Hebrews part twelve

We are at Hebrews chapter ten. The Hebrews are told, "The law is only a shadow of things that are coming-- not the realities themselves." Here we go again with earthly things being shadows of perfect heavenly things. Again the author goes over the previous necessity of regular earthly  sacrifices and how they were a shadow of christ's single sacrifice of himself.

In fact, the author claims christ said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. (Even though you mandated them.) Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll--I have come to do your will o god.'"

But Jesus never actually said that. Whoever wrote Psalm 40:6-8 did. My bible says it is a Psalm of David. Again, is the author of Hebrews suggesting Jesus is a reincarnation of David?  Also, the author of Hebrews left out a few parts of the original Psalm. There it claims god pierced the speaker's ears. Ear piercing was a sign that you were someone's slave. In this case David would be claiming to be god's slave. That's not in the letter to the Hebrews. Another thing: in verse eight of that Psalm, the writer says to god, "your law is in my heart." He looks on the law as the will of god, not a shadow of a greater reality. Nowhere in the Psalm is it said that the speaker (Jesus or David?) will be literally sacrificing his own body. That is the personal interpretation of the Hebrews writer.

The author goes on to say that after the christ made his one time sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of god. Again we are told about enemies becoming (Jesus or David's?) footstools. Again we are told that the holy spirit spoke in Jeremiah 31:33-34, when god says he will put his law in the Jews' hearts and minds, and forget their sins. Since they are forgiven, "there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin."

So, now the brothers (Jews) get to enter the most holy place (the heavenly temple) by the blood of Jesus. Yay? Jesus's body has become the new living curtain into the holy place. Eww. The hearts of the faithful have been sprinkled (with Jesus's blood) to cleanse them from a guilty conscience. Is that invisible/metaphorical sprinkled blood? The author also mentions having their bodies washed with pure water. That seems to be a reference to actual water and bodies, so he must be referring to baptism. I think.

Next the readers are told to hold on to their faith, because of what they've been promised. They also need to "spur one another on to love and good deeds." (I'm sure it's figurative, but "spurring" sounds painful.) They also need to keep meeting together, even more as "the day" approaches. That day hasn't arrived yet, over 1,500 years later.

Also, no more sinning. (Define sin) If the readers keep sinning, jesus's sacrifice for sins will get used up and run out. That would make them enemies of god who will eventually be consumed by raging fire. After all, the law of Moses contained the death penalty, without mercy for sinners. How much worse should it be for those who "trample the son of god under foot?" This trampling of Jesus is obviously figurative, will the burning of sinners be as well? Sinners are treating the blood of the new covenant as unholy and insulting the spirit of grace. For shame! Uh, oh, don't forget, vengeance is god's and he will repay. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the lord." But don't worry, be happy.

Till next time.

Hebrews part nine

We are now at Hebrews 7:11. The author has just tried to convince us that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, the Levites, and all Abraham's descendants. This is important to the author because he is trying to convince his readers that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. That would make Jesus greater than all of them as well.

The author now tells us that the Levitical priesthood was not perfect. If it was, why would we need a another priest in the order of Melchizedek? Um. Why do we need one anyway? And who decided we needed one? As far as I can tell, this is of the author's own invention. The concept of Jesus as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek is found only in the book of Hebrews. In fact, the concept of Jesus as any kind of priest is found only in Hebrews.

1 Peter 2:5 and 9 mentions the body of believers as being a "holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to god through Jesus christ." But that's not the same thing as what the author of Hebrews is saying, is it? Revelation 5:10 speaks of people of all nations being made into a kingdom of priests to serve god while they reign on earth. Revelation 20:6 speaks of the same thing and adds that these future priests of god are going to be the ones who were beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus. No high priest Jesus is mentioned.

The author of Hebrews goes on to say, "when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law."   Why? Because he says so. He goes on to say that it is clear that Jesus belonged to a tribe that  never served at the altar, the tribe of Judah. How does the author know this? What makes it clear? My study bible refers me to Psalm 11, which is assumed by christians to be a prophecy about the messiah, or Jesus. This Psalm speaks of the tribe of Judah and "the root of Jesse." It is interpreted as meaning a messiah that comes from the lineage of David. It is possible that this author presupposes Jesus was the messiah. Therefore, he must be of the Davidic line, if the Psalm was talking about the messiah. If you want to make scripture work for your pet belief, there is always a way.

According to the author, all this becomes clear if another Melchizedek like priest appears: "One who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." But it doesn't hurt if we say he is from the lineage of David. Does all of this circular thinking make your head spin?

We go on to read that the old Mosaic law was weak and useless because it didn't make anything perfect. Could that be because there is no such thing as perfection? That old law is set aside and now there is a better hope. God swore, and will not change his mind, that someone is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Guess what, that someone is Jesus! Other priests died in office. Jesus lives forever, so he has a permanent priesthood. That way he can save everyone who comes to god through him, because he can intercede for them forever. And boy do they need it.

Jesus is not like other high priests. He is holy and sinless. He doesn't have to offer daily sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people (Jews). "He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself." If I remember correctly, Jesus did not go willingly to his death. He had a change of heart near the end. At least according to Mark.

Chapter seven end with the author telling us  the law appoints high priests who are weak. God's oath about the priest in the order of Melchizedek came after the law. It appointed "the son, who has been made perfect forever." Or at least that is what is assumed.

As a reminder: I am using an NIV study bible. All opinions are my own, unless otherwise stated. Share this site if you think anyone you know might enjoy it.

Mark part seventeen

We are at Mark 9:38. John tells Jesus that the disciples saw someone casting out demon's in Jesus's name and they told that person to stop. Remember Jesus's name was the same as Joshua of the old Testament. He surely wasn't the only person in first century Israel with that name either. Could people have been trying to cast out demons in the name of Joshua without realizing there was a specific living person with that name who might claim a monopoly on exorcisms? Jesus told John not to stop the people who were doing that, because if they could do a miracle in Jesus's name, they had to be on his side. "Whoever is not against us is for us." Tell that to all the "true christians" who think that just being for Jesus is not enough.

The next part is weird. Jesus starts talking about children again, giving a curse to anyone who would cause one to sin. That last dialog with John had to have been inserted later. Next, Jesus talks about body parts that cause one to sin, saying it would be better to remove the offending body part than to end up in hell. Expendable parts include eyes, hands, and feet. It's a good thing most versions of christianity never took this seriously. Then there is a bit about salt losing its saltiness, which makes no sense.

We are now at chapter ten. The disciples are on the move again, into the region of Judea across the Jordan. Across the Jordan from what? The last place the text said they were was Capernaum. Look at this map and see if verse 10:1 makes sense.

Jesus attracts crowds of people, including pharisees. They ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus asks, "What did Moses say?" (Notice it was not "What did god say?") Apparently the law of Moses said a man could write a certificate of divorce and send his wife away, if..."he finds something indecent about her." What was considered indecent is not specified. Also, a woman did not have the same privilege of divorcing her husband and sending him away. In fact, a woman who was on her second marriage was "defiled," but not the man. (Deut. 24:1-4)

Now Jesus qualifies the law of Moses. He says the only reason Moses let the people divorce was because their hearts were hard, which generally means they were stubborn. So divorce was let slide, even though it hurt women's social/economic/religious standing. But picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death, even though it hurt no one.  Then Jesus says, "At the beginning of creation god made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what god has joined together, let man not separate." This teaching of Jesus's was directly addressing men and divorce. He is telling the men they can't just get rid of their wives whenever they want. Yet many christian groups have a percentage of divorced members that is not far off that of the general population. In spite of Jesus's admonition, Christians have been getting divorced for centuries. Thankfully, today's christian  women have just as much right as a man to divorce.

This passage of Jesus's is also used to define marriage in today's fundamentalist circles as one woman and one man. The polygamy of the patriarchs is never addressed in the new testament. Does that mean god has no problem with a man having many wives? Can a man be "one flesh" with more than one woman? The Deuteronomy passage makes it clear that a woman having more than one husband makes her defiled, but the only reason she would have had more than one husband is if her first husband divorced her. So, technically, it's not her fault, right?

We won't address the creation of men and women here. You all do know that the creation story of Adam and Eve is a myth, right? Male and female creatures existed long before humankind evolved. They had sexual union to procreate, yet they did not have a social institution called marriage and life went on. Marriage was invented by humans.

Colossians part 5

Previously, in verse 15, Jesus has " disarmed the powers and authorities." Back in chapter one, verse 16, the powers and authorities were created by him and for him. In chapter two verse 8, The colossians are to reject philosophy which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world.  In verse 10, Jesus is the head over every power and authority, and the Colossians are in Jesus. In verse 14, Jesus cancelled the written code with its regulations.

This is quite subversive stuff. Paul is laying the ground for the Colossians to disregard all "earthly" laws, authorities, and traditions, Jewish and gentile. How do you think that went over with the general public and the powers that be of that time and place? Of course there would be backlash and consequences.

Paul goes on in verse 16 to imply that observing religious festivals is unnecessary because they are just shadows of the reality in Jesus (metaphors?). In verse 18, people who claim to have had angelic visions, are puffed up and unspiritual.

In verses 20-21, Paul implies that they no longer need to follow any rules or regulations concerning what they can touch or eat. Dietary laws and strict personal restrictions based on religious regulations are said to promote false humility while not actually tempering lusts. He's got a point there. It is seen even today, where there are strict religious regulations, there is often great secret harm happening. Generally, the more strict, the more harm. Look at Catholic priests, fundamentalist muslims, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and religious cults. However, even if there is no real "spiritual" value to religious regulations, lines  often have to be drawn somewhere, for public health and safety. There are legitimate reasons why you might not want to touch a dead body or eat diseased animals, just not because it will damage your heavenly standing.

In chapter three, Paul continues by telling them earthly things no longer matter, only things above, whatever they are. After all, they "died." Now the life they have is with Christ. Does Christ ever have to go to the bathroom? Scratch an itch? Earthly things matter to human beings. There is no way to get around it. Paul gets specific. He says earthly things are "sexual immorality, impurity (what is that?), lust, evil desires,  and greed, which is idolatry."

First of all, most of these sound like thought crimes, specific actions haven't been defined. No examples are given, so Christians feel free to give them their own definitions, which often end up causing just as much harm as the rules and regulations that Paul is trying to do away with. Second Paul has created a false equivocation of greed and idolatry that still plagues us to this day. Idolatry is the act of worshiping idols that represent divine beings. No one actually worships the things they are greedy for. Christians will say that anything replacing god in a person's heart is an idol that they are worshipping. I say baloney. Sure, greed can be hurtful and destructive, but it is not idolatry.

Paul goes on in verse 8 of chapter three, saying the Colossians must rid themselves of all anger, malice, rage, slander, and filthy language. This sounds admirable, but to what extent? Malice, rage, and slander are usually detrimental, but is all anger bad? What did filthy language mean to the Colossians? Is it as bad as slander? What will happen if someone slips up?

Paul is trying to create new standards to replace the ones he wants to do away with. He can't see into the future when those standards become just as legalistic for Christians as the old law was for the Jews.

More to come.

Colossians part 4

We continue on in chapter two verse 6.  The Colossians are told that since they accepted Jesus as lord, they are to continue living in him, as they were taught. What does it mean to live in Christ? Paul has not yet covered that in this letter. So far, all it encompasses is faith.

Verse 8 contains another warning about people who could take the Colossians "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy." But not Paul. He wouldn't do that. Paul's philosophy is based on christ. Again, what does that mean in practical terms? It seems to mean rejecting "human tradition and the basic principles of this world."

In verse 9, we are given another theology lesson about christ. All the fullness of the deity lives in him in bodily form. Notice the present tense. Paul worships a living christ. Jesus's physical body contains the deity, and not on earth. How does that work? The Colossians have "been given fullness in christ." Whatever that means. Christ "is the head over every power and authority." Even over those that have never heard of him or don't believe? Even over yahweh?

In verse 11, things get weird again. Paul tells the Colossians that in Jesus, they are circumcised. Not with real circumcision, but imaginary circumcision done by christ. Why? Remember Paul is a Jew. Circumcision was declared to be an everlasting covenant in the Hebrew scriptures. If you aren't circumcised, you don't belong to yahweh. Solution: metaphorical circumcision. When does this metaphorical circumcision take place? At baptism.

Verse 12 gives us the theology of baptism. A person who was metaphorically dead in their sins is literally buried in the water and metaphorically raised from the dead. The person's sinful nature was then considered circumcised ( cut off?). The person was no longer metaphorically dead, now they were metaphorically, and literally, alive with Christ. Christ forgave all their sins. He cancelled the written code with its regulations. You heard it here folks. Paul basically says the law of Moses is null and void for a baptised person.  Jesus took it away and nailed it to the cross. Metaphorically speaking, of course. What I'm wondering is if the old law is gone, why the circumcision language? Wouldn't any kind of circumcision, even metaphorical, be unnecessary?

Verse 15 says Jesus "disarmed the powers and authorities, and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." That's not the way the story is told in the gospel books, is it. There, Jesus is meek and submissive, dying pretty quietly and quickly. Where is the public spectacle made of the authorities? Where is the triumph over them? Where is the disarming of authorities?  Or is this a metaphorical spectacle and disarming? My how the metaphors are flying fast and thick. You would almost think none of this stuff is real.

More to come.

Malachi, part 2

Malachi 2:17 brings us to Yahweh's fourth statement: "You have wearied the lord with your words." (Yahweh's talking about himself in the third person again.) The priests ask, "How have we wearied him? Yahweh's answer is, "by saying, 'all who do evil are good in the eyes of the lord and he is pleased with them' or 'where is the god of justice?'" I have trouble believing  that the Israelites actually said the first statement. I think it is hyperbole and that what was actually said was something like "(such and such a tribe) is not evil, god loves them too."  This would not have been tolerated by the more fundamentalist Jews, just as it is not tolerated by other fundamentalists today. The question "Where is the god of Justice?" Is a valid question, especially if it is about justice for all, not just a select group.

In chapter three, the questioners are told that a messenger will prepare the way for the lord, then he will come. However, not many will be able to handle his coming. He will, cleanse, refine, and purify, bringing justice to the downtrodden, and judgement to sorcerers, adulterers, liars, the dishonest bosses, and those who take advantage of the weak.

In verse 6, Yahweh makes a statement claiming he does not change. If the Israelites turn back to him, he will return to them. This definitely sounds like a post captivity claim. The Israelites ask, "How are we to return?" There is no immediate answer.

Yahweh's next claim is that the Israelites rob him. He is asked, "How do we rob you?" They apparently rob him quite literally, by not giving him the proper tithes and offerings. This is making me suspect this book was written by a priest. Who else would benefit from the people returning to the   Law of Moses's rules of sacrifices and offerings? The priesthood. Gods certainly don't need food or money. Yahweh tells them to test him by bringing the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in his house. Who will eat that food? The priests. Yahweh claims if they do that, he will throw open the floodgates of heaven and bless them with abundance. Give to get. The prosperity doctrine is not new.

Next Yahweh claims the people have said harsh things against him. They ask, "What have we said against you?" Apparently they said it was futile to serve god. (Amen) They got nothing from carrying out his requirements before. Plus, evildoers prosper.

Then some true believers got together and talked. Yahweh listened in on their conversation. He had a scroll of remembrance written in his presence, about those who respected him. What is a scroll of remembrance? Glad you asked. Kings would have scribes write down things they wanted to remember at a later date. It appears Yahweh does not trust his own memory. These godfearers will be saved in the future, when the day comes that the arrogant and the evildoers will be set on fire like hay stubble. At that time, those who revere Yahweh will cavort about like calves, trampling the ashes of the wicked under their feet.

Next, the Israelites are told to remember all the laws and decrees of Moses. This would fit much better after the question "How are we to return to you?" After that,  Yahweh says he will send the prophet Elijah before the dreadful day that the lord comes, which was previously mentioned. Elijah will "turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers." If that doesn't happen, even though he says it will, he will come and strike the land with a curse." 'Cause that's what loving gods do.

The sermon on the mount, part five

After telling his disciples to be more righteous than the pharisees, who make a point of obeying the law, Jesus explains how to do that by going one step further. He also covers some points of law that are not included in the ten commandments, but are found in the broader context of the many rules and regulations god supposedly gave to Moses, apart from the ones carved in stone. He starts with a point of law, then expands the requirements necessary to avoid hell/damnation.

*First  (Matt. 5:21-22), is murder, found in the ten commandments. Not murdering anyone is not enough though. You also must not get angry with anyone (some manuscripts say without cause, a little loophole.) or face judgement. This is not found in Luke.

*Second, saying "raca" (Apparently a grievous insult that insinuates someone has nothing between their ears) to anyone can land you in front of the sanhedrin, the Jewish court. However, Jesus says even calling someone a fool, presumably a lesser offense, can land you in the fires of hell (gehenna). This is not found in Luke.

*Third, it's not enough to give a sacrificial gift to god, you must first go and make sure you correct any relationship issues first. Wise advice. After that, you won't even need to go make your sacrifice. Not found in Luke.

*Fourth is practical advice to settle monetary disputes out of court if you don't want to end up in jail. Not found in Luke.

*Fifth is adultery, found in the ten commandments. It is not enough to never commit adultery physically. A man must also never look at a woman (presumably one he is not married to) lustfully. This is deemed equivalent to the actual act of adultery. It occurs in the "heart" instead of the body. The body, however, seems to take the blame. A man would be better off without eyes than to look, lust, and land in hell. He would also be better off without his right hand, too. What's his hand got to do with it? Shall we read between the lines? Have you noticed yet that these these teachings are directed primarily at men? This is not found in Luke.

*Sixth is divorce. Jesus says "It has been said, anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." The old testament law doesn't actually say that. It is what the Jews came up with from reading Deuteronomy 24:1-2.  It says, "IF a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her (basically he thinks she was not a virgin Deut 22:12-14), let him write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her and sends her from his house, and after she leaves his house if she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband....writes a certificate of divorce...the first husband is not allowed to marry her again....That would be detestable in the eyes of the lord." There is no command to give certificates of divorce, unless you want to quibble with semantics, but there is an inference that certificates of divorce are the standard procedure.

Anyway, Jesus says in Matt. 5:31-32 that anyone who divorces his wife , except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This is echoed in Luke 16:18, but is not part of the comparable sermon. There, it is more of an afterthought stuck in between two parables. Matthew reapeats himself in 19:7 and Mark also chimes in with similar words in Mark 10:4. Those last two references are in a context of Jesus having a discussion about divorce. We will not go into a broad discussion of divorce here. The basic idea is any man is an adulterer if he marries a divorced woman, and a divorced woman is an adulterer no matter who she marries. There are no guidelines for a woman who wants to divorce her husband.

More to come.

1 Clement part two

Continuing on from chapter 37- 55. The chapters in 1 Clement are very short, sometimes just a paragraph. They also seem rather arbitrary in their divisions.

*In this part there are references to Paul's former letter to the Corinthians. The author calls the church there "the ancient church of Corinth." He says the former letter was written at the beginning of the era of gospel preaching and concerned warring parties and factions, just as those happening at the writing of 1 Clement. It appears the church was not unified, even from the beginning. Phrases from 1 Corinthians are quoted in spots.

*The author gets more specific about the issues in Corinth, saying that long time respected leaders of that church had been removed from office. The author says this is not right and only the wicked would do such a thing. The perpetrators of the current strife are urged to confess they are wrong and even volunteer to leave, for the good of the church.

* The letter continues to tell snippets of paraphrased Old Testament stories and again makes multiple quotes, also mostly from the Old Testament. Again,  there are a couple of quotes claimed to be from scripture and not found in any existing copies of the scriptures. There is a reference to a quote from Jesus, found in Matthew and Luke, about those who are stumbling blocks needing to have millstones tied around thier necks. This is a not too subtle hint to troublemakers.

*Oddly, chapters 40 and 41 advocate following the law, appropriate times for temple offerings, and a place for priests/Levites in worship. If this is not metaphorical, it would mean the letter was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. It would also show that Christianity was still tied to Judaism at that time. The footnotes in the text try to convince us this passage was just referring to an "ideal Jerusalem," but give no justification for that notion. If this letter is that early, Matthew and/or Luke may also have been written that early... Or specific Jesus quotes were going around by word of mouth and used regularly

*One thing that I have noticed, while reading this and looking up quoted scriptures, is how much of the New Testament is cribbed from the Old. Seriously, It's  as if someone took scissors and snipped out a variety of passages from the Old Testament, mixed them up, then made a story out of them.

To be continued.

American slavery vs. Biblical slavery

Ugh. I am so sick of hearing and reading that Biblical slavery was a kinder, gentler version of slavery than American slavery. Folks, slavery is slavery. A person who is the permanent property of another, one who has no personal autonomy, by any other name, is still a slave.

Here is a reply I just posted to someone who wanted to recycle that old argument that Biblical slavery and early American slavery were in no way the same institution:

1. Indentured servitude and slavery are not the same thing, in the bible and in early American history. Do not equate them. Make sure each of your references are referring to actual slavery, not indentured servitude. Indentured servitude is usually voluntary and temporary, slavery is involuntary and permanent.

2. A Hebrew man was permitted to sell his daughter into slavery or servitude. Do you think the daughter had any say in the matter? For women, slavery and servitude this were basically the same thing. Female servants were not released to go free after a specified time, like male Hebrew servants, because they were considered "defiled." They were defiled because female slaves were also the sexual property of their masters. (As often was the case in American slavery) They were, however, "let go" to fend for themselves if the master was no longer willing to support them. Exodus 21

3.The Hebrews practiced indentured servitude on their own people and slavery on all other people. Leviticus 25:44-46. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of the clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life."

4.Even an indentured servant's wife and children remained the property of the master after the servant gained his freedom. If he wanted to keep his wife and children, he had to submit to permanent servitude (slavery). Exodus 21:4-6

5. "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. " Exodus 21:20-21

6. Levitical priests were free to buy slaves. Leviticus 22:11

7. Slavery of women and children as spoils of war was permitted and encouraged by Yahweh. Deuteronomy 20:18. "As for all the women, the children, the livestock, and anything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." 

I think that is enough. Slavery is a vile institution. People should not be property under any circumstance. They should have personal autonomy. Their cultural background, ethnicity, and gender, should not matter. Biblical slavery was not any better than American slavery, no matter how anyone tries to whitewash it. If slavery is wrong to the god Yahweh now, it should have been wrong to him then.

Galatians wrap up

Whew! I am so glad that is over. Galatians was much more complicated than I had realised.  Let's summarize:

The Galatians were gentiles that Paul had taught Jesus worship at one time. Paul got news that they were being influenced by Jews teaching that circumcision was necessary to become children of yahweh. Paul declares, through metaphors, that those who follow the law of Moses aren't the true heirs of the promise, but those that have faith like Abraham are. He compares followers of the law to children born in slavery, turning the conventional understanding of Judaism upside down. Then he declares the Galatians free, by virtue of faith, from a law they were never bound to in the first place.

Paul also gives an account of his conversion that is somewhat different from that depicted in the book of Acts. He tells the Galatians that he learned everything about Jesus from personal revelations through visions, not from mere people, especially not those Jews in Jerusalem, who think they are so special. Throughout the whole book we feel an antipathy towards Judaism. Paul even goes so far as to say that Jews are not children of the promise and will not inherit anything if they don't have faith in the cross of Jesus. Plus, if the Jews are so obsessed with circumcision, Paul says they should go one step further and cut it all off.

Last, Paul explains how to tell the difference between people who live by the sinful nature and those who live by the spirit. Just in case those who live by the spirit slip up, the ones who are more spiritual are to help those backsliders see the true path. Along the way, they must keep a steady eye on themselves as well.

This book does not claim to be the word of a God or gods. It is very one sided. We do not know what the Galatians or the Jews thought of what Paul wrote or taught.

I think the book of  Jonah will be a nice change of pace.

Galatians chapter 5 part 4

We will finish up the fifth chapter of Galatians with the "fruit of the spirit." The spirit in this passage is capitalized and seems to refer to god, though Paul does not define what the spirit is. If you live by this spirit, you will produce love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. "Against such things there is no law." Of course not. But what do they have to do with a mystical spirit? There are followers of many religions, and even no religion, who possess many to all of these qualities. Do they have the spirit of god? Then why become a christian?

Paul contrasts this spirit with the "sinful nature." He say those who belong to christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Then why are so many professing Christians found practicing the acts of the sinful nature mentioned previously? Are they not true christians? It seems to be pretty hard to find one of those true christians nowadays. I'm pretty sure many Buddhists exhibit more fruits of the spirit than some of the christians I know.

Paul does some fancy footwork and says, "since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the spirit. Is it possible to live by the spirit and not keep in step with the spirit? I think Paul is really saying, "Get right, church. And don't embarrass me."

Galatians chapter 5 part 3

We are still looking at the "acts of the sinful nature."

6. Discord:  I think this means "does not play well with others," the opposite of being in accord. Discord has to do with whether someone is in agreement or at least has pleasant attitude toward the people they interact with. Of course a person can be in discord with mean people. In that case they would be in the right, unless they are acting just like them. Causing discord can also refer to causing confusion.

7. Jealousy: admittedly an often unhealthy emotion. Wanting what you don't or can't have can lead to harmful behaviors, such as theft, murder, and destruction of other's property. It can lead to your own psychological harm as well, undermining your self esteem, if you place importance on the number, quality, or size of your posessions compared to others.  Being possessive of people in your life is another form of jealousy  that can do harm to relationships. It's wierd that the bible spends a lot of time saying god is a jealous god. Does god have a sinful nature?

8.Dissensions and factions: these seem to be very similar to causing discord, but in groups or cliques. There are many legitimate reasons to dissent, as we are seeing in the current political climate.

9. Envy: See jealousy.

10. Drunkenness: Surely we all know drunkenness has the potential to do great harm, to one's self and others. Personally, I prize my brain cells too highly to risk destroying any of them. I'm also not fond of feeling nauseated or not in control of my faculties. I don't understand why others might enjoy getting drunk. I missed that part of the "sin nature." However, as long as a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and precautions against harming others, what can anyone say, except to express their own opinion. Notice this passage does not say don't drink at all.

11. Orgies: this is a subject I know very little about and am not particularly interested in. I'm certainly not going to google it.  I would think any thing that can be said has already been mentioned in the last  post under Sexual immorality.

I think it's strange that Paul does not mention things like lying, theft, murder, rape, abuse, libel, slander, genocide, slavery, and other crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks his list covers all the important things in a round about way. He does say that the people who live according to this "sinful nature" will not inherit the kingdom of god. What exactly is the kingdom of god?

The idea of the sinful nature is predicated on the existance of a god who makes rules and has wishes about how things should be done. Ignoring those wishes means getting out of god's grace. Since I don't believe in any gods, I also don't believe in sinning against them. But I think we can sin against our fellow humans, by being hurtful or destructive in a large number of ways. I think we can sin against our selves in a way by self harm or unhealthy behaviors. To some extent that is our own business, untill it affects the well being of others, like second hand cigarette smoke. However, consequences  arise  naturally, and depend on the circumstances.  Life just happens and people behave in ways that people have behaved for millenia. Some people have better luck, some people have better genes, some people have better self control, some people learn how to change the behaviors they want to change.

I'm not sure I covered this topic adequately but we will move on to the "fruit of the spirit"  tomorrow.

Galatians chapter 5 part 2

*So, Paul says, "live by the spirit." Define this spirit for us Paul. Is this the holy spirit? According to Paul, we have this thing called a "sinful nature" that desires what is contrary to the spirit. The sinful nature amd the spirit are in conflict with each other and keep you from doing what you want. This is kind of confusing. Do we want to do good things and are stopped by our sinful nature? Or does the sinful nature make us want to do bad things and we are stopped by the spirit? Paul says if the Galatians are led  by this mysterious spirit, they are not under law. Well, Paul, they weren't under law to begin with. They were Gentiles! Me thinks Paul spends a lot of time projecting.

*Next, Paul lists "the acts of the sinful nature:"
1.Sexual immorality: Is this not following the sexual mores laid out by god in the biblical law, or not following the sexual mores laid out in culture? Those were/are often  two very different things. How were the Galatians to know what Paul considered sexual immorality? Surely not by the law of moses, which he rejects? Sexual mores are complicated, even today. Humanists have tried to come up with a priciple that could work across cultures. It is the basic idea that whatever happens between consenting adults, and does not cause unwanted harm is their own business. The key words being consenting and adult.

2.Impurity: What is impurity anyway? Is that the same thing as uncleanness? Is it defined by the law? If it is, why should we worry about it?

3. Debauchery: According to Google, this means excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. Maybe addictions to drugs, food, drink, sex? I would venture to say that it is unhealthy to excessively indulge in sensual pleasure, but part of the "sinful nature" in us? Not every one is susceptible to that kind of thing. Does that mean some of us don't have sinful natures? The only thing I am personally prone to over indulge in is chocolate. Blast those Aztecs! Actually, today, science has found that this kind of thing is a result of chemicals working in our brain to make us feel good. Everything that makes us feel good is a result of evolutionary biology. Man found ways to harness and concentrate those chemicals even before he knew that's what he was doing. When life is harsh and unpleasant, feel good remedies become something to live for, for some people. Some people seem to have biologically addictive natures, others don't. There are ways to deal with addictions that don't shame by calling the person sinful. Of course, those who are destructive or harmful because of their addictions must be restrained by society in some way, for the safety of the rest of us. But care must be taken to treat them humanely.

4. Idolatry and witchcraft: make believe and nonsense. The harm these do is all in how they make their adherents treat other people. If the adherents do no bodily or psychological harm to people or property, there is no reason to care what they practice. Many of the modern versions are quite harmless and even pleasantly benevolent. It can be quite pleasant to think of the world and the way things work as though they are magical in some way, but it can also be quite scary. Sinful nature though? How can something that must be learned or imagined be part of our nature?

5. Hatred: hatred is such an all encompassing word for feelings of ill will toward others. I believe it must be learned and is not part of our nature. For much of my life, I could not understand hatred. I guess that shows how lucky I have been in my life. I didn't know if it was possible for me to hate until about a decade ago when I was watching "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas time. I felt such a burning disgust at the mean character Mr. Potter that it overwhelmed me. I realized that was hatred. I can't watch that movie any more. I know now that I am capable of hatred, especially in the presence of injustice. Is that a bad thing? I hear christians saying they hate the devil, but that appears to be acceptable hatred. In fact they seem to be permitted to hate the "acts of the sinful nature" in this list as well. Funny. It appears that hate may be complicated. Maybe we should measure its harm by how destructive it is.  Some hatreds may have the power to cause people to act for the betterment of humanity. Some obviously do not. I think all hatred is based in fear, justified or not.

To be continued:

Galatians chapter 5 part 1

Back to Galatians:

*Paul tells the Galatians that it is for freedom that christ has set them free (from what?), they are not to let themselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery. Wait. The Galatians are gentiles. They weren't under the yoke of slavery to the law to begin with. I do think Paul has a point when he says they should not try to be justified by the law. But, he says it would alienate them from christ and make them "fall from grace," which is nonsense.

*Again, Paul goes back to stressing that faith is the important thing. Apparently the Jews who were trying to teach these Galatians were advocating circumcision which Paul is adamantly against, because it is part of the slavery of the law. He says circumcision has no value one way or another, if you are in Christ. "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Nice sentiment, but the faith part is not even necessary. People can be loving without it.

*Paul goes on to tell the Galatians they were doing so well until someone (judaizers) kept them from obeying the truth (Paul's version). He says that kind of persuasion doesn't come from "the one who calls you"--presumably christ. How would they have known they were called if Paul didn't give them his version of salvation? He goes on to say that the one who is throwing them into confusion will pay the penalty. But he doesn't say what that penalty is. He also implies that he is being persecuted (by the Jews?) because he doesn't teach circumcision. If he did, noone would be offended at the preaching of the cross. Then, in a fit of pique, Paul wishes those agitators that are promoting circumcision would "go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

*Paul tells the Galatians they were called to be free (again, from what?). They should use their freedom to serve one another in love, because the entire law can be summed up in one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Really? Paul, have you read the entire law? Where is all the love?
If the Law means that, then why are you against following it? Why does it need to be dismissed? Why have you compared it to slavery? Why does anyone need to be freed from it?

To be continued.

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.

Galatians chapter 3 Part 3

*We have reached the last part of verse 19 where the author says the law was put into effect through angels by a mediator (Moses?). Frankly, I don't understand verse 20, but my study bible claims it means the law was a contract between god and the Israelites, but god's promise to Abraham was one sided and needed no mediator. According to Paul, this does not make the law opposed to the promise because the law that was given was not capable of imparting life or righteousness.

*Next, Paul says scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin. Pause. When the New Testament writers talk about "scripture" they are referring to what we know as the books of the Old Testament, probably those included the Septuagint.  The Bible as we know it today did not exist. The Septuagint also had more books than our modern Protestant Old Testament. I am not familiar with those books deemed unsuitable for the modern protestant versions. They may very well have a passage that states the whole world is a prisoner of sin. My Bible does not. However, there are numerous passages in Isaiah and Psalms that refer, in poetry and metaphor, to prisoners and captives being freed by god and/or his special servant. After reviewing many of them, it seems clear that the writer  of Galatians most likely derived his Jesus theology from these kinds of passages.

*I'm going to do some armchair psychology here and say that I suspect Paul felt himself to be a prisoner of sin, because of his own attempts to follow the law of Moses to the nth degree, and finding himself incapable of doing so. Maybe he visited the temple and saw the floors running with the blood of the never ending sacrifices. The priest's garments would have been spattered with blood and gore. So much death. And some of it was because of him. Being an intelligent guy, he eventually figured out there was no way anyone could win at that game. (Just like Tic Tac Toe and Thermo-nuclear War) Also being psychologically incapable of declaring the law to be a farce, he had to come up with some reason god had imposed the law upon the Israelites. He also had to discover god's plan for the future, because god surely wouldn't leave people in that sorry state of being prisoners to the law forever. Couldn't god come up with a way to "fulfill" that bloody law of sacrifice for sin, once and for all? Paul must have seriously obsessed over this dilemma before he had his visionary revelation of Jesus.
Could his supposed vision have been influence by passages like Psalm 42 which talks about making god's servant "a covenant for the people and a light for the gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to free the captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."

*Paul says,"Before this faith came, we (Jews) were held prisoners by the law, locked up untl the faith should be revealed." To whom was it revealed? Paul! Trust him. The law was put in charge to lead them to christ that they might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come (back), they are no longer under the supervision of the law. It can't be wrong, he had a personal revelation.

Edited. 

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.

Galatians chapter 3 part 1

After a few detours, we are back in Galatians at chapter 3:

*Here Paul is berating the Galatians. He says they recieved the "spirit" by believing about the crucifiction of Jesus as it was portrayed when they heard it, probably from Paul, who never encountered the living Jesus, except through visions. They recieved the spirit and witnessed miracles not because they observed the law, but because they believed. Here, and in most of christianity, belief is the supreme virtue, even above any moral acts.

*Abraham is given as the epitome of righteousness obtained through belief, and anyone who believes is a metaphorical child of Abraham. Paul says everyone who relies on observing the law is under a curse because it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (Deut 26:27, Jer. 11:3) Well, Paul, technically that means you and your gentile friends are cursed. To counter that, Paul also quotes Habbakuk 2:4 which  according to Paul says "the righteous will live by faith." Looking back at that verse in Habbakuk, I find a footnote that says this passage could also say "the righteous will live by Faithfulness." Faith and Faithfulness are two different things. The first cognitive the second active, comparable to the difference between belief and ongoing obedience. One word that could send Paul's argument down the drain. Abraham didn't have to worry about the curse under the law because it didn't exist yet.

*Next Paul says Christ redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, "cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Deut. 21:23) Well it seems to me that being crucified is not the same as being hung. I guess it doesn't matter because it's still on a piece of wood. What about all the other innocent people who were hung or crucified, were they cursed for our sake? How does that work? We are cursed by not following the law properly,  then we are not cursed because Jesus was cursed for us, then we are cursed for trying to follow the law anyway? I think Paul is trying to say that Jesus's crucifixion nullified the law and its curse, essentially rolling back  to before there was a law, when Faith was the supreme virtue. But then he wants to claim that curse still holds if you don't believe in Jesus crucified.

*Abraham, if he existed, didn't believe in Jesus, he believed in El/Yahweh. Can a person just believe in that and be free from the curse of the law? It seems that Paul says you have to actually believe there was a redeemer of the curse for the nullification of the curse to work. It's like your mind flicks an invisible curse switch. Otherwise, you're toast.