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!
Friday, May 31, 2019
Thursday, May 30, 2019
1 Peter part three
We are now in chapter two of 1 Peter. The readers are told to rid themselves of "all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind." Worthy goals, I think, depending on how each vice is defined. The readers are also told to "crave pure spiritual milk" like newborn babies, so that they will grow up in their salvation. Funny, in Hebrews, the readers were told they needed to quit milk and eat solid food, so they wouldn't be babies forever, metaphorically speaking, of course.
Speaking of metaphors, we are heading into another one. This one is about Jesus being the precious living cornerstone of a spiritual house. He was rejected by men but chosen by god. The readers are also living stones in this spiritual house. Then the author mixes his metaphors and says the readers are also a holy priesthood making spiritual sacrifices to god, through Jesus.
The author's proof of this stony metaphor is a quote from Isaiah 28:16, "See, I lay a stone in Zion, (a tested stone) a chosen and precious cornerstone (for a sure foundation), and the one who trusts in him ("in him" is not in my version of Isaiah) will never be put to shame (in Isaiah, it's "dismayed" instead of "put to shame)." Differences in my bible's 1Peter quote and my bible's Isaiah passage are in parentheses. Notice that Isaiah does not actually refer to the cornerstone as if it were an individual. Also notice that this stone, which Peter wants to be Jesus, is a foundation cornerstone.
The author says this stone is precious to those who believe, but for unbelievers he has another quote, from Psalm 118:22. "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone." Wait a minute. This is also supposed to be referring to Jesus, but now he is a capstone! Which is it, cornerstone or capstone? Next, the author quotes Isaiah 8:14 "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." In Isaiah this particular stone is referring to Yahweh. The author of 1 Peter thinks it's supposed to be Jesus, but now Jesus is a nuisance rock, tripping people up. No matter which quote you use, Jesus appears to be compared to a rock of some kind. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Stumbling on the rock is a consequence of disobedience. People who do that are just fulfilling their destiny. Ouch. But the readers, they are the chosen people, a holy nation, a people belonging to god. Again, is the author speaking to Jews or gentiles or a mix? It might be gentiles because next he says that god called them "out of darkness into his wonderful light." Once they were not a people, but now they are the people of god. Or, it could be Jews, because he calls them aliens and strangers in the world, who need to be a good example for the pagans. That's so the pagans will glorify god when he finally comes for a visit. Seriously? I don't see that happening.
The readers are told to submit themselves "for the lord's sake to every authority instituted among men; whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him (the king) to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." So much for christian civil disobedience. Here is good old fashioned authoritarianism. It's god's will that by doing good (obeying the authorities) the readers will silence the gossip about them. (What is the gossip about them?) They are to live as free men, but not to use their freedom as a cover up for evil. How does that look in real life? They are to "show proper respect to everyone, love the brotherhood of believers, fear god, and honor the king." Even if he is a tyrant?
Till next time.
Speaking of metaphors, we are heading into another one. This one is about Jesus being the precious living cornerstone of a spiritual house. He was rejected by men but chosen by god. The readers are also living stones in this spiritual house. Then the author mixes his metaphors and says the readers are also a holy priesthood making spiritual sacrifices to god, through Jesus.
The author's proof of this stony metaphor is a quote from Isaiah 28:16, "See, I lay a stone in Zion, (a tested stone) a chosen and precious cornerstone (for a sure foundation), and the one who trusts in him ("in him" is not in my version of Isaiah) will never be put to shame (in Isaiah, it's "dismayed" instead of "put to shame)." Differences in my bible's 1Peter quote and my bible's Isaiah passage are in parentheses. Notice that Isaiah does not actually refer to the cornerstone as if it were an individual. Also notice that this stone, which Peter wants to be Jesus, is a foundation cornerstone.
The author says this stone is precious to those who believe, but for unbelievers he has another quote, from Psalm 118:22. "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone." Wait a minute. This is also supposed to be referring to Jesus, but now he is a capstone! Which is it, cornerstone or capstone? Next, the author quotes Isaiah 8:14 "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." In Isaiah this particular stone is referring to Yahweh. The author of 1 Peter thinks it's supposed to be Jesus, but now Jesus is a nuisance rock, tripping people up. No matter which quote you use, Jesus appears to be compared to a rock of some kind. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Stumbling on the rock is a consequence of disobedience. People who do that are just fulfilling their destiny. Ouch. But the readers, they are the chosen people, a holy nation, a people belonging to god. Again, is the author speaking to Jews or gentiles or a mix? It might be gentiles because next he says that god called them "out of darkness into his wonderful light." Once they were not a people, but now they are the people of god. Or, it could be Jews, because he calls them aliens and strangers in the world, who need to be a good example for the pagans. That's so the pagans will glorify god when he finally comes for a visit. Seriously? I don't see that happening.
The readers are told to submit themselves "for the lord's sake to every authority instituted among men; whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him (the king) to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." So much for christian civil disobedience. Here is good old fashioned authoritarianism. It's god's will that by doing good (obeying the authorities) the readers will silence the gossip about them. (What is the gossip about them?) They are to live as free men, but not to use their freedom as a cover up for evil. How does that look in real life? They are to "show proper respect to everyone, love the brotherhood of believers, fear god, and honor the king." Even if he is a tyrant?
Till next time.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
1 Peter part two
We are at 1 Peter 1:10. The author tells the reader that "prophets (which prophets?) who spoke of the grace ( what's grace?) to come to you searched intently (what did they search?) and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the spirit of christ in them was pointing (You mean the "spirit of christ "didn't make it clear? Imagine that! ) when he predicted the sufferings of christ and the glories that would follow. Supposedly, even though the time and circumstances of the sufferings of christ weren't revealed to the aforementioned prophets, it was revealed that they weren't serving themselves but the readers of this letter! The prophets spoke of the things that have been told to the readers by those who preached the gospel to them, by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.
Okay, so, the letter readers got their version of the gospel, whatever that was, from people who got the gospel message from the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, not Jesus. And all this was supposedly prophesied, but we don't know when, where, or by whom, and we are given no quotes. But even angels want to know about this stuff. Riiight.
Therefore, the recipients of the letter are to prepare their minds for action, set their hopes fully on the grace (What's grace?) to be given them when Jesus christ is revealed. Wait. Jesus hasn't been revealed yet? They are also to be obedient, and holy in everything they do, because god is holy. What does holy mean and how do mortals attain holiness if it's a god thing?
In verse 17, God is referred to as a father who judges each man's work impartially. (What about women's work? ) That's why they should live as strangers on the earth, in reverent fear. (Be afraid!) They weren't redeemed with silver and gold from the empty way of life handed down from the ancestors. In this context, redemption is probably a metaphorical reference to being freed from slavery buy having their debt paid off or freedom purchased. They were redeemed by the blood of christ, who is described as a lamb without blemish or defect, chosen before the creation of the world. So, before lambs, blood, sacrifices, altars, etc., were even twinkles in god's eye, he knew he was going to sacrifice Jesus. That's weirdly specific don't you think? And very odd. Before he created anything, god decided to make his human/god son (who wasn't all human yet so how was he a "son?" ) a blood sacrifice to pay for the redemption of people he hadn't created yet.
All this was revealed in those "last times," for their sake. Those "last times" were almost two thousand years ago. Through Jesus, they believe in god, who raised Jesus from the dead. So, their faith and hope are actually in god. Does this mean they believed in Jesus first? They must be gentiles. According to the author they purified themselves by obeying the truth. Obedience to the truth seems to entail loving each other deeply and sincerely, from the heart. They do this because they have been born again, not from biological sperm (seed), but from imperishable seed "through the living and enduring word of god." In other words, invisible and metaphorical mumbo jumbo some how makes them have a renewed life.
Next, we have a quote from Isaiah 40:6-8 about the word of god, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, (because the breath of the lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass) but the word of the lord stands forever." The words in parentheses are in Isaiah but not in 1 Peter. How comforting and encouraging for the author to remind the reader of their eventual demise. However, he seems to forget that without people there wouldn't be transmission of, or need for, a word of god. When people disappear, so does god.
Okay, so, the letter readers got their version of the gospel, whatever that was, from people who got the gospel message from the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, not Jesus. And all this was supposedly prophesied, but we don't know when, where, or by whom, and we are given no quotes. But even angels want to know about this stuff. Riiight.
Therefore, the recipients of the letter are to prepare their minds for action, set their hopes fully on the grace (What's grace?) to be given them when Jesus christ is revealed. Wait. Jesus hasn't been revealed yet? They are also to be obedient, and holy in everything they do, because god is holy. What does holy mean and how do mortals attain holiness if it's a god thing?
In verse 17, God is referred to as a father who judges each man's work impartially. (What about women's work? ) That's why they should live as strangers on the earth, in reverent fear. (Be afraid!) They weren't redeemed with silver and gold from the empty way of life handed down from the ancestors. In this context, redemption is probably a metaphorical reference to being freed from slavery buy having their debt paid off or freedom purchased. They were redeemed by the blood of christ, who is described as a lamb without blemish or defect, chosen before the creation of the world. So, before lambs, blood, sacrifices, altars, etc., were even twinkles in god's eye, he knew he was going to sacrifice Jesus. That's weirdly specific don't you think? And very odd. Before he created anything, god decided to make his human/god son (who wasn't all human yet so how was he a "son?" ) a blood sacrifice to pay for the redemption of people he hadn't created yet.
All this was revealed in those "last times," for their sake. Those "last times" were almost two thousand years ago. Through Jesus, they believe in god, who raised Jesus from the dead. So, their faith and hope are actually in god. Does this mean they believed in Jesus first? They must be gentiles. According to the author they purified themselves by obeying the truth. Obedience to the truth seems to entail loving each other deeply and sincerely, from the heart. They do this because they have been born again, not from biological sperm (seed), but from imperishable seed "through the living and enduring word of god." In other words, invisible and metaphorical mumbo jumbo some how makes them have a renewed life.
Next, we have a quote from Isaiah 40:6-8 about the word of god, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, (because the breath of the lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass) but the word of the lord stands forever." The words in parentheses are in Isaiah but not in 1 Peter. How comforting and encouraging for the author to remind the reader of their eventual demise. However, he seems to forget that without people there wouldn't be transmission of, or need for, a word of god. When people disappear, so does god.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
1 Peter introduction.
I think we will tackle 1st and 2nd Peter next. It should be interesting. Lets read what Wikipedia has to say about 1 Peter here.
Notice that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the authorship of this letter. The most pertinent objection to Peter having written it is that it is just too well written to be composed by a first century fisherman. Let's see if we can uncover any other objections.
The book starts off with the author introducing himself as the apostle Peter, presumably the same Peter we read about in other New Testament books. It is written "to god's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." These areas were all provinces in Asia Minor/Anatolia, in or around modern Turkey. The letter addresses those "who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of god the father, through the sanctifying work of the spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood." There is a lot of theology in that greeting. Notice the mention of the trinity and the role of each part. Notice Jesus's blood is sprinkled, like Moses did with the blood of the covenant, as we discussed in our Hebrews study. Of course it's figurative sprinkling of figurative blood, because Jesus's actual blood was never sprinkled on any actual person or thing. Who are god's elect going to be in this letter, exiled Jews, gentiles, or both? They are obviously believers in Jesus, but we also already have some reference to Jewish symbolism.
The letter continues on praising god for giving them "new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil, or fade-- kept in heaven" for them. All supernatural, invisible stuff that they have to wait till they are dead to see. Maybe. The readers' faith is supposed to create a shield of god's power for them , "until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." This means it hasn't been revealed to them yet. Guess what, two thousand years later, still no reveal.
Peter informs the readers that they rejoice in this coming salvation, even though they've bee through some rough times for a little while: "grief and all kinds of trials." No specifics though. The trials have a purpose, to refine their faith, the same way fire refines gold, even though faith is worth a lot more than gold. This is called an analogy: Trials are to faith as fire is to gold. Trials supposedly prove whether or not faith is genuine. They are a test of a true christian. When they haven't seen Jesus, yet they still love him and believe in him, they are "filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy" because they are receiving the salvation of their souls.
This is delusional and sick, in my opinion, if anyone actually feels joy from having grief or trials. Seriously, the joy stuff is pure propaganda. In my experience very few Christians experience joy when going through tough times. They are human beings after all. Most people do whatever it takes to get by, avoiding hardships and pain whenever possible, or using coping mechanisms when they can't. The author's manufactured joy isn't even pleasant. Who wants it?
Till next time.
Saturday, May 18, 2019
Hebrews wrap up
The book of Hebrews, as its name implies, is written exclusively for Hebrew believers in Jesus. It was written at an unknown time, around the first two centuries of the christian era, by an unknown author, who does not claim to be inspired or to be writing the word of god. Hebrews defines the gospel as the teaching that there is still "god's sabbath rest", or an afterlife to come, for the believing Jews. In the old covenant, god's rest had to do with rest or freedom from from dealing with their enemies in the land God gave the Hebrews. When this book was written, there probably was still no rest from dealing with enemies in the land of the Hebrews, even after centuries of living under the old covenant. A new interpretation is being made of "god's rest," along with everything else associated with the old covenant.
This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.
The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.
The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.
The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot, he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.
No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.
I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.
This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.
The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.
The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.
The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot, he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.
No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.
I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.
Hebrews part nineteen
Today we finish up the last chapter of Hebrews starting at verse 15. We've been told that there are no more blood sacrifices because Jesus was the last most perfect sacrifice. But wait. What is this? The author is now telling his readers there are sacrifices they need to make: "a sacrifice of praise-- the fruit of lips that confess his name, doing good, and sharing with others." God likes those sacrifices. Notice that praising god comes first in that list and "doing good" is not defined. The only useful specific thing god seems to want is sharing with others.
There is more. The author tells the readers to obey their leaders and "submit to their authority." This is the classic definition of authoritarianism. Why must they obey? So that the leader's work "will be a joy and not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Do you see the implied threat? It's all about the leaders.
The letter ends with a paulinesque wrap up. The author asks for prayers for a clear conscience and desire to live honorably. This makes hims sound good. He also asks them to pray for him to be restored to the readers soon. Remember we have no idea who the author is or who this supposed letter is written to. How do we know if they wanted him back?
Next the author says a kind of prayer for the reader, which is actually a doctrinal statement and sermon in disguise. "May the god of peace , who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." Whew!
You would think that's where the letter should end, but it does not. This next part actually looks like something tacked on later. The writer tells the reader to bear with his word of exhortation, after all it's only a short letter. Actually, it's quite long for a letter. Consider that all that makes up the thirteen chapters we have read was written out by hand on papyrus or some other such handmade paper. The text alone takes up about eleven whole pages of my standard sized bible with relatively small typeface.
Verse 23 tells the reader "Timothy has been released" from some unknown place, presumably having been imprisoned. The author, however, dies not appear to be imprisoned because he says, if Timothy comes to him soon, they will both travel to see the readers, wherever they are. This sentence looks like name dropping to me, in an attempt to influence the reader's belief that the letter was written by Paul.
Last, the unknown readers are told to greet their unknown leaders and all god's people. Wouldn't the leaders be the ones to receive this letter? Considering the contents of this "letter," all god's people must be Jews in exile somewhere. Then we read that "those in Italy send you their greetings. Grace be with you all." Again, unknown people, in an undisclosed location in Italy, send their greetings. It looks like another attempt to tie this writing to Paul.
Well that's the end of the book of Hebrews. Next time we do a wrap up. Till then.
There is more. The author tells the readers to obey their leaders and "submit to their authority." This is the classic definition of authoritarianism. Why must they obey? So that the leader's work "will be a joy and not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Do you see the implied threat? It's all about the leaders.
The letter ends with a paulinesque wrap up. The author asks for prayers for a clear conscience and desire to live honorably. This makes hims sound good. He also asks them to pray for him to be restored to the readers soon. Remember we have no idea who the author is or who this supposed letter is written to. How do we know if they wanted him back?
Next the author says a kind of prayer for the reader, which is actually a doctrinal statement and sermon in disguise. "May the god of peace , who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." Whew!
You would think that's where the letter should end, but it does not. This next part actually looks like something tacked on later. The writer tells the reader to bear with his word of exhortation, after all it's only a short letter. Actually, it's quite long for a letter. Consider that all that makes up the thirteen chapters we have read was written out by hand on papyrus or some other such handmade paper. The text alone takes up about eleven whole pages of my standard sized bible with relatively small typeface.
Verse 23 tells the reader "Timothy has been released" from some unknown place, presumably having been imprisoned. The author, however, dies not appear to be imprisoned because he says, if Timothy comes to him soon, they will both travel to see the readers, wherever they are. This sentence looks like name dropping to me, in an attempt to influence the reader's belief that the letter was written by Paul.
Last, the unknown readers are told to greet their unknown leaders and all god's people. Wouldn't the leaders be the ones to receive this letter? Considering the contents of this "letter," all god's people must be Jews in exile somewhere. Then we read that "those in Italy send you their greetings. Grace be with you all." Again, unknown people, in an undisclosed location in Italy, send their greetings. It looks like another attempt to tie this writing to Paul.
Well that's the end of the book of Hebrews. Next time we do a wrap up. Till then.
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Hebrews part eighteen
We are now at Hebrews chapter thirteen, the last chapter. The end is in sight! In this chapter, the Hebrews are told to continue loving each other as brothers, because they might entertain angels without knowing it. They also need to remember those in prison and those being mistreated, as if it were they themselves suffering. What good will being remembered do for the people who are actually suffering?
The author goes on to say " marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed be kept pure." That means nobody gets to have sex with a non spouse. Why? Because God hates adulterers and the sexually immoral. What is the difference between an adulterer and a sexually immoral person? I don't know, maybe they are the same thing. I was wrong when I previously wrote that Jesus said nothing about sex. He was clearly against adultery and lust.
The readers are also told not to love money. They need to be content with what they have, "because god has said I will never leave you or forsake you." (A quote from Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 31:6) What good is god's invisible presence when you have no food or shelter or means to obtain it?
The Hebrews are also told to say with confidence, "The lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What can man do to me." (Psalm 118:6-7) In case you didn't already know, man/mankind can do a lot of harm, to other people and property, in spite of a god who is supposed to be a helper. At many times, there are legitimate reason to be very afraid. It's almost like there is no god.
The readers are also told to remember their leaders who spoke the word of god to them.(Like maybe the author of this book?) The leaders are providing an example of life and faith that needs to be imitated. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." Amen. That means every believer should be living and believing the exact same way. "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Like stories about crucified and risen saviors, who became invisible heavenly high priests, and sprinkle their invisible blood, making people have eternal life?
Next, the Hebrews are to that it is good for their hearts "to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them." Huh? First of All, what in tarnation is grace? How can it strengthen a heart? Second, what do ceremonial foods have to do with anything? The author appears to be sharply veering right back into his high priest and temple metaphor, or the heavenly reality of which that earthly stuff is a shadow. He speaks of people having no right to eat from the altar they minister at. Presumably he is talking about the earthly high priests.
Again, the author talks about the earthly high priest carrying the blood of animals into the holy place. He says the bodies of the animals were burned outside the city, after the sacrifice. Then the author somehow associates this with Jesus "suffering outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." So, likewise the believers should bear the disgrace Jesus bore by being outside the city. (Presumably Jerusalem) They don't need the city, because they are looking for the enduring city that is to come. Hmm. This seems like the kind of thing outcasts might say.
I'm going to revise my ruminations and guess that this book may have been written before the fall of Jerusalem after all, in the infancy of Christianity. It definitely appears to be pre synoptic gospels, and maybe even pre Paul.
Till next time.
The author goes on to say " marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed be kept pure." That means nobody gets to have sex with a non spouse. Why? Because God hates adulterers and the sexually immoral. What is the difference between an adulterer and a sexually immoral person? I don't know, maybe they are the same thing. I was wrong when I previously wrote that Jesus said nothing about sex. He was clearly against adultery and lust.
The readers are also told not to love money. They need to be content with what they have, "because god has said I will never leave you or forsake you." (A quote from Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 31:6) What good is god's invisible presence when you have no food or shelter or means to obtain it?
The Hebrews are also told to say with confidence, "The lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What can man do to me." (Psalm 118:6-7) In case you didn't already know, man/mankind can do a lot of harm, to other people and property, in spite of a god who is supposed to be a helper. At many times, there are legitimate reason to be very afraid. It's almost like there is no god.
The readers are also told to remember their leaders who spoke the word of god to them.(Like maybe the author of this book?) The leaders are providing an example of life and faith that needs to be imitated. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." Amen. That means every believer should be living and believing the exact same way. "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Like stories about crucified and risen saviors, who became invisible heavenly high priests, and sprinkle their invisible blood, making people have eternal life?
Next, the Hebrews are to that it is good for their hearts "to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them." Huh? First of All, what in tarnation is grace? How can it strengthen a heart? Second, what do ceremonial foods have to do with anything? The author appears to be sharply veering right back into his high priest and temple metaphor, or the heavenly reality of which that earthly stuff is a shadow. He speaks of people having no right to eat from the altar they minister at. Presumably he is talking about the earthly high priests.
Again, the author talks about the earthly high priest carrying the blood of animals into the holy place. He says the bodies of the animals were burned outside the city, after the sacrifice. Then the author somehow associates this with Jesus "suffering outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." So, likewise the believers should bear the disgrace Jesus bore by being outside the city. (Presumably Jerusalem) They don't need the city, because they are looking for the enduring city that is to come. Hmm. This seems like the kind of thing outcasts might say.
I'm going to revise my ruminations and guess that this book may have been written before the fall of Jerusalem after all, in the infancy of Christianity. It definitely appears to be pre synoptic gospels, and maybe even pre Paul.
Till next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)