part fifteen
We are now at Hebrews 11:17. It's time to read more about Abraham's faith. Abraham's faith was so great that he offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice when god tested him. God was being a sadistic bastard. He had previously told Abraham that the promise of numerous offspring would be fulfilled through Isaac. The Hebrews author claims Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because he "reasoned" that god could raise the dead. Baloney. The author of Hebrews is trying to use the old testament story to prove that belief in resurrection has always been part of Hebrew beliefs. There is actually no indication in most of the old testament that anyone of the ancient Abrahamic tradition believed in a resurrection of the dead. Sheol was the fate of every dead person. The author of Hebrews goes on to say that "figuratively speaking, he (Abraham) did receive Isaac back from the dead." Just so you know, figurative speech doesn't have any more substance than faith.
Next, the author says, that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob's and Esau's future. In other words, he said magical words at them that were supposed to have some mystical power over their lives. By faith, Jacob also "blessed" Joseph's sons. By faith, Joseph spoke of the exodus from egypt and what he wanted done with his bones. Joseph did speak of the Israelites leaving Egypt, going to the promised land, and taking his bones with them, in Genesis 50, but there were no other specifics. We are not going to go into the fact that none of the stuff we are reading about actually happened. So, it doesn't matter what these supposed patriarchs supposedly said or did and why they did it. It's the same as if we would take the Iliad and the Odyssey seriously.
The author goes on to say, "by faith Moses's parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw that he was no ordinary child, and they were afraid of the king's edict." Any parent worth being called a parent would try to do anything they could to save their child from death. Faith has nothing to do with it.
We are also told that "by faith, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of god rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time." Again, this never actually happened, but let's look at what Exodus says. Did Moses refuse to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter? Nope, can't find that. Did Moses choose to be mistreated along with the people of god? Nope, can't find that either. In fact, Exodus 2:11 says Moses went out and watched his people doing hard labor.
In Hebrews 11:26, the author says, Moses "regarded disgrace for the sake of christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt because he was looking ahead to his reward." This is blatant nonsense. Go back and read Exodus 2. Moses killed a man and became a fugitive, eventually going incognito as a shepherd. He had no eternal reward in mind only saving his own skin. Moses had no christ in mind.
Next, the author says, "By faith (Moses) left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger, because he saw him who is invisible." At least that part is true to the Exodus story. The reader is also told,"By faith (Moses) kept the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel." That also happened in the story. Plus, Moses never pleaded on behalf of all the innocent children that would die that night. Nice guy.
Some more things that supposedly happened by faith: the people walked through the Red Sea on dry land, the walls of Jericho fell, Rahab welcomed spies and was not killed. These are all stories that most likely never happened, so faith had nothing to do with them. Besides, if faith was a factor, it wasn't faith in Jesus or a resurrection, was it?
Till next time.
Next, the author says, that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob's and Esau's future. In other words, he said magical words at them that were supposed to have some mystical power over their lives. By faith, Jacob also "blessed" Joseph's sons. By faith, Joseph spoke of the exodus from egypt and what he wanted done with his bones. Joseph did speak of the Israelites leaving Egypt, going to the promised land, and taking his bones with them, in Genesis 50, but there were no other specifics. We are not going to go into the fact that none of the stuff we are reading about actually happened. So, it doesn't matter what these supposed patriarchs supposedly said or did and why they did it. It's the same as if we would take the Iliad and the Odyssey seriously.
The author goes on to say, "by faith Moses's parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw that he was no ordinary child, and they were afraid of the king's edict." Any parent worth being called a parent would try to do anything they could to save their child from death. Faith has nothing to do with it.
We are also told that "by faith, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of god rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time." Again, this never actually happened, but let's look at what Exodus says. Did Moses refuse to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter? Nope, can't find that. Did Moses choose to be mistreated along with the people of god? Nope, can't find that either. In fact, Exodus 2:11 says Moses went out and watched his people doing hard labor.
In Hebrews 11:26, the author says, Moses "regarded disgrace for the sake of christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt because he was looking ahead to his reward." This is blatant nonsense. Go back and read Exodus 2. Moses killed a man and became a fugitive, eventually going incognito as a shepherd. He had no eternal reward in mind only saving his own skin. Moses had no christ in mind.
Next, the author says, "By faith (Moses) left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger, because he saw him who is invisible." At least that part is true to the Exodus story. The reader is also told,"By faith (Moses) kept the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel." That also happened in the story. Plus, Moses never pleaded on behalf of all the innocent children that would die that night. Nice guy.
Some more things that supposedly happened by faith: the people walked through the Red Sea on dry land, the walls of Jericho fell, Rahab welcomed spies and was not killed. These are all stories that most likely never happened, so faith had nothing to do with them. Besides, if faith was a factor, it wasn't faith in Jesus or a resurrection, was it?
Till next time.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
Hebrews part fourteen
We are now at Hebrews chapter eleven, verse 4. Will the famous faith chapter convince us to have faith in Jesus our heavenly high priest? We shall see. The reader is now going to be told about various old testament characters who had faith. First up is Abel. According to the author, faith made Able give a better sacrifice than Cain did. What was different about Abel's sacrifice? It was a Blood sacrifice. The Hebrews author has already told us blood needs to be shed for god to keep his promises. Cain didn't get the blood sacrifice thing so he offered grain. God liked Abel's sacrifice better. As we all know, Cain killed Abel. Now Abel is dead. (Genesis 4)However, according to Hebrews, Abel still speaks by faith. I can't hear him. Can you?
The next faithful person mentioned is Enoch. Enoch didn't die. The old testament tells us god took him away. (Genesis 5) Enoch pleased god because he had faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please god....Anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." You gotta believe, or you get nutthin'. And sometimes you get nothing even when you believe.
Next up: Noah. He built the ark by faith when he was warned about the future flood. By faith he saved his family and condemned the rest of the world. That way he became one of the heirs of righteousness. Great job Noah! It's so righteous to watch everyone die while you float away to safety.
Abraham is fourth on the faithful list. Abraham went to a far away land because a voice in his head told him that the land would eventually be his. He believed it. Abraham lived in the foreign land. So did his son Isaac and grandson Jacob. They were also supposed to be heirs of the promise that had been given to Abraham. I don't remember if they heard the voice in their heads too. Abraham's faith made him believe the voice in his head when it told him he would have descendants that were as numerous as stars or grains of sand. Even though his wife was barren and Abraham was no spring chicken, his faith in the voice enabled him to become a father. Is that how babies are made, through faith?
Each of the faithful people mentioned are said to have remained faithful till they died. (Let that be a lesson to you.) They never actually got what the voice in their heads promised them. They just "saw and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted they were aliens and strangers on earth." Except, the Old testament never says that those faithful people saw and welcomed a promise from a distance. And the only time any of them said they were aliens and strangers was in Genesis 23:4, when Abraham told the Hittites that he was a stranger among them.
Even though those people never said those things, the Hebrews author says that people who do say those things are "looking for a country of their own." (Or one that they can take away from someone else?) Otherwise, they would have taken the opportunity to return to the country they had left. He must be talking just about Abraham, because this doesn't apply to all the others. The author goes on to say "They (Who's they?) were looking for a better country-- a heavenly one." Of course they were. That's why they never actually mentioned it. Must have slipped their minds.Nevertheless, that''s why god has prepared a (heavenly) city for them. Lucky dogs.
Till next time.
The next faithful person mentioned is Enoch. Enoch didn't die. The old testament tells us god took him away. (Genesis 5) Enoch pleased god because he had faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please god....Anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." You gotta believe, or you get nutthin'. And sometimes you get nothing even when you believe.
Next up: Noah. He built the ark by faith when he was warned about the future flood. By faith he saved his family and condemned the rest of the world. That way he became one of the heirs of righteousness. Great job Noah! It's so righteous to watch everyone die while you float away to safety.
Abraham is fourth on the faithful list. Abraham went to a far away land because a voice in his head told him that the land would eventually be his. He believed it. Abraham lived in the foreign land. So did his son Isaac and grandson Jacob. They were also supposed to be heirs of the promise that had been given to Abraham. I don't remember if they heard the voice in their heads too. Abraham's faith made him believe the voice in his head when it told him he would have descendants that were as numerous as stars or grains of sand. Even though his wife was barren and Abraham was no spring chicken, his faith in the voice enabled him to become a father. Is that how babies are made, through faith?
Each of the faithful people mentioned are said to have remained faithful till they died. (Let that be a lesson to you.) They never actually got what the voice in their heads promised them. They just "saw and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted they were aliens and strangers on earth." Except, the Old testament never says that those faithful people saw and welcomed a promise from a distance. And the only time any of them said they were aliens and strangers was in Genesis 23:4, when Abraham told the Hittites that he was a stranger among them.
Even though those people never said those things, the Hebrews author says that people who do say those things are "looking for a country of their own." (Or one that they can take away from someone else?) Otherwise, they would have taken the opportunity to return to the country they had left. He must be talking just about Abraham, because this doesn't apply to all the others. The author goes on to say "They (Who's they?) were looking for a better country-- a heavenly one." Of course they were. That's why they never actually mentioned it. Must have slipped their minds.Nevertheless, that''s why god has prepared a (heavenly) city for them. Lucky dogs.
Till next time.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Hebrews part eight.
We continue at Hebrews 6:9-12. The author appeals to the readers to continue to be be diligent and faithful to the end, imitating those faithful who have already inherited the promised salvation by their faith and patience.
In verse 13, the author invokes Abraham, the original Hebrew patriarch. God swore on himself to Abraham a promise to bless him with many descendants. Abraham waited patiently and got what he was promised! After he was dead. Of course this promise is referring to the Hebrews to whom the author is writing.
Next the author goes on to use biblical logic to explain how god's oath was so special because god cannot lie; and it should be clear to the heirs of the promise that the nature of his purpose is unchanging. Next, is an interesting sentence: "We who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." Whoah. "We who have fled?" The author is including himself among a group of Jews who has fled from somewhere? Why does no one ever talk about that?
Is that hope the hope of an afterlife/sabbath rest that was spoken of previously? I think it is. The author continues to tell the reader that the hope is an anchor for the soul. "It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus who went before us, has entered on our behalf." This is obviously a metaphor. The inner sanctuary represents the presence of god. The physical inner sanctuary was in the physical temple. Jesus never actually entered the temple sanctuary. Only the high priest entered the inner sanctuary of the physical temple. Since Jesus is called a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, he has entered the presence of god. Or since Jesus has entered the presence of God, he must be a high priest. Either way works for the author's purpose.
We are now in chapter seven. The author continues to talk of Melchizedek. He says that Melchizedek was priest of god most high. His name means "king of righteousness." Being the king of Salem, he was also the "king of peace", because Salem means peace. Then the author tells us Melchizedek had no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life, like the son of god he remains a priest forever.
Let us remember that there was no punctuation in the original greek manuscripts. Just suppose I put a period after "like the son of god." What happens then? The son of god has no, mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life! Who is this son of god? Is he the same person we read about in Matthew and Luke? I don't think the author of Hebrews has read those "gospel" accounts. I don't think Paul did either. Not to mention Timothy, James, Peter, Jude, or Mark. Was he even an actual factual person?
In verse four, the author of Hebrews goes on to talk about how great Melchizedek was. Even Abraham gave him one tenth of some plunder. The law of Moses required the Jews to give 1/10 of everything to the levitical priests who were also descendants of Abraham. Melchizedek was not a descendant of Abraham, but he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him. Blessings are given by greater people to lesser. (More bible logic) The Levite priests are men who die, but Melchizedek is declared to be living. Really? Where? I think he means in Psalms when someone wrote Melchizedek is a priest forever. That seems to be interpreted as having eternal life.
Next is some of the weirdest bible logic I've ever read: "One might even say that Levi (in the form of the levitical priests), who collects the tenth (from the Jews), paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor." That is one convoluted messed up way to prove that the Jews retroactively paid a tenth to Melchizedek and were blessed by him.
More next time.
In verse 13, the author invokes Abraham, the original Hebrew patriarch. God swore on himself to Abraham a promise to bless him with many descendants. Abraham waited patiently and got what he was promised! After he was dead. Of course this promise is referring to the Hebrews to whom the author is writing.
Next the author goes on to use biblical logic to explain how god's oath was so special because god cannot lie; and it should be clear to the heirs of the promise that the nature of his purpose is unchanging. Next, is an interesting sentence: "We who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." Whoah. "We who have fled?" The author is including himself among a group of Jews who has fled from somewhere? Why does no one ever talk about that?
Is that hope the hope of an afterlife/sabbath rest that was spoken of previously? I think it is. The author continues to tell the reader that the hope is an anchor for the soul. "It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus who went before us, has entered on our behalf." This is obviously a metaphor. The inner sanctuary represents the presence of god. The physical inner sanctuary was in the physical temple. Jesus never actually entered the temple sanctuary. Only the high priest entered the inner sanctuary of the physical temple. Since Jesus is called a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, he has entered the presence of god. Or since Jesus has entered the presence of God, he must be a high priest. Either way works for the author's purpose.
We are now in chapter seven. The author continues to talk of Melchizedek. He says that Melchizedek was priest of god most high. His name means "king of righteousness." Being the king of Salem, he was also the "king of peace", because Salem means peace. Then the author tells us Melchizedek had no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life, like the son of god he remains a priest forever.
Let us remember that there was no punctuation in the original greek manuscripts. Just suppose I put a period after "like the son of god." What happens then? The son of god has no, mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life! Who is this son of god? Is he the same person we read about in Matthew and Luke? I don't think the author of Hebrews has read those "gospel" accounts. I don't think Paul did either. Not to mention Timothy, James, Peter, Jude, or Mark. Was he even an actual factual person?
In verse four, the author of Hebrews goes on to talk about how great Melchizedek was. Even Abraham gave him one tenth of some plunder. The law of Moses required the Jews to give 1/10 of everything to the levitical priests who were also descendants of Abraham. Melchizedek was not a descendant of Abraham, but he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him. Blessings are given by greater people to lesser. (More bible logic) The Levite priests are men who die, but Melchizedek is declared to be living. Really? Where? I think he means in Psalms when someone wrote Melchizedek is a priest forever. That seems to be interpreted as having eternal life.
Next is some of the weirdest bible logic I've ever read: "One might even say that Levi (in the form of the levitical priests), who collects the tenth (from the Jews), paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor." That is one convoluted messed up way to prove that the Jews retroactively paid a tenth to Melchizedek and were blessed by him.
More next time.
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Resurrection part one
I feel like we need to cover resurrection in the bible as a natural segue to the study of heaven. First I want to note that the word resurrection does not appear at all in the Old Testament. What do you make of that? In the New Testament, the Greek word usually translated resurrection is anastasis, which according to Strong's concordance, means "standing up again" or a literal resurrection from the dead. It can also be used in a figurative sense. We will see how that works as we go through the scriptures.
We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.
In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.
Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?
In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.
We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.
John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?
More to come.
We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.
In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.
Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?
In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.
We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.
John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?
More to come.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Jesus Burning part 5, wrap up.
We continue on in Luke. In chapter 16, we come to the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus was a poor beggar who was never helped by the rich man. They both died. The rich man went to hell hades) and was in torment. Lazarus went to a place far way, but not so far that the rich man couldn't see him with "Father Abraham." (You remember Abraham, the lying, deadbeat father of Ishmael who was willing to kill his son Isaac.) The rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus with water to cool his tongue because he was in agony in the fire. This looks to me like the only time in the bible that hades, not gehenna, is said to be the fiery tormenting place. Plus, they went there right after death, which leaves out the gathering of souls and final judgement.
Abraham tells the rich man that he just got what he deserved, a kind of divine karma. Plus, Lazarus couldn't deliver water if he wanted to. An uncrossable chasm has been fixed between the two realms. However, they seem to be able to see each other. Lovely.
In chapter 19, we have a version of the parable of the talents that we saw in Matthew 25. This time the money the master (god figure) doled out is in minas. A talent was 60 minas. The master/king in this story is not quite as wealthy as the last one. Anyway, again, one servant did not invest the money he was given and increase it for the master. The money was taken away from that servant and given to a servant who had made interest on his minas. The king then says, "To everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Remember that this king is supposed to be a representation of god. This parable is supposed to represent divine judgement.
There are a few more vague references to judgement in the book of Luke, but nothing obvious. Next we look at John. I could find no obvious references to a final judgement/condemnation, until I reached chapter 12. Verse 48 says,"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him in the last day." There are no specifics about how what condemnation entails.
The next reference is in chapter 15. There Jesus calls himself the true vine. Unproductive branches, those that don't remain in the vine, are pruned off and cast into the fire and burned, an obvious reference to divine punishment. Believe it or not, that seems to be it. We are at the end of our study of damnation and hell. There may be a few more scattered references, but I'm tired of this topic.
What have we learned? It appears that the modern generic version of the christian hell is a muddled mash up of all the elements we have found scattered throughout the bible. If I were to try to create a sythesis with as few internal contradictions as possible, I would say that after death, everyone goes to hades/sheol, which is underground. In hades, there may be separate places for good people and bad people separated by a chasm. The bad people are those who did not help the poor and needy, those who did not follow jesus's teachings, and those who were unproductive for god. They may or may not be thrown into a pit (which may be tartarus/abaddon) or a fire in hades. The good people may or may not get to be with Abraham. Some stories seem to imply that the dead are still possessors of physical bodies that feel pain or pleasure. Some people get to be resurrected early. They have priveledges. At the last judgement, everyone still in hades comes out to get their eternal reward or punishment. Everyone is judged according to what they have done. The sinners, unbelievers, Satan, and hades, are all thrown into a lake of fire (of unknown location), the second death, which may or may not be Gehenna. They may or may not be tortured forever. If the parables acurately represent god, he will have no qualms at meting out the consequences of his divine wrath. Jesus and the saved may or may not watch the punishment of the damned. Is this what you believe? Why?
Abraham tells the rich man that he just got what he deserved, a kind of divine karma. Plus, Lazarus couldn't deliver water if he wanted to. An uncrossable chasm has been fixed between the two realms. However, they seem to be able to see each other. Lovely.
In chapter 19, we have a version of the parable of the talents that we saw in Matthew 25. This time the money the master (god figure) doled out is in minas. A talent was 60 minas. The master/king in this story is not quite as wealthy as the last one. Anyway, again, one servant did not invest the money he was given and increase it for the master. The money was taken away from that servant and given to a servant who had made interest on his minas. The king then says, "To everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Remember that this king is supposed to be a representation of god. This parable is supposed to represent divine judgement.
There are a few more vague references to judgement in the book of Luke, but nothing obvious. Next we look at John. I could find no obvious references to a final judgement/condemnation, until I reached chapter 12. Verse 48 says,"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him in the last day." There are no specifics about how what condemnation entails.
The next reference is in chapter 15. There Jesus calls himself the true vine. Unproductive branches, those that don't remain in the vine, are pruned off and cast into the fire and burned, an obvious reference to divine punishment. Believe it or not, that seems to be it. We are at the end of our study of damnation and hell. There may be a few more scattered references, but I'm tired of this topic.
What have we learned? It appears that the modern generic version of the christian hell is a muddled mash up of all the elements we have found scattered throughout the bible. If I were to try to create a sythesis with as few internal contradictions as possible, I would say that after death, everyone goes to hades/sheol, which is underground. In hades, there may be separate places for good people and bad people separated by a chasm. The bad people are those who did not help the poor and needy, those who did not follow jesus's teachings, and those who were unproductive for god. They may or may not be thrown into a pit (which may be tartarus/abaddon) or a fire in hades. The good people may or may not get to be with Abraham. Some stories seem to imply that the dead are still possessors of physical bodies that feel pain or pleasure. Some people get to be resurrected early. They have priveledges. At the last judgement, everyone still in hades comes out to get their eternal reward or punishment. Everyone is judged according to what they have done. The sinners, unbelievers, Satan, and hades, are all thrown into a lake of fire (of unknown location), the second death, which may or may not be Gehenna. They may or may not be tortured forever. If the parables acurately represent god, he will have no qualms at meting out the consequences of his divine wrath. Jesus and the saved may or may not watch the punishment of the damned. Is this what you believe? Why?
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Hell part 5
Next we will look at the Greek word Hades as translated into hell in the New Testament, in KJV English Bibles. It occurs twice in Matthew, twice in Luke, three times in Acts, and four times in Revelation. Even though Hades and Gehenna are both translated into hell, they are not the same place. In fact, Hades started out as the Greek god of the underworld, the place all people go when they die. When the ancients translated the Hebrew bible (What is now called the Old Testament) into The Greek bible called the Septuagint, they translated the Hebrew word Sheol into the Greek word Hades. Interestingly, the NIV retains the Greek word Hades and also uses "realm of the dead." It does not change the word to hell like it does Gehenna. Other versions change the word to death or the grave instead. Read about the Christian views of Hades here. (Link)
As you can see from the above link, the different versions of christianity hold many differing beliefs about hell or hades. I can tell you that the church of christ denomination which I have attended for over forty years, teaches very little about hell. It has no sophisticated theology or doctrine of hell or hades. Basically, people are taught that if you do not believe the gospel and get baptized (essential) you go to hell, what they view as eternal damnation/separation from god, when you die. No ifs ands or buts. The beliefs about hell of most people in the pews is very simplistic.
Lets look at the verses with the Greek hades translated into the English hell in the KJV:
*Matt 11:23- here the city of Capernaum is being told it will go to hell (hades in the NIV)because it didn't repent after Jesus performed miracles there.
*Matt 16:18- this is the famous passage where Jesus tells Peter "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (NIV-gates of hades will not overcome it.)
*Luke 10:15-This passage repeats the sentiment in Matthew 11:23 that Capernaum will go to hell.
*Luke 16:19-29 contains the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. In it a poor man dies and finds comfort "in the bosom of Abraham." A rich man, who apparently never helped the poor man, dies and finds himself in hell being tormented and burnt by flames. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to give him water to cool his tongue, Abraham says the gulf between the two places is too great. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of hell. Abraham says they already have the law and the prophets. If they don't believe them, they won't believe someone back from the dead. Hell here is hades in the NIV. Also, let us remember this is a parable not a story about a supposed actual event.
*Acts 2:25-36 contains part of Peter's sermon to a crowd, on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus was taken up into heaven. In it Peter quotes Psalm 16:10- "For thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt though suffer thine holy one to see corruption." Peter claims that since David died and was buried he can't have been talking about himself, so he must have been prophesying about Jesus. Jesus supposedly did not remain in the land of the dead and his body did not rot. The NIV calls this hell Hades in Acts and Sheol in Psalms. I think it is also important to note that the word "holy" in both Acts and Psalms does not mean divine. It means righteous or pious.
In the next post, we will look at hell/hades in the book of Revelation.
As you can see from the above link, the different versions of christianity hold many differing beliefs about hell or hades. I can tell you that the church of christ denomination which I have attended for over forty years, teaches very little about hell. It has no sophisticated theology or doctrine of hell or hades. Basically, people are taught that if you do not believe the gospel and get baptized (essential) you go to hell, what they view as eternal damnation/separation from god, when you die. No ifs ands or buts. The beliefs about hell of most people in the pews is very simplistic.
Lets look at the verses with the Greek hades translated into the English hell in the KJV:
*Matt 11:23- here the city of Capernaum is being told it will go to hell (hades in the NIV)because it didn't repent after Jesus performed miracles there.
*Matt 16:18- this is the famous passage where Jesus tells Peter "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (NIV-gates of hades will not overcome it.)
*Luke 10:15-This passage repeats the sentiment in Matthew 11:23 that Capernaum will go to hell.
*Luke 16:19-29 contains the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. In it a poor man dies and finds comfort "in the bosom of Abraham." A rich man, who apparently never helped the poor man, dies and finds himself in hell being tormented and burnt by flames. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to give him water to cool his tongue, Abraham says the gulf between the two places is too great. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of hell. Abraham says they already have the law and the prophets. If they don't believe them, they won't believe someone back from the dead. Hell here is hades in the NIV. Also, let us remember this is a parable not a story about a supposed actual event.
*Acts 2:25-36 contains part of Peter's sermon to a crowd, on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus was taken up into heaven. In it Peter quotes Psalm 16:10- "For thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt though suffer thine holy one to see corruption." Peter claims that since David died and was buried he can't have been talking about himself, so he must have been prophesying about Jesus. Jesus supposedly did not remain in the land of the dead and his body did not rot. The NIV calls this hell Hades in Acts and Sheol in Psalms. I think it is also important to note that the word "holy" in both Acts and Psalms does not mean divine. It means righteous or pious.
In the next post, we will look at hell/hades in the book of Revelation.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Galatians chapter 4 part 2
*In verses 21-31, Paul is trying to redeem his metaphor of God and God's relationship to the jews and gentiles by comparing it to Abraham's relationship to his two sons, born of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was a slave, Sarah was a free woman. Abraham's son by Hagar was "born in the ordinary way." That is Abraham consented to have sex with his wife's slave, at his wife's urging. Whether the slave consented doesn't enter into the matter. The child that was born would have been a slave also. The children of slave women, even by their masters, were slaves. This has been a fact of slavery even up to the age of American enslavement of Africans. Let's be clear, "Biblical slavery" was not any different than the slavery that was fought against in more modern times. It certainly wasn't a kinder more humane slavery. Slaves were only treated as well as their masters wanted to treat them.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 part 4
*Now we finish the chapter, starting at verse 26. The Jews have been released from the prison of the law, what about everyone else? Now, Paul says, every single person who has faith in christ is a child of god. Everyone who has been baptized has clothed themselves with christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." Paul is saying that distinctions of ethnicity, social status, and gender don't matter. "If you belong to christ, you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."
*There Is a question I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.
What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package. Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?
In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?
*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter, if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.
*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.
*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.
*There Is a question I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.
What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package. Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?
In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?
*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter, if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.
*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.
*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 part 2
*After the last post, I began to think: If Gentiles were not under the law of Moses, and they were not required to be, then the law's curse never applied to them. Since Jesus became cursed to remove the curse from the law. why did Gentiles even need him? In Galatians chapter 3:14, Paul basically says Christ redeemed the Jews so that the blessing of the spirit that was given to Abraham, because of his faith, could also be given to the Gentiles, if they have faith in that christ. The writer of Galatians seems to be saying Christianity is a movement by god to open up membersip in his fan club and make it all inclusive. However, to be a member, you need to understand that the Jews (descendants of Abraham) had exclusive membership first, through God's promise to Abraham, then through the laws of Moses. The Jew's terms of membership through the law have been voided by this Jesus guy. The new membership rules require an understanding that the old membership rules are defunct, and a belief that Jesus made them defunct. Faith in him is the new requirement for anyone who wants to recieve "the promise of the spirit." Whatever that is.
*Another question that constantly arises in my mind is: What was the exact historical moment when this belief in Jesus as the redeemer of the curse of the law was required in order to be part of Yahweh's entourage? That's pretty hard to pin down. What happens to all those billions of people, before and after that historic moment who were completely clueless about Yahweh and/or his requirements?
* Moving on to verse 15 and following: Here Paul does some verbal gymnastics to explain how this faith in Jesus requirement works. Contracts are binding, human ones and god ones. El/Yahweh made a contract with Abraham. The contract contained promises to Abraham and his "seed." In spite of linguistic conventions and common usage that denotes "seed" as a collective singular meaning all descendants, Paul says, "Look, seed is singular, not plural. Therefore it is actually talking about a single descendant. That single descendant was one person, christ." Hooray for logic! Thanks, Paul, for clearing that up. We (literally) would not have known that, if not for you.
*Next, Paul says, "430 years after Abraham, Yahweh made another contract, the law. The previous contract and its promise was still valid though. The inheritance (?) didn't depend on the law contract, but on the one that came before it, the Abrahamic contract. " What on earth was the purpose of the law then? "I'm glad you asked," says Paul. "Let me 'splain. The law was added because of transgressions (If there was no law, what was being transgressed?) until the Seed (capitalized now) to whom the promise had referred (says you) had come."
To be continued.
Most of the dialog in quotes here is my paraphrasing.
*Another question that constantly arises in my mind is: What was the exact historical moment when this belief in Jesus as the redeemer of the curse of the law was required in order to be part of Yahweh's entourage? That's pretty hard to pin down. What happens to all those billions of people, before and after that historic moment who were completely clueless about Yahweh and/or his requirements?
* Moving on to verse 15 and following: Here Paul does some verbal gymnastics to explain how this faith in Jesus requirement works. Contracts are binding, human ones and god ones. El/Yahweh made a contract with Abraham. The contract contained promises to Abraham and his "seed." In spite of linguistic conventions and common usage that denotes "seed" as a collective singular meaning all descendants, Paul says, "Look, seed is singular, not plural. Therefore it is actually talking about a single descendant. That single descendant was one person, christ." Hooray for logic! Thanks, Paul, for clearing that up. We (literally) would not have known that, if not for you.
*Next, Paul says, "430 years after Abraham, Yahweh made another contract, the law. The previous contract and its promise was still valid though. The inheritance (?) didn't depend on the law contract, but on the one that came before it, the Abrahamic contract. " What on earth was the purpose of the law then? "I'm glad you asked," says Paul. "Let me 'splain. The law was added because of transgressions (If there was no law, what was being transgressed?) until the Seed (capitalized now) to whom the promise had referred (says you) had come."
To be continued.
Most of the dialog in quotes here is my paraphrasing.
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.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Joshua chapter 24 Part 1
After reading chapter 24:
* Then Joshua assembled all the tribes at Shechem. Is this literal or figurative? Did ALL the Israelites really leave their new homes and journey to Shechem? Who minded the land when they were gone? I just keep thinking of the logistics of all these supposed gatherings of over 2 million nomads. Can you imagine the mess (in more ways than one) they left behind when they went back home? It would take years for an area to recover from something like that. Also, is this a separate assembly from the one in chapter 23?
*Now Joshua again talks to all the tribal elders on behalf of Yahweh. He basically gives them an ancestral history starting with Abraham, then Isaac and Jacob, through to Moses and Aaron. He tells them that they saw with their own eyes what happened to the armies of Pharoah in the Red Sea. However, every one of the people he is talking to was younger than 20, or not born yet, during the exodus. I would venture a guess that only about half the people present could have been alive at the time of the exodus. All the adults from the exodus perished during the 40 year sojourn in the desert.
*Next, the Israelites are reminded of the battles on the east side of the Jordan, the crossing of the Jordan, and the battles with the nations on the west side of the Jordan. Yahweh claims that they didn't do it on their own with swords and bows, but that he sent his "hornet" ahead of them to drive the people out, whatever that means. He tells them that he is the one that gave them the land and good things that they are now enjoying, even though they did not work for them. Did you ever notice that Yahweh never hands out pats on the back? Except for favored individuals, and not always then, everyone is undeserving, no matter what they have done. It's the same story we are told today: "Whatever you have accomplished is only because God allowed you to accomplish it, without him you would be nothing. So be grateful."
*Now Joshua gives his famous ultimatum. They are to throw away the gods that their ancestors had worshipped in Egypt and worship Yahweh. (Wait a minute. Hadn't they already done that? Maybe not.)If they didn't want to worship Yahweh, they should choose that day who they will serve, the gods of Abraham's ancestors or the gods of the people of the land they were living in. (Did they really have a choice?)As for Joshua and his family, they would serve Yahweh. The people declared Yahweh was their God. Joshua declared them unable to serve Yahweh and doomed to destruction. The people protested that they were sincere. Joshua said okay, but get rid of all those other gods post haste. Apparently this monotheism stuff wasn't necessarily as popular with the Israelites as we might think. There was another covenant with laws drawn up and recorded in the book of the law. How many covenants does that make so far? Then Joshua set up a large stone under the oak near the holy place of Yahweh. (Apparently large trees were still associated with holy places, just as in Abraham's day.) The stone was to be a witness against the people if they went back on their promise to be true to Yahweh.
*Wait. Isn't the holy place of Yahweh now in Shiloh? Isn't that now supposed to be the only holy place of Yahweh? That's why the three eastern tribes were chewed out back in chapter 22. However, the beginning of this story say the Israelites were assembled in Shechem. In fact, that is where Abraham himself once built an altar to Yahweh near a great tree, back in Genesis chapter 12. That is also where Yahweh reiterated his covenant with Abraham. The descendants of Abraham appear to have come full circle. The authors just couldn't resist such a great literary device.
* Then Joshua assembled all the tribes at Shechem. Is this literal or figurative? Did ALL the Israelites really leave their new homes and journey to Shechem? Who minded the land when they were gone? I just keep thinking of the logistics of all these supposed gatherings of over 2 million nomads. Can you imagine the mess (in more ways than one) they left behind when they went back home? It would take years for an area to recover from something like that. Also, is this a separate assembly from the one in chapter 23?
*Now Joshua again talks to all the tribal elders on behalf of Yahweh. He basically gives them an ancestral history starting with Abraham, then Isaac and Jacob, through to Moses and Aaron. He tells them that they saw with their own eyes what happened to the armies of Pharoah in the Red Sea. However, every one of the people he is talking to was younger than 20, or not born yet, during the exodus. I would venture a guess that only about half the people present could have been alive at the time of the exodus. All the adults from the exodus perished during the 40 year sojourn in the desert.
*Next, the Israelites are reminded of the battles on the east side of the Jordan, the crossing of the Jordan, and the battles with the nations on the west side of the Jordan. Yahweh claims that they didn't do it on their own with swords and bows, but that he sent his "hornet" ahead of them to drive the people out, whatever that means. He tells them that he is the one that gave them the land and good things that they are now enjoying, even though they did not work for them. Did you ever notice that Yahweh never hands out pats on the back? Except for favored individuals, and not always then, everyone is undeserving, no matter what they have done. It's the same story we are told today: "Whatever you have accomplished is only because God allowed you to accomplish it, without him you would be nothing. So be grateful."
*Now Joshua gives his famous ultimatum. They are to throw away the gods that their ancestors had worshipped in Egypt and worship Yahweh. (Wait a minute. Hadn't they already done that? Maybe not.)If they didn't want to worship Yahweh, they should choose that day who they will serve, the gods of Abraham's ancestors or the gods of the people of the land they were living in. (Did they really have a choice?)As for Joshua and his family, they would serve Yahweh. The people declared Yahweh was their God. Joshua declared them unable to serve Yahweh and doomed to destruction. The people protested that they were sincere. Joshua said okay, but get rid of all those other gods post haste. Apparently this monotheism stuff wasn't necessarily as popular with the Israelites as we might think. There was another covenant with laws drawn up and recorded in the book of the law. How many covenants does that make so far? Then Joshua set up a large stone under the oak near the holy place of Yahweh. (Apparently large trees were still associated with holy places, just as in Abraham's day.) The stone was to be a witness against the people if they went back on their promise to be true to Yahweh.
*Wait. Isn't the holy place of Yahweh now in Shiloh? Isn't that now supposed to be the only holy place of Yahweh? That's why the three eastern tribes were chewed out back in chapter 22. However, the beginning of this story say the Israelites were assembled in Shechem. In fact, that is where Abraham himself once built an altar to Yahweh near a great tree, back in Genesis chapter 12. That is also where Yahweh reiterated his covenant with Abraham. The descendants of Abraham appear to have come full circle. The authors just couldn't resist such a great literary device.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Numbers chapter 34
After reading chapter 34:
*This chapter delineates the borders of the land Yahweh is giving the Israelites. The wikipedia article on the promised land has maps that show where these borders would have been. Notice that the area of the promised land differs from that which yahweh promised to Abraham's descendants at the end of Genesis chater 15. There, the the northern border was the Euphrates and the southern border "the river of Egypt."
*After that, Moses says this land will be divided up among the remaining nine and a half tribes, after the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh get the land they requested on the east side of the Jordan. A leader was to be chosen from each of the nine and a half tribes, for the purpose of portioning out the "inheritance" of the Israelites.
*This chapter delineates the borders of the land Yahweh is giving the Israelites. The wikipedia article on the promised land has maps that show where these borders would have been. Notice that the area of the promised land differs from that which yahweh promised to Abraham's descendants at the end of Genesis chater 15. There, the the northern border was the Euphrates and the southern border "the river of Egypt."
*After that, Moses says this land will be divided up among the remaining nine and a half tribes, after the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh get the land they requested on the east side of the Jordan. A leader was to be chosen from each of the nine and a half tribes, for the purpose of portioning out the "inheritance" of the Israelites.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Genesis wrap up
What have we learned from the book of Genesis?
*We don't know who wrote this book or exactly when. Historians place its origin long after Moses would have lived. Nowhere does the book of Genesis claim it is God's word, or is inspired by God. Nor does it claim to be the words of Moses. The Hebrew language in which Genesis is written comes from approximately the 6th century B.C.E., about a thousand years after the last events recorded in the book. There are few place name anachronisms.
*We are not told anything about an afterlife, Hell, Satan, or demons. Everybody died and stayed dead, except Enoch.
*The God of Genesis is very powerful but not omnicient or omnipresent. He is able to do human activities like walking, talking, seeing, smelling, wrestling, and eating. He comes down to earth from some unknown place in the sky where he lives with some unknown others and angels. He likes dead animals, and the smell of roasting meat. He doesn't like grain sacrifices, tall towers, or clueless Pharoah's and kings. He doesn't seem to mind deceit, slavery, or the mistreatment of women. He needs to be reminded of his promises. His powers seem to be limited to being able to manipulate people and nature. He can be overpowered by a man. (Jacob) After God wrestles with Jacob, he no longer appears in physical form as a man. For the rest of the book, he is only seen in visions.
*Nothing derogatory is said about other gods. There are no prohibitions against worshiping other gods. Yahweh ( the lord) is said to be "Abraham's God, " not the only God.
*Angels look and act like regular people. They have a few powers. Sometimes they speak for God. We aren't told why he can't speak for himself.
*Circumcision is an everlasting covenant with all of Abraham's descendants who want to be part of the family and in on the promise of owning the land of Canaan. I underlined everlasting because about 2,000 years in the future a person named Paul will claim it is no longer necessary, and that it was actually just a metaphor. There is no indication in Genesis that circumcision is a metaphor for a spiritual state. It is an act of obedience, pure and simple.
*Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all enriched, with God's support, at the expense of others, by deceit.
*We are given the supposed names of dozens of rulers of petty Canaanite kingdoms, who lack any proof of their existence. We are not given any of the names of the at least three Pharoah's of Egypt mentioned in Genesis. This is in spite of the fact that Hebrew writing would not have existed in the time frame of Genesis and that Egypt is a rich source of recorded ancient history.
*The first few chapters are obviously mythological, containing completely unrealistic and magical creation events.
*There are no concrete extra biblical evidences for any of the main characters in the stories contained in Genesis. Many of the place names and people groups are also unknown to history, with a few notable exceptions. The events themselves are also impossible to verify. In fact, it is very reasonable to accept Genesis as an etiological story, written as folk lore for a people (Israelites) trying to forge an identity and explain how their world came to be the way it was at the time of the story's writing. Other people groups had their own explanations of the world and humanity. Today, we know that the history of humanity didn't really revolve around the Middle East. It just happened to have very effective propaganda.
*We don't know who wrote this book or exactly when. Historians place its origin long after Moses would have lived. Nowhere does the book of Genesis claim it is God's word, or is inspired by God. Nor does it claim to be the words of Moses. The Hebrew language in which Genesis is written comes from approximately the 6th century B.C.E., about a thousand years after the last events recorded in the book. There are few place name anachronisms.
*We are not told anything about an afterlife, Hell, Satan, or demons. Everybody died and stayed dead, except Enoch.
*The God of Genesis is very powerful but not omnicient or omnipresent. He is able to do human activities like walking, talking, seeing, smelling, wrestling, and eating. He comes down to earth from some unknown place in the sky where he lives with some unknown others and angels. He likes dead animals, and the smell of roasting meat. He doesn't like grain sacrifices, tall towers, or clueless Pharoah's and kings. He doesn't seem to mind deceit, slavery, or the mistreatment of women. He needs to be reminded of his promises. His powers seem to be limited to being able to manipulate people and nature. He can be overpowered by a man. (Jacob) After God wrestles with Jacob, he no longer appears in physical form as a man. For the rest of the book, he is only seen in visions.
*Nothing derogatory is said about other gods. There are no prohibitions against worshiping other gods. Yahweh ( the lord) is said to be "Abraham's God, " not the only God.
*Angels look and act like regular people. They have a few powers. Sometimes they speak for God. We aren't told why he can't speak for himself.
*Circumcision is an everlasting covenant with all of Abraham's descendants who want to be part of the family and in on the promise of owning the land of Canaan. I underlined everlasting because about 2,000 years in the future a person named Paul will claim it is no longer necessary, and that it was actually just a metaphor. There is no indication in Genesis that circumcision is a metaphor for a spiritual state. It is an act of obedience, pure and simple.
*Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all enriched, with God's support, at the expense of others, by deceit.
*We are given the supposed names of dozens of rulers of petty Canaanite kingdoms, who lack any proof of their existence. We are not given any of the names of the at least three Pharoah's of Egypt mentioned in Genesis. This is in spite of the fact that Hebrew writing would not have existed in the time frame of Genesis and that Egypt is a rich source of recorded ancient history.
*The first few chapters are obviously mythological, containing completely unrealistic and magical creation events.
*There are no concrete extra biblical evidences for any of the main characters in the stories contained in Genesis. Many of the place names and people groups are also unknown to history, with a few notable exceptions. The events themselves are also impossible to verify. In fact, it is very reasonable to accept Genesis as an etiological story, written as folk lore for a people (Israelites) trying to forge an identity and explain how their world came to be the way it was at the time of the story's writing. Other people groups had their own explanations of the world and humanity. Today, we know that the history of humanity didn't really revolve around the Middle East. It just happened to have very effective propaganda.
Friday, August 14, 2015
Genesis chapter 47
After reading chapter 47:
*So, Joseph tells Pharoah his brothers are shepherds and they will be staying in Goshen. Pharoah repeats this like it is his idea. Joseph presents his father to the Pharoah who asks how old he is. Jacob says he is 130 short and difficult years old. (Since Joseph would have been about 39, Jacob was 91 when he was born. ) Then Jacob blesses Pharoah and leaves. Joseph gives his family property in the best part of the land, plus all the food they need. The property was said to be in the "district of Rameses" which is an anachronism. No Rameses had been Pharoah yet, and would not be for a few hundred years. This would have been approximately 1767 B.C.E., if we follow biblical chronology.
*Here I have to say a word about chronology. I have departed from Bishop Ussher since Abraham was born and am doing my own calculations based solely on the information given in the text of Genesis. While researching, I found that many adjustments to the chronology were made based on traditions and other books of the bible, even from the New Testament. There was an assumption that this is the chronology of the lineage of the messiah, and that all the scriptures must not contradict each other. I make no such assumptions.
*The famine raged on. People from all over Egypt and Canaan gave their money to Joseph for food, til there was no money left. They begged for food, so Joseph began to take livestock in payment until there was no livestock left. They begged for food again, so Joseph began to take land in payment, until Pharoah owned all the land in Egypt. Joseph reduced the people to servitude. (Nice guy.) The priests were the only ones left with land because they received an allotment of food from Pharoah and did not need to sell their land.
*After Pharoah owned all the land, Joseph gave the people seed and said from whatever they harvested, one-fifth would belong to Pharoah and four-fifths to them. This became a permanent law. You may have heard the phrase " the king's fifth." The priests were exempt. Apparently, so were the Israelites. They had plenty to eat, acquired property, and increased in numbers.
*When Jacob was 147, he called Joseph to him to swear that he would not be buried in Egypt when he died. Joseph swore as his father asked with his hand under Jacob's "thigh." (Read: genitals. )
*So, Joseph tells Pharoah his brothers are shepherds and they will be staying in Goshen. Pharoah repeats this like it is his idea. Joseph presents his father to the Pharoah who asks how old he is. Jacob says he is 130 short and difficult years old. (Since Joseph would have been about 39, Jacob was 91 when he was born. ) Then Jacob blesses Pharoah and leaves. Joseph gives his family property in the best part of the land, plus all the food they need. The property was said to be in the "district of Rameses" which is an anachronism. No Rameses had been Pharoah yet, and would not be for a few hundred years. This would have been approximately 1767 B.C.E., if we follow biblical chronology.
*Here I have to say a word about chronology. I have departed from Bishop Ussher since Abraham was born and am doing my own calculations based solely on the information given in the text of Genesis. While researching, I found that many adjustments to the chronology were made based on traditions and other books of the bible, even from the New Testament. There was an assumption that this is the chronology of the lineage of the messiah, and that all the scriptures must not contradict each other. I make no such assumptions.
*The famine raged on. People from all over Egypt and Canaan gave their money to Joseph for food, til there was no money left. They begged for food, so Joseph began to take livestock in payment until there was no livestock left. They begged for food again, so Joseph began to take land in payment, until Pharoah owned all the land in Egypt. Joseph reduced the people to servitude. (Nice guy.) The priests were the only ones left with land because they received an allotment of food from Pharoah and did not need to sell their land.
*After Pharoah owned all the land, Joseph gave the people seed and said from whatever they harvested, one-fifth would belong to Pharoah and four-fifths to them. This became a permanent law. You may have heard the phrase " the king's fifth." The priests were exempt. Apparently, so were the Israelites. They had plenty to eat, acquired property, and increased in numbers.
*When Jacob was 147, he called Joseph to him to swear that he would not be buried in Egypt when he died. Joseph swore as his father asked with his hand under Jacob's "thigh." (Read: genitals. )
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Genesis chapter 45
After reading chapter 45:
*After Judah pleads with Joseph, Joseph orders all his attendants to leave the room. He emotionally reveals himself to his brothers and they are terrified. He tells them not to worry about what they did to him in the past, God planned it that way so Joseph could save them from the famine that God created. (Gen. 21:28-32) God's ultimate goal was to "preserve a remnant" of this family, a theme that is echoed in other bible books.
*Joseph tells them that he is ruler over all of Egypt. The brothers must go get their father and bring him back, along with all their family members and possessions. They will live in the land of Goshen and Joseph will take care of them because there are still five years of famine left. He charges them to tell their father everything about his high position. Then everyone weeps and hugs and kisses each other.
*Pharoah is told of these events and is pleased. He offers the brothers help traveling to Canaan to get their father, and promises them everything they need and more. Everyone was loaded with gifts and sent on their way with an admonition not to quarrel along the way. When they got back to Canaan and told Jacob everything, he was stunned. At first he didn't believe them, but the rich gifts convinced him. He agreed to go to Egypt.
*This continues the pattern of each of the patriarchs of this family spending time in Egypt during famines, first Abraham, then Isaac, now Jacob (Israel). Abraham and Isaac were asked to leave. Joseph has been asked to stay.
*After Judah pleads with Joseph, Joseph orders all his attendants to leave the room. He emotionally reveals himself to his brothers and they are terrified. He tells them not to worry about what they did to him in the past, God planned it that way so Joseph could save them from the famine that God created. (Gen. 21:28-32) God's ultimate goal was to "preserve a remnant" of this family, a theme that is echoed in other bible books.
*Joseph tells them that he is ruler over all of Egypt. The brothers must go get their father and bring him back, along with all their family members and possessions. They will live in the land of Goshen and Joseph will take care of them because there are still five years of famine left. He charges them to tell their father everything about his high position. Then everyone weeps and hugs and kisses each other.
*Pharoah is told of these events and is pleased. He offers the brothers help traveling to Canaan to get their father, and promises them everything they need and more. Everyone was loaded with gifts and sent on their way with an admonition not to quarrel along the way. When they got back to Canaan and told Jacob everything, he was stunned. At first he didn't believe them, but the rich gifts convinced him. He agreed to go to Egypt.
*This continues the pattern of each of the patriarchs of this family spending time in Egypt during famines, first Abraham, then Isaac, now Jacob (Israel). Abraham and Isaac were asked to leave. Joseph has been asked to stay.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Genesis chapter 25
After reading chapter 25:
*Abraham marries again when he is over 137 years old. In spite of his advanced age, he fathers 6 sons by his new wife. He had more sons by concubines. While he was alive, he gave his concubine's sons gifts and sent them to live in the East, away from Isaac.
* Abraham dies at 175 years of age. Isaac and Ishmael bury him with Sarah. Isaac inherits everything. The year is about 1880 B. C. E., according to Biblical chronology. Shem, the son of Noah would still be alive until 1846 B.C.E.
*We are given the names of the twelve sons/tribes of Ishmael. Ishmael died at the age of 137, which would have been about 1833 B.C.E. His descendents settle in land to the east, which some people believe was the Arabian peninsula. There is no concrete evidence supporting this.
*Isaac had married Rebekah at the age of 40. She didn't have children until Isaac prayed for them. (Barrenness, and praying for a child who is granted by God, who then becomes something special, is another theme we see throughout scripture. ) Rebekah found she was going to have twins, and they were wrestling inside her. Yahweh told her that her boys would be the fathers of two nations and the older would serve the Younger Brother. The first boy was red and hairy, they named him Esau. The second boy was born holding on to his brother's foot, they named him Jacob. Thier names are puns associated with their birth. In fact, so many bible names are so punny, it makes you wonder if they were made up to fit the story.
*Esau became a hunter and daddy's boy. Jacob was quiet and stayed at home with mom, who loved him best. One day, Esau came home from a hunt famished and saw Jacob cooking stew. Esau begged for some stew and Jacob said he would give Esau stew in return for the right to inherit the firstborn's portion of their father's estate. Esau agreed, which was awfully stupid. Here, we see an etiological story that plays right into the theme of the book of Genesis. Later descendants of Esau will encounter descendants of Jacob and the reader will look back and say, look there is the reason life is the way it is today. The storyteller knows all this in advance, of course.
*Esau swore to give his birthright to Jacob. Jacob gave him stew. According to the text, Esau despised His birthright. Clearly, Jacob despised Esau. A person who thought he was a descendant of Jacob wrote this story.
*Abraham marries again when he is over 137 years old. In spite of his advanced age, he fathers 6 sons by his new wife. He had more sons by concubines. While he was alive, he gave his concubine's sons gifts and sent them to live in the East, away from Isaac.
* Abraham dies at 175 years of age. Isaac and Ishmael bury him with Sarah. Isaac inherits everything. The year is about 1880 B. C. E., according to Biblical chronology. Shem, the son of Noah would still be alive until 1846 B.C.E.
*We are given the names of the twelve sons/tribes of Ishmael. Ishmael died at the age of 137, which would have been about 1833 B.C.E. His descendents settle in land to the east, which some people believe was the Arabian peninsula. There is no concrete evidence supporting this.
*Isaac had married Rebekah at the age of 40. She didn't have children until Isaac prayed for them. (Barrenness, and praying for a child who is granted by God, who then becomes something special, is another theme we see throughout scripture. ) Rebekah found she was going to have twins, and they were wrestling inside her. Yahweh told her that her boys would be the fathers of two nations and the older would serve the Younger Brother. The first boy was red and hairy, they named him Esau. The second boy was born holding on to his brother's foot, they named him Jacob. Thier names are puns associated with their birth. In fact, so many bible names are so punny, it makes you wonder if they were made up to fit the story.
*Esau became a hunter and daddy's boy. Jacob was quiet and stayed at home with mom, who loved him best. One day, Esau came home from a hunt famished and saw Jacob cooking stew. Esau begged for some stew and Jacob said he would give Esau stew in return for the right to inherit the firstborn's portion of their father's estate. Esau agreed, which was awfully stupid. Here, we see an etiological story that plays right into the theme of the book of Genesis. Later descendants of Esau will encounter descendants of Jacob and the reader will look back and say, look there is the reason life is the way it is today. The storyteller knows all this in advance, of course.
*Esau swore to give his birthright to Jacob. Jacob gave him stew. According to the text, Esau despised His birthright. Clearly, Jacob despised Esau. A person who thought he was a descendant of Jacob wrote this story.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Genesis chapter 24
After reading chapter 24:
*Abraham is getting old, so he makes his chief servant swear he will see Isaac gets a wife from among Abraham's relatives, not the Canaanites. Isaac is not to go back to Abraham's homeland himself because he must maintain a presence in Canaan to insure that God's promise to give him the land is not annulled. The servant swears the oath while putting his hand under Abraham's "thigh." The study bible politely informs us that thigh is an euphamism for the organ of procreation.
* So, the servant takes his camels and travels to the land of Abraham's relatives in Mesopotamia. He prays to Yahweh, Abraham's God, for success in finding a wife for Isaac. In spite of the forced circumcision, Abraham's God must not be the servant's god. The servant asks God to show him who will marry Isaac by having one of the girls who is coming to draw water from the well offer him and his camels a drink.
*He had immediate results. A beautiful virgin offered him and his camel some water. The servant gave her some gold jewelry. She came from the right family, and they had room for him to stay with them. Then the servant bowed down and worshipped Abraham's God for such speedy service.
*The girl ran home to tell her family. Her brother, who had seen the gold, went to fetch Abraham's servant and provide everything he needed. Before he ate, the servant insisted on telling the whole story of why he was there and how he had prayed when he got to the well. Rebekah's brother and father are sure it must be Yahweh's doing, so they say sure, take her away. The servant then showers them with gifts.
*The next morning, Abraham's servant is ready to leave. The family is not in a hurry, but they decide to ask Rebekah what she wants to do. She's willing to go, so they send her off with blessings. When they get back, Isaac and Rebekah are married, and Isaac is comforted after the death of his mother.
*Abraham is getting old, so he makes his chief servant swear he will see Isaac gets a wife from among Abraham's relatives, not the Canaanites. Isaac is not to go back to Abraham's homeland himself because he must maintain a presence in Canaan to insure that God's promise to give him the land is not annulled. The servant swears the oath while putting his hand under Abraham's "thigh." The study bible politely informs us that thigh is an euphamism for the organ of procreation.
* So, the servant takes his camels and travels to the land of Abraham's relatives in Mesopotamia. He prays to Yahweh, Abraham's God, for success in finding a wife for Isaac. In spite of the forced circumcision, Abraham's God must not be the servant's god. The servant asks God to show him who will marry Isaac by having one of the girls who is coming to draw water from the well offer him and his camels a drink.
*He had immediate results. A beautiful virgin offered him and his camel some water. The servant gave her some gold jewelry. She came from the right family, and they had room for him to stay with them. Then the servant bowed down and worshipped Abraham's God for such speedy service.
*The girl ran home to tell her family. Her brother, who had seen the gold, went to fetch Abraham's servant and provide everything he needed. Before he ate, the servant insisted on telling the whole story of why he was there and how he had prayed when he got to the well. Rebekah's brother and father are sure it must be Yahweh's doing, so they say sure, take her away. The servant then showers them with gifts.
*The next morning, Abraham's servant is ready to leave. The family is not in a hurry, but they decide to ask Rebekah what she wants to do. She's willing to go, so they send her off with blessings. When they get back, Isaac and Rebekah are married, and Isaac is comforted after the death of his mother.
Genesis chapter 23
After reading chapter 23:
*Sarah dies at 127 years of age at Hebron. Abraham went there to mourn for Sarah. It would seem he wasn't there when she died. He negotiated with a land owner named Ephron for land to bury Sarah.
He paid for a field and a cave, in the presence of witnesses. Abraham then buried Sarah in the cave.
*This passage makes a point of showing that Abraham owned that land, which probably means a question of ownership will come up later.
*It also makes a point of showing that this land belonged to the Hittites, who were Canaanites, according to Genesis 10:15. It is very unlikely that they are the same group of people known as the Hittites in history books.
*Sarah dies at 127 years of age at Hebron. Abraham went there to mourn for Sarah. It would seem he wasn't there when she died. He negotiated with a land owner named Ephron for land to bury Sarah.
He paid for a field and a cave, in the presence of witnesses. Abraham then buried Sarah in the cave.
*This passage makes a point of showing that Abraham owned that land, which probably means a question of ownership will come up later.
*It also makes a point of showing that this land belonged to the Hittites, who were Canaanites, according to Genesis 10:15. It is very unlikely that they are the same group of people known as the Hittites in history books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)