"O Come O Come Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel
Who mourns in lowly exile here
Until the Son of God appears
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee O Israel."
Have you ever thought about the theology that underlies this? What does it mean to talk about Israel in exile? What does it mean for these Israelite captives to be waiting for the appearance of Emmanuel?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Dating the Book of Jubilees
One way to determine the earliest date when a writing, especially pseudopigraphical writings like Jubilees, could have been written is to do a little detective work in the writing and look for anachronistic references. This is simply looking for references that reflect events or details that are specific to a certain time and that which earlier references would have been impossible. For example, if a writing was made that made clear reference to the winning of the presidential election by Barak Obama, you would have a "no-earlier-than" date of 2008 since references to his winning the election would be near impossible before that time.
You can apply this technique to the Book of Jubilees to determine a likely range of dates for it's composition. In this first example, Jubilees recounts the events of Genesis 1-3 (with his own modifications of course). When he arrives at Adam and Eve's eating of the fruit and God's ensuing punishment, he retells the story of Adam sewing leaves to cover his and Eve's nakedness and he retells the part about God making a garment for them. At this point, Jubilees offers a new interesting detail:
Jubilees 3.30. And to Adam alone did He give (the wherewithal) to cover his shame, of all the beasts and cattle. 31. On this account, it is prescribed on the heavenly tables as touching all those who know the judgment of the law, that they should cover their shame, and should not uncover themselves as the Gentiles uncover themselves.
The mention here of Gentiles that uncover themselves is one of these anachronistic references. During the Second Temple period, and during the high priesthoods of Jason and Menelaus (very Greek names), Judea underwent a time of "Hellenization" (cf: Jos. Ant. 12.5). One of the things that Menelaus allowed was the building of a gymnasium in Jerusalem. Gymnasiums in the Greek world were not like gyms of today because in the Greek world, the sports were practiced completely naked. Hence, this particular reference in Jubilees seems to reflect the practices of the Greeks, probably specifically the gymnasium in Jerusalem that was built under Hellenized High Priests. The Jerusalem gymnasium was especially difficult for the Jewish population at the time as they were undergoing derision for Jewish particulars, of which circumcision was one. Josephus records how most tried to find ways to hide their circumcision when participating in the gymnasium (Ant. 12.5.1).
There are other details and pieces of data that indicate a much later composition for Jubilees. Consider for example that in the stories of the patriarchs in Jubilees there is no mention of flaws or faults on the part of the patriarchs and there is evidence of trying to smooth over difficult texts. Consider the binding of Isaac in Jubilees:
Jubilees 16.15. And it came to pass in the seventh week, in the first year thereof, in the first month in this jubilee, on the twelfth of this month, there were voices in heaven regarding Abraham, that he was faithful in all that He told him, and that he loved the Lord, and that in every affliction he was faithful. 16. prince Mastêmâ came and said before God, "Behold, Abraham loveth Isaac his son, and he delighteth in him above all things else; bid him offer him as a burnt-offering on the altar, and Thou wilt see if he will do this command, and Thou wilt know if he is faithful in everything wherein Thou dost try him."
Here, unlike Genesis, it's not God's idea to tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it's Prince Mastema's idea in a manner very reminiscent of satan and God's encounter in the book of Job. It's fairly obvious that (1) someone didn't like the idea of God just commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and (2) this someone was familiar with the book of Job.
Or consider when Jacob obtains the blessing of his father in Jubilees:
Jubilees 26:19. And he said: "Art thou my son Esau?" and he said: "I am thy son and he said, "Bring near to me that I may eat of that which thou hast caught, my son, that my soul may bless thee."
Here, Jacob simply says "I am thy son" whereas in Genesis he says, "I am thy son Esau". In Jubilees, Jacob isn't presented as a trickster that tricks his father into blessing him and so Isaac isn't presented as incompetent. Obviously, the author of Jubilees is a later writer who, being a devout descendant of the patriarchs, doesn't like the flaws of the patriarchs as they are presented in Genesis, so he fixes it.
Inserted into Jubilees 23:9-32 is a series of woe's the seem to distinctly reflect the situation and difficult circumstances surrounding the Maccabean Revolt and we find another anachronistic reference:
23:26. And in those days the children will begin to study the laws,
And to seek the commandments,
And to return to the path of righteousness.
Here, the author seems to be referring to his own sect who were practicing strict sabbath observance and following the proper calendar (a huge theme of the book). In the midst of the Hellenizing of the leadership and the ensuing Maccabean Revolt, the author considers himself and his own sect as those who are enlightened to the truth (an identical theme shows up in the Book of Enoch as well).
Another anachronizing tendency seems to be with the mention of the Book of Enoch (a second temple writing) itself:
Jubilees 4.17. And he was the first among men that are born on earth who learnt writing and knowledge and wisdom and who wrote down the signs of heaven according to the order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of their separate months. 18. And he was the first to write a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth, and recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known to them the days of the years, and set in order the months and recounted the Sabbaths of the years as we made (them) known to him. 19. And what was and what will be he saw in a vision of his sleep, as it will happen to the children of men throughout their generations until the day of judgment; he saw and understood everything, and wrote his testimony, and placed the testimony on earth for all the children of men and for their generations.
Simply put, if the Book of Enoch is a second temple writing, and Jubilees mentions Enoch, then Jubilees can be no earlier than the Book of Enoch. This probably also indicates that the 364 day solar calendar of Jubilees is derived from the Book of Enoch, which further reflects a later Second Temple dating.
All in all, a useful way of determining the dating of the book of Jubilees is to look at anachronistic tendencies and find references that are tell-tale signs of a specific date.
You can apply this technique to the Book of Jubilees to determine a likely range of dates for it's composition. In this first example, Jubilees recounts the events of Genesis 1-3 (with his own modifications of course). When he arrives at Adam and Eve's eating of the fruit and God's ensuing punishment, he retells the story of Adam sewing leaves to cover his and Eve's nakedness and he retells the part about God making a garment for them. At this point, Jubilees offers a new interesting detail:
Jubilees 3.30. And to Adam alone did He give (the wherewithal) to cover his shame, of all the beasts and cattle. 31. On this account, it is prescribed on the heavenly tables as touching all those who know the judgment of the law, that they should cover their shame, and should not uncover themselves as the Gentiles uncover themselves.
The mention here of Gentiles that uncover themselves is one of these anachronistic references. During the Second Temple period, and during the high priesthoods of Jason and Menelaus (very Greek names), Judea underwent a time of "Hellenization" (cf: Jos. Ant. 12.5). One of the things that Menelaus allowed was the building of a gymnasium in Jerusalem. Gymnasiums in the Greek world were not like gyms of today because in the Greek world, the sports were practiced completely naked. Hence, this particular reference in Jubilees seems to reflect the practices of the Greeks, probably specifically the gymnasium in Jerusalem that was built under Hellenized High Priests. The Jerusalem gymnasium was especially difficult for the Jewish population at the time as they were undergoing derision for Jewish particulars, of which circumcision was one. Josephus records how most tried to find ways to hide their circumcision when participating in the gymnasium (Ant. 12.5.1).
There are other details and pieces of data that indicate a much later composition for Jubilees. Consider for example that in the stories of the patriarchs in Jubilees there is no mention of flaws or faults on the part of the patriarchs and there is evidence of trying to smooth over difficult texts. Consider the binding of Isaac in Jubilees:
Jubilees 16.15. And it came to pass in the seventh week, in the first year thereof, in the first month in this jubilee, on the twelfth of this month, there were voices in heaven regarding Abraham, that he was faithful in all that He told him, and that he loved the Lord, and that in every affliction he was faithful. 16. prince Mastêmâ came and said before God, "Behold, Abraham loveth Isaac his son, and he delighteth in him above all things else; bid him offer him as a burnt-offering on the altar, and Thou wilt see if he will do this command, and Thou wilt know if he is faithful in everything wherein Thou dost try him."
Here, unlike Genesis, it's not God's idea to tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it's Prince Mastema's idea in a manner very reminiscent of satan and God's encounter in the book of Job. It's fairly obvious that (1) someone didn't like the idea of God just commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and (2) this someone was familiar with the book of Job.
Or consider when Jacob obtains the blessing of his father in Jubilees:
Jubilees 26:19. And he said: "Art thou my son Esau?" and he said: "I am thy son and he said, "Bring near to me that I may eat of that which thou hast caught, my son, that my soul may bless thee."
Here, Jacob simply says "I am thy son" whereas in Genesis he says, "I am thy son Esau". In Jubilees, Jacob isn't presented as a trickster that tricks his father into blessing him and so Isaac isn't presented as incompetent. Obviously, the author of Jubilees is a later writer who, being a devout descendant of the patriarchs, doesn't like the flaws of the patriarchs as they are presented in Genesis, so he fixes it.
Inserted into Jubilees 23:9-32 is a series of woe's the seem to distinctly reflect the situation and difficult circumstances surrounding the Maccabean Revolt and we find another anachronistic reference:
23:26. And in those days the children will begin to study the laws,
And to seek the commandments,
And to return to the path of righteousness.
Here, the author seems to be referring to his own sect who were practicing strict sabbath observance and following the proper calendar (a huge theme of the book). In the midst of the Hellenizing of the leadership and the ensuing Maccabean Revolt, the author considers himself and his own sect as those who are enlightened to the truth (an identical theme shows up in the Book of Enoch as well).
Another anachronizing tendency seems to be with the mention of the Book of Enoch (a second temple writing) itself:
Jubilees 4.17. And he was the first among men that are born on earth who learnt writing and knowledge and wisdom and who wrote down the signs of heaven according to the order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of their separate months. 18. And he was the first to write a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth, and recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known to them the days of the years, and set in order the months and recounted the Sabbaths of the years as we made (them) known to him. 19. And what was and what will be he saw in a vision of his sleep, as it will happen to the children of men throughout their generations until the day of judgment; he saw and understood everything, and wrote his testimony, and placed the testimony on earth for all the children of men and for their generations.
Simply put, if the Book of Enoch is a second temple writing, and Jubilees mentions Enoch, then Jubilees can be no earlier than the Book of Enoch. This probably also indicates that the 364 day solar calendar of Jubilees is derived from the Book of Enoch, which further reflects a later Second Temple dating.
All in all, a useful way of determining the dating of the book of Jubilees is to look at anachronistic tendencies and find references that are tell-tale signs of a specific date.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Dating The Book of Enoch
The consensus among scholarship is that the book of Enoch is Second Temple Jewish sectarian literature. How does someone arrive at such a view though? Here I am going to look at one way of dating the book of Enoch.
In chapters 85-90 we are given a series of dreams that Enoch supposedly has and passes on to his son Methuselah. The dreams that Enoch has here are fairly easy to correlate with historical events. Things are given enough detail to be able to tell from the passage what historical event is being referred to. For instance, 89:1-9 covers the biblical flood. 89:10-27 covers the period from the death of Noah to the Exodus.
89:23. But the wolves began to pursue those sheep till they reached a sea of water. 24. And that sea was divided, and the water stood on this side and on that before their face, and their Lord led them and placed Himself between them and the wolves. 25. And as those wolves did not yet see the sheep, they proceeded into the midst of that sea, and the wolves followed the sheep, and [those wolves] ran after them into that sea. 26. And when they saw the Lord of the sheep, they turned to flee before His face, but that sea gathered itself together, and became as it had been created, and the water swelled and rose till it covered those wolves. 27. And I saw till all the wolves who pursued those sheep perished and were drowned.
89:28-40 covers the period of wilderness wandering and giving of the Law at Sinai.
89:41-50 covers the time from the Judges to the building of the first temple.
89:51:67 covers the period from the splitting of the Davidic kingdom to the destruction of Jerusalem.
At this point, the "sheep" are blinded and they are given over to a series of wicked shepherds. We find reference to to building of the second temple (89:73) and the conquering of the Greek empire under Alexander the Great (89:74-75). In all, 35 [wicked] 'shepherds' lead God's people during this period. Then we are confronted with the period of Seleucid domination where another 23 [wicked] 'shepherds' rule God's people (90:2-5). So far 58 shepherds have ruled God's people since the return from Babylon. This is noteworthy, because Enoch only envisions 70 shepherds total ruling over God's people before the great judgment would occur (90:22).
At this point, the blindness of some of the sheep begins to be lifted (90:6). These sheep try to "wake-up"the other sheep which refuse to listen to their warnings (90:7). Here we are looking at a correlation between the last 12 shepherds and the Maccabean Revolt. At this point, the correlations between the dreams and historical events becomes very vague, esoteric, and frankly non-existent. The reason is due to when the author was writing. He lives around the time of the Maccabean Revolt; a time when he expects the last of the 70 shepherds to be ruling before the great judgment. The visionary experiences of "Enoch" correlate with historical events up the Maccabean Revolt very easily because it's actually prophecy ex eventu (after the fact) as it's very easy to recount events of one's own time of living. Things become vague and esoteric at the point just beyond the Maccabean Revolt in the visions because predicting the future with such accuracy is much more difficult for the author than recalling past events is and it's much more difficult than the familiarity of, and ease of writing about, one's own time. Had he known that the Romans would conquer Israel in 63BC or that the temple would be destroyed again in AD 70, he might have rethought or rewritten the book of Enoch.
Further, the point in the visions where the blindness of the sheep begins to be removed (90:6-7) probably indicates the time to where this Jewish sect traced it's origins. Their particular sect had the blinders removed and they tried to persuade the other 'sheep' of the "truth", but the other sheep were still blind and wouldn't listen. This might correspond to the time of the high priest Onias III who was murdered and replaced by a Hellenistic-influenced high priest (Jason).
This is one of the methods used to date the book of Enoch to the Second Temple period.
In chapters 85-90 we are given a series of dreams that Enoch supposedly has and passes on to his son Methuselah. The dreams that Enoch has here are fairly easy to correlate with historical events. Things are given enough detail to be able to tell from the passage what historical event is being referred to. For instance, 89:1-9 covers the biblical flood. 89:10-27 covers the period from the death of Noah to the Exodus.
89:23. But the wolves began to pursue those sheep till they reached a sea of water. 24. And that sea was divided, and the water stood on this side and on that before their face, and their Lord led them and placed Himself between them and the wolves. 25. And as those wolves did not yet see the sheep, they proceeded into the midst of that sea, and the wolves followed the sheep, and [those wolves] ran after them into that sea. 26. And when they saw the Lord of the sheep, they turned to flee before His face, but that sea gathered itself together, and became as it had been created, and the water swelled and rose till it covered those wolves. 27. And I saw till all the wolves who pursued those sheep perished and were drowned.
89:28-40 covers the period of wilderness wandering and giving of the Law at Sinai.
89:41-50 covers the time from the Judges to the building of the first temple.
89:51:67 covers the period from the splitting of the Davidic kingdom to the destruction of Jerusalem.
At this point, the "sheep" are blinded and they are given over to a series of wicked shepherds. We find reference to to building of the second temple (89:73) and the conquering of the Greek empire under Alexander the Great (89:74-75). In all, 35 [wicked] 'shepherds' lead God's people during this period. Then we are confronted with the period of Seleucid domination where another 23 [wicked] 'shepherds' rule God's people (90:2-5). So far 58 shepherds have ruled God's people since the return from Babylon. This is noteworthy, because Enoch only envisions 70 shepherds total ruling over God's people before the great judgment would occur (90:22).
At this point, the blindness of some of the sheep begins to be lifted (90:6). These sheep try to "wake-up"the other sheep which refuse to listen to their warnings (90:7). Here we are looking at a correlation between the last 12 shepherds and the Maccabean Revolt. At this point, the correlations between the dreams and historical events becomes very vague, esoteric, and frankly non-existent. The reason is due to when the author was writing. He lives around the time of the Maccabean Revolt; a time when he expects the last of the 70 shepherds to be ruling before the great judgment. The visionary experiences of "Enoch" correlate with historical events up the Maccabean Revolt very easily because it's actually prophecy ex eventu (after the fact) as it's very easy to recount events of one's own time of living. Things become vague and esoteric at the point just beyond the Maccabean Revolt in the visions because predicting the future with such accuracy is much more difficult for the author than recalling past events is and it's much more difficult than the familiarity of, and ease of writing about, one's own time. Had he known that the Romans would conquer Israel in 63BC or that the temple would be destroyed again in AD 70, he might have rethought or rewritten the book of Enoch.
Further, the point in the visions where the blindness of the sheep begins to be removed (90:6-7) probably indicates the time to where this Jewish sect traced it's origins. Their particular sect had the blinders removed and they tried to persuade the other 'sheep' of the "truth", but the other sheep were still blind and wouldn't listen. This might correspond to the time of the high priest Onias III who was murdered and replaced by a Hellenistic-influenced high priest (Jason).
This is one of the methods used to date the book of Enoch to the Second Temple period.
Monday, September 27, 2010
The Book of Enoch: A Jewish Sectarian Work
It seems that it has become faddish for some evangelicals to quote the book of Enoch as a sort of authoritative proof text for pet doctrines (usually dealing with speculative eschatology). I think that quoting the book of Enoch in such a manner is very reckless in that taking this view does not take into account that Enoch is 2nd Temple Jewish sectarian literature. The mention of fallen angels, end-of-the-world scenarios, heavenly visions, and such occurs within the context of Second Temple Judaism. The Book of Enoch in particular reflects an Essene outlook on things, in contrast to that of the Pharisees and Sadducees. What "Enoch" means by things like "sinners", "elect", "angels", "righteous", and "judgment" are not what Christianity means by those terms. One cannot look at the Book of Enoch through the lens of Christian belief and practice and expect to accurately interpret it.
Consider for a moment that the Book of Enoch treats the stars in heaven as heavenly beings who have transgressed the divine commands of God by not showing up at their appointed time. This may seem strange, but follow this to the end.
(this is RH Charles' translation)
Here "Enoch" mentions how he observes that some of the heavenly luminaries (heavenly lights) don't "transgress" their appointed order and how everything appears to happen at appointed times (see also chapters 3-5). What we will discover from Enoch is that these 'appointed times' are a particular 364 day solar calendar.
In chapter 6 we run into the story about the supposed copulation between the angels and women and we also find the names of the rebellious angels. This story continues on for several chapters
In chapter 12 we see that the watchers are identified with the fallen angels:
Chapters 17-36 involve Enoch's vision/travel through heaven and hell. It's here we find some interesting information about the rebellious angels:
Here, the prison at the ends of the earth is for the stars that have transgressed the commandments of God by not appearing at their appointed times, which as we discover if we continue reading Enoch (or Jubilees) means they didn't abide by a 364 day solar calendar.
Chapter 19 mentions the women who copulated with these rebellious angels.
In chapter 20, we meet Raguel, one of the righteous angels whose job is take vengeance on the "heavenly luminaries". Why? As we saw, these heavenly luminaries, the fallen angels, have rebelled against God by transgressing His Holy calendar:
This continues into chapter 21 where Enoch asks about the imprisoned angels:
This continues in chapter 23 where Enoch sees the rebellious luminaries (lights) of heaven being punished for their transgression:
What slowly becomes clear if you read all of Enoch is that he has a particular idea in mind when he mentions sinners and the elect:
In chapters 41 we find the first mention of astronomical observations dealing with the calendar. In chapter 43, we find more mention of the stars of heaven who are the equivalent of angels:
Chapters 72-79 go into detail on the 364 day solar calendar. And finally in chapter 80, we find the identification of the ultimate sin of men:
Here we discover that those who don't follow the just mentioned 364 day solar calendar are SINNERS who have followed the fallen angels who they mistake for gods, which are those stars (angels for Enoch) that don't arrive at their prescribed times. The "elect" for Enoch are those who have been enlightened to the TRUE commandments of God and follow the right calendar.
The problem that the author of Enoch didn't consider was that his 364 day calendar was 1.25 days off of what the real solar calendar is, and so as he observes the stars from year to year he will observe that they show up later and later each year from where he thought they would be. So, since he already thought of the stars as heavenly beings/angels, he concludes that the problem isn't the calendar, but the angels.
Especially driving this conclusion is the fact that Enoch's calendar (the Essene calendar that's also found in the book of Jubilees) is extremely symmetrical and very consistent. Unlike the calendars of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Essene calendar didn't depend on the observation of the moon, so on the Essene calendar feast days occur at the same time every year, on the same days of the week, and don't shift/rove around as they do if you are using a strict lunar calendar. Also interesting is that if you project the Essene calendar back onto the Old Testament, no "work" can be dated to have occured on the Sabbath. This is admittedly a pretty impressive accomplishment. The downside is that in order to make the calendar work out in that desired way, their new year must start on the 4th day of the week contrary to the Pharisee and Sadducee calendars which started on the first day of the week.
For "Enoch", given the nice symmetry of his calendar where feast days occur with high regularity and where no event in the Old Testament occurs on the Sabbath, the curious occurrence of the stars not showing up at appointed times must not be the fault of such a pretty calendar that had obviously been ordained by God. The problem for Enoch was that the stars were angels who transgressed God's command. Sinners were those who followed the wrong calendar (ie, the Pharisees and Sadducees). The elect (ie, the Essenes) were the ones enlightened to the truth of God's commands and so followed the proper calendar.
The book of Enoch is 2nd Temple Jewish sectarian literature, and has no bearing on Christian belief and practice other than looking at the New Testament in it's historical context.
For more see:
"Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian", Beckwith, Roger T.
"The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls", Vanderkam and Flint.
Consider for a moment that the Book of Enoch treats the stars in heaven as heavenly beings who have transgressed the divine commands of God by not showing up at their appointed time. This may seem strange, but follow this to the end.
(this is RH Charles' translation)
Enoch 2:1. Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven, how they do not change their orbits, ⌈and⌉ the luminaries which are in the heaven, how they all rise and set in order each in its season, and transgress not against their appointed order. 2. Behold ye the earth, and give heed to the things which take place upon it from first to last, ⌈how steadfast they are⌉, how ⌈none of the things upon earth⌉ change, ⌈but⌉ all the works of God appear ⌈to you⌉. 3. Behold the summer and the winter, ⌈⌈how the whole earth is filled with water, and clouds and dew and rain lie upon it⌉⌉.
Here "Enoch" mentions how he observes that some of the heavenly luminaries (heavenly lights) don't "transgress" their appointed order and how everything appears to happen at appointed times (see also chapters 3-5). What we will discover from Enoch is that these 'appointed times' are a particular 364 day solar calendar.
In chapter 6 we run into the story about the supposed copulation between the angels and women and we also find the names of the rebellious angels. This story continues on for several chapters
In chapter 12 we see that the watchers are identified with the fallen angels:
1. Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. 2. And his activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones. 3. And I, Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo! the Watchers called me--Enoch the scribe--and said to me: 4. 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, †declare† to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place,...
Chapters 17-36 involve Enoch's vision/travel through heaven and hell. It's here we find some interesting information about the rebellious angels:
18:13. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, 14. The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven. 15. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times.
Here, the prison at the ends of the earth is for the stars that have transgressed the commandments of God by not appearing at their appointed times, which as we discover if we continue reading Enoch (or Jubilees) means they didn't abide by a 364 day solar calendar.
Chapter 19 mentions the women who copulated with these rebellious angels.
In chapter 20, we meet Raguel, one of the righteous angels whose job is take vengeance on the "heavenly luminaries". Why? As we saw, these heavenly luminaries, the fallen angels, have rebelled against God by transgressing His Holy calendar:
20:4 Raguel, one of the holy angels who †takes vengeance on† the world of the luminaries.
This continues into chapter 21 where Enoch asks about the imprisoned angels:
21:4. Then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' 5. Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? 6. These are of the number of the stars ⌈of heaven⌉, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.'
This continues in chapter 23 where Enoch sees the rebellious luminaries (lights) of heaven being punished for their transgression:
23:2. And I saw a ⌈⌈burning⌉⌉ fire which ran without resting, and paused not from its course day or night but (ran) regularly. 3. And I asked saying: 'What is this which rests not?' 4. Then Raguel, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered me ⌈⌈and said unto me⌉⌉: 'This course ⌈of fire⌉ ⌈⌈which thou hast seen⌉⌉ is the fire in the west which †persecutes† all the luminaries of heaven.
What slowly becomes clear if you read all of Enoch is that he has a particular idea in mind when he mentions sinners and the elect:
38:3. When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners judged,
And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect,
4. From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be powerful and exalted:
And they shall not be able to behold the face of the holy,
For the Lord of Spirits has caused His light to appear
On the face of the holy, righteous, and elect.
In chapters 41 we find the first mention of astronomical observations dealing with the calendar. In chapter 43, we find more mention of the stars of heaven who are the equivalent of angels:
1. And I saw other lightnings and the stars of heaven, and I saw how He called them all by their names and they hearkened unto Him. 2. And I saw how they are weighed in a righteous balance according to their proportions of light: (I saw) the width of their spaces and the day of their appearing, and how their revolution produces lightning: and (I saw) their revolution according to the number of the angels, and (how) they keep faith with each other.
Chapters 72-79 go into detail on the 364 day solar calendar. And finally in chapter 80, we find the identification of the ultimate sin of men:
1. And in those days the angel Uriel answered and said to me: 'Behold, I have shown thee everything, Enoch, and I have revealed everything to thee that thou shouldst see this sun and this moon, and the leaders of the stars of the heaven and all those who turn them, their tasks and times and departures.
2. And in the days of the sinners the years shall be shortened,
And their seed shall be tardy on their lands and fields,
And all things on the earth shall alter,
And shall not appear in their time:
And the rain shall be kept back
And the heaven shall withhold (it).
3. And in those times the fruits of the earth shall be backward,
And shall not grow in their time,
And the fruits of the trees shall be withheld in their time.
4. And the moon shall alter her order,
And not appear at her time.
5. [And in those days the sun shall be seen and he shall journey in the evening †on the extremity of the great chariot† in the west]
And shall shine more brightly than accords with the order of light.
6. And many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order (prescribed).
And these shall alter their orbits and tasks,
And not appear at the seasons prescribed to them.
7. And the whole order of the stars shall be concealed from the sinners,
And the thoughts of those on the earth shall err concerning them,
[And they shall be altered from all their ways],
Yea, they shall err and take them to be gods.
8. And evil shall be multiplied upon them,
And punishment shall come upon them So as to destroy all.'
Here we discover that those who don't follow the just mentioned 364 day solar calendar are SINNERS who have followed the fallen angels who they mistake for gods, which are those stars (angels for Enoch) that don't arrive at their prescribed times. The "elect" for Enoch are those who have been enlightened to the TRUE commandments of God and follow the right calendar.
The problem that the author of Enoch didn't consider was that his 364 day calendar was 1.25 days off of what the real solar calendar is, and so as he observes the stars from year to year he will observe that they show up later and later each year from where he thought they would be. So, since he already thought of the stars as heavenly beings/angels, he concludes that the problem isn't the calendar, but the angels.
Especially driving this conclusion is the fact that Enoch's calendar (the Essene calendar that's also found in the book of Jubilees) is extremely symmetrical and very consistent. Unlike the calendars of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Essene calendar didn't depend on the observation of the moon, so on the Essene calendar feast days occur at the same time every year, on the same days of the week, and don't shift/rove around as they do if you are using a strict lunar calendar. Also interesting is that if you project the Essene calendar back onto the Old Testament, no "work" can be dated to have occured on the Sabbath. This is admittedly a pretty impressive accomplishment. The downside is that in order to make the calendar work out in that desired way, their new year must start on the 4th day of the week contrary to the Pharisee and Sadducee calendars which started on the first day of the week.
For "Enoch", given the nice symmetry of his calendar where feast days occur with high regularity and where no event in the Old Testament occurs on the Sabbath, the curious occurrence of the stars not showing up at appointed times must not be the fault of such a pretty calendar that had obviously been ordained by God. The problem for Enoch was that the stars were angels who transgressed God's command. Sinners were those who followed the wrong calendar (ie, the Pharisees and Sadducees). The elect (ie, the Essenes) were the ones enlightened to the truth of God's commands and so followed the proper calendar.
The book of Enoch is 2nd Temple Jewish sectarian literature, and has no bearing on Christian belief and practice other than looking at the New Testament in it's historical context.
For more see:
"Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian", Beckwith, Roger T.
"The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls", Vanderkam and Flint.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Ritual, Tradition, Worship, and Football
I became curious this morning sitting in church and thinking about a good weekend of college football. I thought about a frequent repulsion on the part of some worshipers when it comes to ritual and tradition. Many people don't like the idea of falling into a pattern of tradition and ritual when it comes to worship. The thought is, I think, that people feel that tradition and worship lead to a lack of heart and soul being poured into the worship experience and they understandably fear being in the position of just going through the motions of worship without the worship itself carrying any meaning. But, after thinking about football (yes, that's right), I'm not sure that sort of reasoning actually carries much weight.
Think about it for a minute from the perspective of an SEC football game. The ritual and tradition that surround a home game begins a day or two before with people arriving for the game in an RV. People park in the same location every Saturday, eat generally the same food, and usually with the same people. The method of wearing clothes becomes somewhat of a superstition as people prefer the shirts and hats that helped the team win the last 2 games straight. In the stadium, the program follows ultimate predictability. The team comes out to warm up following the same warm up pattern they have followed every weekend under the current coach. Videos are shown on the jumbo tron in a certain order and at a specified time. The band marches around the field the same as they have done for the past several decades playing the same songs in the same order as they march around. The teams break from their warm up and go into the locker rooms. The cheerleaders lead the entire crowd in the same cheers and in the same order as they always do. The national anthem is played. The same videos show up on the screen again and the team storms out through the dry ice all to the sound of the school's fight song. All of this is only a fraction of the tradition and ritual that occur on any given Saturday.
College football is the ultimate experience of ritual, tradition, and in many instances downright superstition that would make the ancient pagans blush. But even in the midst of all of this pure tradition and ritual, people still have their emotions running through the clouds. People are still screaming their heads off at full volume as the climactic moment of kick-off rolls around. And people still come back week after week eager and ready to repeat the process yet again.
But when it comes to our worship, many people seem to think that ritual and tradition have no place as it leads to dead worship where people just go through the motions. I disagree with that sort of thinking and say that college football (or many of the other sports where the same things occur) falsifies this sort of rationality. The problem with tradition and ritual worship is not the tradition and ritual itself. I think in many cases the problem lies with the worshiper themselves and with their own heart, desires, and expectations.
Maybe those against tradition and ritual need to "get their heads in the game"?
Think about it for a minute from the perspective of an SEC football game. The ritual and tradition that surround a home game begins a day or two before with people arriving for the game in an RV. People park in the same location every Saturday, eat generally the same food, and usually with the same people. The method of wearing clothes becomes somewhat of a superstition as people prefer the shirts and hats that helped the team win the last 2 games straight. In the stadium, the program follows ultimate predictability. The team comes out to warm up following the same warm up pattern they have followed every weekend under the current coach. Videos are shown on the jumbo tron in a certain order and at a specified time. The band marches around the field the same as they have done for the past several decades playing the same songs in the same order as they march around. The teams break from their warm up and go into the locker rooms. The cheerleaders lead the entire crowd in the same cheers and in the same order as they always do. The national anthem is played. The same videos show up on the screen again and the team storms out through the dry ice all to the sound of the school's fight song. All of this is only a fraction of the tradition and ritual that occur on any given Saturday.
College football is the ultimate experience of ritual, tradition, and in many instances downright superstition that would make the ancient pagans blush. But even in the midst of all of this pure tradition and ritual, people still have their emotions running through the clouds. People are still screaming their heads off at full volume as the climactic moment of kick-off rolls around. And people still come back week after week eager and ready to repeat the process yet again.
But when it comes to our worship, many people seem to think that ritual and tradition have no place as it leads to dead worship where people just go through the motions. I disagree with that sort of thinking and say that college football (or many of the other sports where the same things occur) falsifies this sort of rationality. The problem with tradition and ritual worship is not the tradition and ritual itself. I think in many cases the problem lies with the worshiper themselves and with their own heart, desires, and expectations.
Maybe those against tradition and ritual need to "get their heads in the game"?
Rabbi's Talk About the Pharisees
Given the harsh words directed toward the Pharisees, in Matthew's gospel in particular, it's interesting to see what the Rabbi's say about their own:
"Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the shikmi Pharisee, the nikpi Pharisee, the kizai Pharisee, the ‘pestle’ Pharisee, the Pharisee (who constantly exclaims) ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’, the Pharisee from love (of God) and the Pharisee from fear. The shikmi Pharisee — he is one who performs the action of Shechem. The nikpi Pharisee — he is one who knocks his feet together. The kizai Pharisee — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He is one who makes his blood flow against walls. The ‘pestle’ Pharisee — Rabbah b. Shila said: (His head) is bowed like (a pestle in) a mortar. The Pharisee (who constantly exclaims) ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’ — but that is a virtue! — Nay, what he says is, ‘What further duty is for me that I may perform it?’ The Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear — Abaye and Raba said to the tanna (who was reciting this passage), Do not mention ‘the Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear’; for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should always engage himself in Torah and the commandments even though it be not for their own sake, because from (engaging in them) not for their own sake, he will come (to engage in them) for their own sake. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is hidden is hidden, and what is revealed is revealed: the Great Tribunal will exact punishment from those who rub themselves against the walls”(Jerusalem Talmud, “Berachot,” 14b; Babylonian Talmud, “Sotah” 22b).
Shimki: Literally the 'shoulder' Pharisee. Probably wore his deeds on his shoulders for everyone to see.
Nikpi: Pharisee who would always wait to act, or 'knocked his feet together'. He tries to find some sort of advantageous act for himself to perform. So, he falls short in his duties as a rabbinical leader since he was unsure if he should or wanted to act.
Kizai: Pharisee who was 'blind' in that he walked around with downcast eyes to avoid looking at the unclean. He 'makes his blood flow against walls' because he can't see where he's going and so runs into walls.
Pestle: The 'humpbacked Pharisee". Probably indicates that he walked around hunched over in false humility.
"What is my Duty": A Pharisee that always kept tabs on the good duties he performed in order to outweigh the bad ones. Or perhaps he thought that he had already fulfilled his obligations.
Love: The Pharisee who acted out of love for God.
Fear: The Pharisee who acted out of fear/awe/respect for God (or possibly fear of punishment).
"Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the shikmi Pharisee, the nikpi Pharisee, the kizai Pharisee, the ‘pestle’ Pharisee, the Pharisee (who constantly exclaims) ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’, the Pharisee from love (of God) and the Pharisee from fear. The shikmi Pharisee — he is one who performs the action of Shechem. The nikpi Pharisee — he is one who knocks his feet together. The kizai Pharisee — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He is one who makes his blood flow against walls. The ‘pestle’ Pharisee — Rabbah b. Shila said: (His head) is bowed like (a pestle in) a mortar. The Pharisee (who constantly exclaims) ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’ — but that is a virtue! — Nay, what he says is, ‘What further duty is for me that I may perform it?’ The Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear — Abaye and Raba said to the tanna (who was reciting this passage), Do not mention ‘the Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear’; for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should always engage himself in Torah and the commandments even though it be not for their own sake, because from (engaging in them) not for their own sake, he will come (to engage in them) for their own sake. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is hidden is hidden, and what is revealed is revealed: the Great Tribunal will exact punishment from those who rub themselves against the walls”(Jerusalem Talmud, “Berachot,” 14b; Babylonian Talmud, “Sotah” 22b).
Shimki: Literally the 'shoulder' Pharisee. Probably wore his deeds on his shoulders for everyone to see.
Nikpi: Pharisee who would always wait to act, or 'knocked his feet together'. He tries to find some sort of advantageous act for himself to perform. So, he falls short in his duties as a rabbinical leader since he was unsure if he should or wanted to act.
Kizai: Pharisee who was 'blind' in that he walked around with downcast eyes to avoid looking at the unclean. He 'makes his blood flow against walls' because he can't see where he's going and so runs into walls.
Pestle: The 'humpbacked Pharisee". Probably indicates that he walked around hunched over in false humility.
"What is my Duty": A Pharisee that always kept tabs on the good duties he performed in order to outweigh the bad ones. Or perhaps he thought that he had already fulfilled his obligations.
Love: The Pharisee who acted out of love for God.
Fear: The Pharisee who acted out of fear/awe/respect for God (or possibly fear of punishment).
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Isaiah 9:6 Variant in the Aramaic Targum
The Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 9:6 has yet another interesting reading:
T. Isaiah 9:6 "The Prophet said to the House of David, for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, wonderful, the mighty God, who lives in eternity, the messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in his days".
T. Isaiah 9:6 "The Prophet said to the House of David, for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, wonderful, the mighty God, who lives in eternity, the messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in his days".
Isaiah 9:6 Variant in the LXX
I was intrigued by a variant reading in Isaiah 9:6 today:
Here is the normal reading from the Masoretic Text (MT) as translated in the NRSV:
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Here is the variant reading that occurs in the Septuagint (LXX) translated in to English in the New English Translation of the LXX:
Isaiah 9:6 "Because a child was born to us, a son was also given to us, whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder, and he is named Angel of mighty council, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him".
Interesting is the use of "Angel of mighty council". Several church fathers seem to have had a preference for the LXX rendering (and some even seem aware of the MT reading):
"“A Son,” they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Antiochians, 3)
"The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child, thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.” Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.5)
"And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel," (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 76)
"He has been, it is true, called “the Angel of great counsel,” that is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, not of nature. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man. But He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel or a Michael." (Tertullian, [Against Marcion] On the Flesh of Christ, 14)
"To him the names of Captain, and great High Priest, Prophet of the Father, Angel of mighty counsel, Brightness of the Father’s light, Only begotten Son, with a thousand other titles, are ascribed in the oracles of the sacred writers. And the Father, having constituted him the living Word, and Law and Wisdom, the fullness of all blessing, has presented this best and greatest gift to all who are the subjects of his sovereignty." (Eusebius, the Oration of Eusebius, 3.7)
"Well then, He says by the prophet, ‘A Son is born and given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Angel of Great Counsel, mighty God, Ruler, Father of the coming age’ "(Athanasius, On Luke 10:22, section 5)
"But Isaiah also says: “His name is called Angel of Great Counsel" (Origen, Commentary on John, 1.34)
"For the Spirit Himself is Power, as you read: “The Spirit of Counsel and of Power (or might).” And as the Son is the Angel of great counsel, so, too, is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Counsel (Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 2.2.20)
"For there, in clear and uncontrovertible terms, there is indicated by the prophecy the dispensation of His Humanity; for “unto us,” he says, “a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name is called the Angel of mighty counsel.” And it is with an eye to this, I suppose, that David describes the establishment of His kingdom" (Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, 11.3)
(see also: John Cassian, Against Nestorius, 2.3. Novatian, Concerning the Trinity, 18, 28. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3.2.Question 83.Article 4.)
Worth exploring is the possibility that this LXX variant reflects an earlier Hebrew text and what light this might shed on understanding 9:6
Here is the normal reading from the Masoretic Text (MT) as translated in the NRSV:
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Here is the variant reading that occurs in the Septuagint (LXX) translated in to English in the New English Translation of the LXX:
Isaiah 9:6 "Because a child was born to us, a son was also given to us, whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder, and he is named Angel of mighty council, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him".
Interesting is the use of "Angel of mighty council". Several church fathers seem to have had a preference for the LXX rendering (and some even seem aware of the MT reading):
"“A Son,” they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Antiochians, 3)
"The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child, thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.” Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.5)
"And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel," (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 76)
"He has been, it is true, called “the Angel of great counsel,” that is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, not of nature. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man. But He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel or a Michael." (Tertullian, [Against Marcion] On the Flesh of Christ, 14)
"To him the names of Captain, and great High Priest, Prophet of the Father, Angel of mighty counsel, Brightness of the Father’s light, Only begotten Son, with a thousand other titles, are ascribed in the oracles of the sacred writers. And the Father, having constituted him the living Word, and Law and Wisdom, the fullness of all blessing, has presented this best and greatest gift to all who are the subjects of his sovereignty." (Eusebius, the Oration of Eusebius, 3.7)
"Well then, He says by the prophet, ‘A Son is born and given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Angel of Great Counsel, mighty God, Ruler, Father of the coming age’ "(Athanasius, On Luke 10:22, section 5)
"But Isaiah also says: “His name is called Angel of Great Counsel" (Origen, Commentary on John, 1.34)
"For the Spirit Himself is Power, as you read: “The Spirit of Counsel and of Power (or might).” And as the Son is the Angel of great counsel, so, too, is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Counsel (Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 2.2.20)
"For there, in clear and uncontrovertible terms, there is indicated by the prophecy the dispensation of His Humanity; for “unto us,” he says, “a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name is called the Angel of mighty counsel.” And it is with an eye to this, I suppose, that David describes the establishment of His kingdom" (Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, 11.3)
(see also: John Cassian, Against Nestorius, 2.3. Novatian, Concerning the Trinity, 18, 28. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3.2.Question 83.Article 4.)
Worth exploring is the possibility that this LXX variant reflects an earlier Hebrew text and what light this might shed on understanding 9:6
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Perpetual Virginity
I was given reason today to consider the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary and consider why I don't accept such a theory. The simple reason is that I can find no good reason to accept it. I find no exegetical reason and nothing that can make a positive case for such a thing. I think a natural reading of the text would indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters, among whom would be James and Jude.
I don't see a reason to immediately accept the idea that 'adelphos' (Greek word for brother) should automatically be taken to mean something other than 'brother' (as in two people from the same womb). I understand that it doesn't necessarily carry such a connotation all the time, but pointing to a range of meanings for a word doesn't really solve anything. It isn't logical to accept a meaning among a range of meanings without sufficient reason for making the choice.
After considering a the literary techniques used in Mark 3, the cultural background of 1st century Palestine (large families were the norm), the fact that Joseph and Mary had a real marriage (ie, a consumated one rather that a fictional and unconsumated one, which seems rather confusing anyway), the fact of James assuming the leadership of the Jerusalem church (rather than Peter, John, or another disciple), and the recent discovery of James' ossurary with the Aramaic inscription ("James son of Joseph brother of Jesus") [1], I must say that what seems to me to be the natural reading of 'adelphos' looks like it has firm support for continuing to see it as the correct reading, and there is as of yet no good reason to think otherwise. This is to say that Jesus had other brothers and sisters and so Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin.
There may be other reasons for thinking one way or another, those are just my initial thoughts.
[1] I realize this might be more controversial due to the debate over authenticity that initially surrounded the ossurary discovery. The forgery trial that ensued and lasted for 5 years has come to a close though. See:
"Strata: Forgery Trial Ends.” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/Jun 2010.
"Strata: Forgery Case Collapses.” Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 2009.
I don't see a reason to immediately accept the idea that 'adelphos' (Greek word for brother) should automatically be taken to mean something other than 'brother' (as in two people from the same womb). I understand that it doesn't necessarily carry such a connotation all the time, but pointing to a range of meanings for a word doesn't really solve anything. It isn't logical to accept a meaning among a range of meanings without sufficient reason for making the choice.
After considering a the literary techniques used in Mark 3, the cultural background of 1st century Palestine (large families were the norm), the fact that Joseph and Mary had a real marriage (ie, a consumated one rather that a fictional and unconsumated one, which seems rather confusing anyway), the fact of James assuming the leadership of the Jerusalem church (rather than Peter, John, or another disciple), and the recent discovery of James' ossurary with the Aramaic inscription ("James son of Joseph brother of Jesus") [1], I must say that what seems to me to be the natural reading of 'adelphos' looks like it has firm support for continuing to see it as the correct reading, and there is as of yet no good reason to think otherwise. This is to say that Jesus had other brothers and sisters and so Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin.
There may be other reasons for thinking one way or another, those are just my initial thoughts.
[1] I realize this might be more controversial due to the debate over authenticity that initially surrounded the ossurary discovery. The forgery trial that ensued and lasted for 5 years has come to a close though. See:
"Strata: Forgery Trial Ends.” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/Jun 2010.
"Strata: Forgery Case Collapses.” Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 2009.
Immaculate Conception
Thanks to Turretinfan for providing the following:
A list of interesting Papal comments on the sinlessness of Mary:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-many-popes-does-it-take-to-deny.html
Thomas Aquinas and other church fathers on the issue:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/thomas-aquinas-and-fathers-of-church-on.html
Augustine:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-augustine-teach-sinlessness-of-mary.html
A list of interesting Papal comments on the sinlessness of Mary:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-many-popes-does-it-take-to-deny.html
Thomas Aquinas and other church fathers on the issue:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/thomas-aquinas-and-fathers-of-church-on.html
Augustine:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-augustine-teach-sinlessness-of-mary.html
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Hermeneutic Assumptions
Here is a short/concise list of assumptions I make when I read the bible. First, note that we all bring a set of assumptions to the table when we read any piece of text (be it bible, newspaper, novel, or whatever). It's often due to significant differences in assumptions that lead to sometimes radically different interpretations of a passage. Here are the assumptions I use, with a quick explanation for some of them:
(1) Human words, sentences, and thoughts have definite content and meaning.
(2) The content and meaning of our words, sentences, and thoughts take on a meaning as the author of them intend.
(3) The meaning of an author words, sentences, and thoughts is discoverable by the context in which those things occur.
When approaching the bible, it's important to consider the following in order to determine the author's intent:
(4) Historical Context
(5) Cultural Context
(6) Literary Context
(7) Genre/Form
(8) Redaction
(9) Sources
(10) Canonical Context
(11) Usage of grammar and vocabular
(12) Author
(13) Ideal Audience
Further I make the following assumptions and conclusions about the bible and use these when reading the text:
(a) The bible is inspired by God
(b) The bible is a collection of many books, with many human authors, many scribes, many genres, several different cultural settings, and many different timeframes
(c) The intent of the author determines the meaning of the passage.
This list might not be all inclusive, so I will update it as appropriate.
(1) Human words, sentences, and thoughts have definite content and meaning.
(2) The content and meaning of our words, sentences, and thoughts take on a meaning as the author of them intend.
(3) The meaning of an author words, sentences, and thoughts is discoverable by the context in which those things occur.
When approaching the bible, it's important to consider the following in order to determine the author's intent:
(4) Historical Context
(5) Cultural Context
(6) Literary Context
(7) Genre/Form
(8) Redaction
(9) Sources
(10) Canonical Context
(11) Usage of grammar and vocabular
(12) Author
(13) Ideal Audience
Further I make the following assumptions and conclusions about the bible and use these when reading the text:
(a) The bible is inspired by God
(b) The bible is a collection of many books, with many human authors, many scribes, many genres, several different cultural settings, and many different timeframes
(c) The intent of the author determines the meaning of the passage.
This list might not be all inclusive, so I will update it as appropriate.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Gog and Magog: Coded Reference to the Historical Babylon
I want to explore the possibility of identifying Gog and Magog as historical figures. Besides the much discussed Eze 38-39 and Rev 20:8, the location of Magog and identity of Gog are unattested in the bible apart from Gen 10:2, 1 Chr 1:5, and 1 Chr 5:4 where Magog is clearly a nation/people descended from Japeth and Gog is the name of a person.I think it highly possible that Ezekiel is using cover words, or code words, by using Gog and Magog. If this is the case, I think the obvious candidates for Gog and Magog are Babylon (the historical Babylon, not a metaphoric one) and it's king.
First, note that Ezekiel has a long list of oracles against various nations in Eze 25-32 (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, Egypt, Lebanon, Assyria, Elam, Meshech-Tubal). This list of oracles against various nations covers Israel's historical enemies up to the time of Ezekiel with the exception of one - Babylon - the major power that was contemporary with Ezekiel. Why does Ezekiel leave out the name of the power that sacked Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and carried people away into exile? Isaiah and Jeremiah have no trouble making pronouncements against Babylon, but Ezekiel surprisingly leaves them out. Or does he? It must be remembered that Isaiah lived prior to Ezekiel and that Jeremiah had gone into exile into Egypt (Jer 43). Ezekiel, however, lived among the captives in Babylon (Eze 1:1). As a captive trying to make do with his captors, Ezekiel must not openly oppose the king if he wants to preserve his messages and possibly his life. In this case, Ezekiel reserves one of his most lengthy and climactic oracles for Babylon, but he uses the cover words of "Gog" and "Magog" in order for protection. There are several other supporting reasons that this may indeed be the case:
(1) Gog is referd to as the prince of Meshech and Tubal in 38:1-3 (two lands that were north of Israel in Asia Minor). Nebuchadrezzar conquered these regions during his reign.
(2) Gog is said to come from the North (38:6). King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon attacks from the north (Eze 26:7; Jer 25:9).
(3) Gog leads "many peoples" with him into battle (Eze 38:6,9). King Nebuchadrezzar leads many peoples into battle (26:7, 31:11).
(4) Gog attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets (38:4-5). King Nebu. attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets(23:23-24, 26:10).
(5) The title "Prince of the head of Meschech and Tubal" may be a title that was even given to King Nebu. due to his brokering a peace treaty during his reign between Lydia and the Medes when a dispute arose over control of Meschech and Tubal (Barton, John. Oxford Bible Commentary p 559).
(6) Elsewhere in Ezekiel King Nebuchadrezzar is described in a rather positive light where he is the conqueror of many nations (26:7, 29:18-19, 30:10,24) and even has the title "king of kings" (26:7) and he weilds Yahweh's sword (30:24). Curiously Jeremiah seems to speak of him very negatively calling him a monster (51:34) and painting him as the king who captured Jerusalem and exiled the Israelite people. And unlike Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Isaiah don't mind giving oracles against Babylon (Jer 50-51; Is 14, 21, 48; Hab 1:6) Why doesn't Ezekiel speak negatively of Nebuchadrezzar as Jeremiah did? I think if we consider that Ezekiel is living among the exiles in Babylon, it makes sense not to speak against the Babylonian king in such a direct manner. But if Ezekiel is using cover words in chapters 38-39 then he does indeed speak against Babylon and her king just as Jeremiah did.
(7) Magog itself may be a cryptogram for "Babel" in a very similiar manner to the way Jeremiah makes a cryptogram with "Sheshach" in Jer 25:26 and 51:41 and "Leb-qamai" in Jer 51:1 (for an explanation of how the cryptogram works see: Boe, Sverre. "Gog and Magog", p 96). Here is how the cryptogram works in Jeremiah 51:1:
“Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew שׁ (shin) is substituted for Hebrew ב (bet) and Hebrew כ (kaf) is substituted for Hebrew ל (lamed). On the same principle “Leb Kamai” in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name “Sheshach” for Babylon also occurs in Jer 51:41 where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it. (NETBible: Jeremiah 51 )
Given this information, it is very possible to see Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 as a coded reference to Babylon and the Babylonian king, and it may even be possible to directly identify the king as Nebuchadrezzar, though I don't think it needs to be seen as being that specific. The setting of Eze 38-39 still has a very future aspect to it though and it seems to take on almost cosmic proportions as a great battle against the whole earth. It's completely understandable that the defeat of Babylon, it's vassals, and it's allies would be described in such futuristic terms though. After all, for Ezekiel Babylon was still the world superpower and so of course it's defeat would be in the future - a future that would be realized when Babylon was actually defeated by the Persians. The defeat of Babylon takes on cosmic proportions as a great battle because Ezekiel ties the release of the Israelite exiles and the defeat of the arch enemy (Babylon) to the vindication of Yahweh's own Name. When the nations saw the end of Israel's exile and the appearent improbable defeat of Babylon, they should realize that Yahweh had vindicated His Name (Eze 36-37). The battle against Babylon would have been seen as a battle against the whole earth since in the time of Ezekiel Babylon controlled the known earth. I think it's safe to say that there is warrant for concluding that Gog and Magog are nothing more than code for the historical Babylon (not a metaophorical Babylon).
First, note that Ezekiel has a long list of oracles against various nations in Eze 25-32 (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, Egypt, Lebanon, Assyria, Elam, Meshech-Tubal). This list of oracles against various nations covers Israel's historical enemies up to the time of Ezekiel with the exception of one - Babylon - the major power that was contemporary with Ezekiel. Why does Ezekiel leave out the name of the power that sacked Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and carried people away into exile? Isaiah and Jeremiah have no trouble making pronouncements against Babylon, but Ezekiel surprisingly leaves them out. Or does he? It must be remembered that Isaiah lived prior to Ezekiel and that Jeremiah had gone into exile into Egypt (Jer 43). Ezekiel, however, lived among the captives in Babylon (Eze 1:1). As a captive trying to make do with his captors, Ezekiel must not openly oppose the king if he wants to preserve his messages and possibly his life. In this case, Ezekiel reserves one of his most lengthy and climactic oracles for Babylon, but he uses the cover words of "Gog" and "Magog" in order for protection. There are several other supporting reasons that this may indeed be the case:
(1) Gog is referd to as the prince of Meshech and Tubal in 38:1-3 (two lands that were north of Israel in Asia Minor). Nebuchadrezzar conquered these regions during his reign.
(2) Gog is said to come from the North (38:6). King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon attacks from the north (Eze 26:7; Jer 25:9).
(3) Gog leads "many peoples" with him into battle (Eze 38:6,9). King Nebuchadrezzar leads many peoples into battle (26:7, 31:11).
(4) Gog attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets (38:4-5). King Nebu. attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets(23:23-24, 26:10).
(5) The title "Prince of the head of Meschech and Tubal" may be a title that was even given to King Nebu. due to his brokering a peace treaty during his reign between Lydia and the Medes when a dispute arose over control of Meschech and Tubal (Barton, John. Oxford Bible Commentary p 559).
(6) Elsewhere in Ezekiel King Nebuchadrezzar is described in a rather positive light where he is the conqueror of many nations (26:7, 29:18-19, 30:10,24) and even has the title "king of kings" (26:7) and he weilds Yahweh's sword (30:24). Curiously Jeremiah seems to speak of him very negatively calling him a monster (51:34) and painting him as the king who captured Jerusalem and exiled the Israelite people. And unlike Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Isaiah don't mind giving oracles against Babylon (Jer 50-51; Is 14, 21, 48; Hab 1:6) Why doesn't Ezekiel speak negatively of Nebuchadrezzar as Jeremiah did? I think if we consider that Ezekiel is living among the exiles in Babylon, it makes sense not to speak against the Babylonian king in such a direct manner. But if Ezekiel is using cover words in chapters 38-39 then he does indeed speak against Babylon and her king just as Jeremiah did.
(7) Magog itself may be a cryptogram for "Babel" in a very similiar manner to the way Jeremiah makes a cryptogram with "Sheshach" in Jer 25:26 and 51:41 and "Leb-qamai" in Jer 51:1 (for an explanation of how the cryptogram works see: Boe, Sverre. "Gog and Magog", p 96). Here is how the cryptogram works in Jeremiah 51:1:
“Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew שׁ (shin) is substituted for Hebrew ב (bet) and Hebrew כ (kaf) is substituted for Hebrew ל (lamed). On the same principle “Leb Kamai” in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name “Sheshach” for Babylon also occurs in Jer 51:41 where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it. (NETBible: Jeremiah 51 )
Given this information, it is very possible to see Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 as a coded reference to Babylon and the Babylonian king, and it may even be possible to directly identify the king as Nebuchadrezzar, though I don't think it needs to be seen as being that specific. The setting of Eze 38-39 still has a very future aspect to it though and it seems to take on almost cosmic proportions as a great battle against the whole earth. It's completely understandable that the defeat of Babylon, it's vassals, and it's allies would be described in such futuristic terms though. After all, for Ezekiel Babylon was still the world superpower and so of course it's defeat would be in the future - a future that would be realized when Babylon was actually defeated by the Persians. The defeat of Babylon takes on cosmic proportions as a great battle because Ezekiel ties the release of the Israelite exiles and the defeat of the arch enemy (Babylon) to the vindication of Yahweh's own Name. When the nations saw the end of Israel's exile and the appearent improbable defeat of Babylon, they should realize that Yahweh had vindicated His Name (Eze 36-37). The battle against Babylon would have been seen as a battle against the whole earth since in the time of Ezekiel Babylon controlled the known earth. I think it's safe to say that there is warrant for concluding that Gog and Magog are nothing more than code for the historical Babylon (not a metaophorical Babylon).
Definition of Apocalyptic
Here is a good definition of apocalyptic from one of the best scholarly studies on the topic:
"(ii) Apocalyptic seems essentially to be about the revelation of the divine mysteries through visions or some other form of immediate disclosure of heavenly truths
(iii) The use of the word apocalyptic to describe the literature of Judaism and early Christianity should, therefore, be confined to those works which purport to offer disclosures of the heavenly mysteries, whether as the result of vision, heavenly ascent or verbal revelations. Such a description also extends to those visionary reports which give evidence of the same kind of religious outlook as the apocalypses, even if the contexts in which they are now found cannot be said to conform to the literary genre of the apocalypse.
(iv) Although eschatology is an important component of the heavenly mysteries which are revealed in the apocalypses, it is difficult to justify the selection of this particular element as the basis of the definition of apocaalyptic. The consequence ofthis can lead to an indifference to the fact that apocalyptic is concerned with the revelation of a variety of different matters. Any attempt, therefore, to use the term apocalyptic as a synonym of eschatology must be rejected.....
(v) Although content and form should not in the first instance be the bases for a definition of apocalyptic, it cannot be denied that apocalyptic frequently finds expression in a particular literary genre. In Judaism this is usually an apocalypse granted to some great figure of Israel's past who then reveals to subsequent generations tge secrets which have been disclosed to him and gives advice to them about the sort of life which God expects of the righteous. "(Rowland, Christopher. "The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity", pp 90-72.)
"(ii) Apocalyptic seems essentially to be about the revelation of the divine mysteries through visions or some other form of immediate disclosure of heavenly truths
(iii) The use of the word apocalyptic to describe the literature of Judaism and early Christianity should, therefore, be confined to those works which purport to offer disclosures of the heavenly mysteries, whether as the result of vision, heavenly ascent or verbal revelations. Such a description also extends to those visionary reports which give evidence of the same kind of religious outlook as the apocalypses, even if the contexts in which they are now found cannot be said to conform to the literary genre of the apocalypse.
(iv) Although eschatology is an important component of the heavenly mysteries which are revealed in the apocalypses, it is difficult to justify the selection of this particular element as the basis of the definition of apocaalyptic. The consequence ofthis can lead to an indifference to the fact that apocalyptic is concerned with the revelation of a variety of different matters. Any attempt, therefore, to use the term apocalyptic as a synonym of eschatology must be rejected.....
(v) Although content and form should not in the first instance be the bases for a definition of apocalyptic, it cannot be denied that apocalyptic frequently finds expression in a particular literary genre. In Judaism this is usually an apocalypse granted to some great figure of Israel's past who then reveals to subsequent generations tge secrets which have been disclosed to him and gives advice to them about the sort of life which God expects of the righteous. "(Rowland, Christopher. "The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity", pp 90-72.)
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Sound of the Psalms
I was reading Sigmund Mowinckel's "The Psalms in Israel's Worship". In it, Mowinckel puts foward the idea that the Psalms were created and used mostly for worship in the Temple. As to what a Psalm may have sounded like being sung in the Temple, Mowinckel suggests:
"We know nothing about the tunes in Israel's temple cult. But if we are to judge from analogies in more recent oriental music, we may assume they were quite simple. It is a safe supposition that as the 'period' (the verse) was the proper rhythmic unit, it was also the melodic one. The 'tune' was limited to the single verse, perhaps marked with a rise or fall at the end of the last line in the stanza or strophe.
According to what we know and can conjecture from later times in the East, music was not based on the octave scale. As far as we can judge, the tune was extremely simple, hardly to be called a tune, but more like a sort of recitative.
The first task of the musical accompaniment was undoubtedly to stress rythm, to 'keep time'. we may draw that conclusion both from analogies in the present, and from the old oriental and Israelite instruments of music. The psalms mention the tambourine, the cymbals, the horn, the trumpet, different kinds of lyre (R.V. harp and cithern), flute and castanets." (Mowinckel, p. 9)
"We know nothing about the tunes in Israel's temple cult. But if we are to judge from analogies in more recent oriental music, we may assume they were quite simple. It is a safe supposition that as the 'period' (the verse) was the proper rhythmic unit, it was also the melodic one. The 'tune' was limited to the single verse, perhaps marked with a rise or fall at the end of the last line in the stanza or strophe.
According to what we know and can conjecture from later times in the East, music was not based on the octave scale. As far as we can judge, the tune was extremely simple, hardly to be called a tune, but more like a sort of recitative.
The first task of the musical accompaniment was undoubtedly to stress rythm, to 'keep time'. we may draw that conclusion both from analogies in the present, and from the old oriental and Israelite instruments of music. The psalms mention the tambourine, the cymbals, the horn, the trumpet, different kinds of lyre (R.V. harp and cithern), flute and castanets." (Mowinckel, p. 9)
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Theophilus: Luke's Audience
Who on earth is Theophilus?
Luke 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.
Acts 1:1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach
There are some who speculate that Theophilus is just a generic reference to anyone who is a 'God lover' (the meaning of 'theophilus'). I don't think that's the case though. First, there is no reason to suppose that the proper name is anything other than an actual person. Second, Theophilus is refered to by 'most excellent', which seems to me to indicate that he's a man of high honor; a man of high social status. This would certainly not categorize all believers, some of whom had no social status. Also, Theophilus can appearantly read, which wouldn't be true for just any 'god lover' at the time, but certainly would be true of someone of higher social status. It seems to me that Theophilus is indeed a person rather than some abstract category.
For those who think Theophilus is a person, many think he's a Gentile. I tend to think Theophilus is a Jew, possibly a heavily influenced Hellenistic Jew, but a Jew none-the-less. I think this because Luke coats his writings with heavy quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Bible and paints Jesus as the fulfillment of the plan of God laid out in the Hebrew Bible. Had Luke been writing to a Gentile convert, I imagine his efforts would have been more along the lines of Paul's speech on Mars Hill, which had no allusions, quotes, or anything from the Hebrew Bible at all. Or maybe it would have been more like Paul's instructions to Thessalonia, which also had virtually no quotes or allusions to the Old Testament.
Some might object and say that Theophilus is a Greek name, not a Jewish one, so Theophilus was probably Gentile. I don't think this is a good objection though. Jews at the time very often either had Greek names or they carried two names, one Greek one Jewish. In fact, the name Theophilus is attested by Josephus (Ant 17.4.2, 20.9.7) as a Jewish name which was held by a high priest. There are also other well attested Greek names held by Jews (ie, Jason, Matthias, etc..).
There some who think that Luke was writing to the Theophilus who was the high priest. This seems to me to be speculative at best. I do think Theophilus was probably a Jew, maybe a very Hellenized one, but I'm not sure anything much further beyond that can be said about him.
Luke 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.
Acts 1:1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach
There are some who speculate that Theophilus is just a generic reference to anyone who is a 'God lover' (the meaning of 'theophilus'). I don't think that's the case though. First, there is no reason to suppose that the proper name is anything other than an actual person. Second, Theophilus is refered to by 'most excellent', which seems to me to indicate that he's a man of high honor; a man of high social status. This would certainly not categorize all believers, some of whom had no social status. Also, Theophilus can appearantly read, which wouldn't be true for just any 'god lover' at the time, but certainly would be true of someone of higher social status. It seems to me that Theophilus is indeed a person rather than some abstract category.
For those who think Theophilus is a person, many think he's a Gentile. I tend to think Theophilus is a Jew, possibly a heavily influenced Hellenistic Jew, but a Jew none-the-less. I think this because Luke coats his writings with heavy quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Bible and paints Jesus as the fulfillment of the plan of God laid out in the Hebrew Bible. Had Luke been writing to a Gentile convert, I imagine his efforts would have been more along the lines of Paul's speech on Mars Hill, which had no allusions, quotes, or anything from the Hebrew Bible at all. Or maybe it would have been more like Paul's instructions to Thessalonia, which also had virtually no quotes or allusions to the Old Testament.
Some might object and say that Theophilus is a Greek name, not a Jewish one, so Theophilus was probably Gentile. I don't think this is a good objection though. Jews at the time very often either had Greek names or they carried two names, one Greek one Jewish. In fact, the name Theophilus is attested by Josephus (Ant 17.4.2, 20.9.7) as a Jewish name which was held by a high priest. There are also other well attested Greek names held by Jews (ie, Jason, Matthias, etc..).
There some who think that Luke was writing to the Theophilus who was the high priest. This seems to me to be speculative at best. I do think Theophilus was probably a Jew, maybe a very Hellenized one, but I'm not sure anything much further beyond that can be said about him.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Peter van Inwagen (John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame) explains the paradox of free will:
http://www.closertotruth.com/video/What-is-Free-Will-Peter-van-Inwagen-/1090
http://www.closertotruth.com/video/What-is-Free-Will-Peter-van-Inwagen-/1090
The Book of Revelation: Audience
I don't think it's hard at all to recognize that the Book of Revelation is written TO and FOR people who were living in the first century. The text itself tells us as much:
1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants
1:4 From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia:
1:9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom
1:11 saying: “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches – to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
It should be clear by this point in the text that John personally KNOWS and IDENTIFIES with his audience and they know him. He proceeds to write to those 7 churches. He is not writing letters to churches thousands of years down the road, or to 7 imaginary chuches that are really metaphors for something else. He is writing to people in the first century.
Just as John opens his book identifying his audience as fellow servants in the chuches, so he also closes his book with words regarding his fellow servants in the churches:
22:6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon.”
22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.
This should inform us that his entire book is primarily written to and for churches in the first century. He even goes so far as to name 7 specific ones. These people knew John and he knew them. It's logical to say that it follows that the message in the book is going to be relevant to his intended audience.
How often this sort of thing is forgotten when people read the book of Revelation and assume that it speaks directly to us and our time.
1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants
1:4 From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia:
1:9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom
1:11 saying: “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches – to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
It should be clear by this point in the text that John personally KNOWS and IDENTIFIES with his audience and they know him. He proceeds to write to those 7 churches. He is not writing letters to churches thousands of years down the road, or to 7 imaginary chuches that are really metaphors for something else. He is writing to people in the first century.
Just as John opens his book identifying his audience as fellow servants in the chuches, so he also closes his book with words regarding his fellow servants in the churches:
22:6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon.”
22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.
This should inform us that his entire book is primarily written to and for churches in the first century. He even goes so far as to name 7 specific ones. These people knew John and he knew them. It's logical to say that it follows that the message in the book is going to be relevant to his intended audience.
How often this sort of thing is forgotten when people read the book of Revelation and assume that it speaks directly to us and our time.
Divergent Genealogies: the Centuries Old Question
Why do the genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ so much? I have come to conclude that I don't know why. Of the answers that I've seen, I see none really more plausible than any other.
There is a typical response which says that Matthew follows Joseph's line while Luke follows Mary's line. Maybe so.
There is the Zelophehad explanation which says that Mary's father either only had one child (Mary) or that Mary was the oldest of just daughters (or perhaps a brother died at a young age). According to the Zelophehad Law (Num 27), the inheritance of the father would be passed to the eldest daughter in this case. Since Joseph was married to Mary and is the head of his household, Joseph is adopted as the 'firstborn' of Mary's father and so Joseph and Mary are entitled to the inheritance of Mary's father. Maybe so.
There is Africanus' Levirate marriage explanation (Deut 25) where the differences are due to Levirate marriages in Joseph's family (right around Joseph's father and Zerubbabel). Maybe so.
Some people throw up their hands and declare that one or both accounts are just totally fabricated. I'm not sure why this conclusion would be warranted. Plus, in first century Judea, what good is a totally fabricated genealogy?
Some just say Matthew and Luke came across or had access to divergent traditions. Matthew and Luke both received their separate traditions and that's the end of the story. Doesn't this just beg the question though as to WHY they are different. It seems obvious that both have different source material and the question is why or what accounts for the difference?
In any case, I don't know which explanation or combination to accept. I could conjure up one on my own that would be no less likely that any of the above but no better than the above either. Maybe Matthew had access to a private genealogy kept by Jesus' family and Luke had access to public archived genealogies in the Temple. Josephus tells us there existed a public archive (Life 1, Against Apion 1.7) for genealogies. Eusebius tells us families kept private genealogies that they would use to supplement the genealogies in the book of Chronicles (History 1.7.14). Matthew's genealogy follows the Chronicles very closely which might make me think his list is from Jesus' family and supplements the Chronicles list. Luke then would have accessed the public archives, perhaps through one of the priests who became a believer (Acts 6:7). Maybe the differences between the private family list and the public archives list was due to any combination of Zelophehad laws and Levirate marriages.
Well, genealogies are by nature very messy things. I have access to databases and internet technology and still have a messy time tracing family roots. I can imagine how much more difficult it would be keeping things nice and neat through troubled Israelite history. I'm content not knowing why exactly the genealogies of Jesus are so different. I'm content with accepting the message they drive home: Jesus is son of David, son of God, a man of high honor, and I catch Matthew's clever play with numbers to point out that Jesus is the son of David.
There is a typical response which says that Matthew follows Joseph's line while Luke follows Mary's line. Maybe so.
There is the Zelophehad explanation which says that Mary's father either only had one child (Mary) or that Mary was the oldest of just daughters (or perhaps a brother died at a young age). According to the Zelophehad Law (Num 27), the inheritance of the father would be passed to the eldest daughter in this case. Since Joseph was married to Mary and is the head of his household, Joseph is adopted as the 'firstborn' of Mary's father and so Joseph and Mary are entitled to the inheritance of Mary's father. Maybe so.
There is Africanus' Levirate marriage explanation (Deut 25) where the differences are due to Levirate marriages in Joseph's family (right around Joseph's father and Zerubbabel). Maybe so.
Some people throw up their hands and declare that one or both accounts are just totally fabricated. I'm not sure why this conclusion would be warranted. Plus, in first century Judea, what good is a totally fabricated genealogy?
Some just say Matthew and Luke came across or had access to divergent traditions. Matthew and Luke both received their separate traditions and that's the end of the story. Doesn't this just beg the question though as to WHY they are different. It seems obvious that both have different source material and the question is why or what accounts for the difference?
In any case, I don't know which explanation or combination to accept. I could conjure up one on my own that would be no less likely that any of the above but no better than the above either. Maybe Matthew had access to a private genealogy kept by Jesus' family and Luke had access to public archived genealogies in the Temple. Josephus tells us there existed a public archive (Life 1, Against Apion 1.7) for genealogies. Eusebius tells us families kept private genealogies that they would use to supplement the genealogies in the book of Chronicles (History 1.7.14). Matthew's genealogy follows the Chronicles very closely which might make me think his list is from Jesus' family and supplements the Chronicles list. Luke then would have accessed the public archives, perhaps through one of the priests who became a believer (Acts 6:7). Maybe the differences between the private family list and the public archives list was due to any combination of Zelophehad laws and Levirate marriages.
Well, genealogies are by nature very messy things. I have access to databases and internet technology and still have a messy time tracing family roots. I can imagine how much more difficult it would be keeping things nice and neat through troubled Israelite history. I'm content not knowing why exactly the genealogies of Jesus are so different. I'm content with accepting the message they drive home: Jesus is son of David, son of God, a man of high honor, and I catch Matthew's clever play with numbers to point out that Jesus is the son of David.
Seven Year Tribulation: Protestant Purgatory?
I think that the 7 year tribulation period posited by many Pre-millennial protestats is the equivalent of what I will call "Protestant Purgatory". Here we have a scenario where we have believers who are rescued from the Tribulation by virture of the fact that they have simply believed in Jesus and received God's grace. But those believers that come to believe during the Trib. are NOT rescued during the Trib. And why not? Well, for no other reason than timing. Their timing was off and so they are punished or 'purified' through an intense trial/tribulation, EVEN THOUGH THEY BELIEVE, while others are afforded divine protection and escape BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE. Isn't this strikingly similiar to a concept of Purgatory? We have some believers who are given preferential treatment due to their belief while others are not, even though their belief is the same. The reason for the difference is that some acted faster than others. I hate to use a cliche, but it's really a judgment based on actions/works and not a judgment rendered due solely to anyone's faith. The judgment rendered is not actually based on their belief (since fairness would say they get the same verdict), but rather it's based on their timing. I think it's a form of Purgatory as Trib-believers are purified for flaws in their faith (lack of promptness), while those of us without that flaw get to skip the intense purifying. And this is only one problem I see with it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A Few Trinitarian Thoughts
I think we often take for granted that when we, as Christians, refer to ‘God’, we don’t have a just generic concept in mind. I think we may take it for granted when speaking to people that when we both, both us and the other person, say “God” we are generally referring to the same type of Being. But this is certainly not the case. Not only do we refer to a different God by what He has done in the course of history (the God who raised Jesus from the dead, for example), but we are altogether referring to a totally different concept of His Essence. When we say ‘God’, we are talking about the Triune God; a God who is not only personal, but Tri-personal; a God who is not only one in some sense, but also three in some sense. And not only do we say that He is tri-personal, but that he is NECESSARILY tri-personal; it couldn‘t be the case that He be different. I also think that the Triune God of the Universe is probably only fully revealed by His activity in and through Jesus. It makes little sense, from my point of view, to talk about the One God that exists without talking about the nature of the God who exists. Since His nature is necessarily Triune, it makes no sense at all to talk about God without talking about Jesus since that's the only way that God is fully revealed to us.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Mark's Sandwiches 1.4
Here is another one of Mark’s Sandwiches - the tearing of the Temple veil at the crucifixion [1]. This one is particularly interesting as it also challenges a few traditional interpretations. Traditionally, many people understand the tearing of the Temple veil to be indicative of the tearing of the barrier between God and man. That is, many people assume that it was the inner veil of the Temple, the veil that led into the Holy of Holies, that was torn. But if we see another one of Mark’s sandwiches here, we’ll see that it was not the inner veil of the Temple, but the outer veil that was torn, and we will also see how to understand this.
The sandwich itself is formed by two, at first glance, seemingly unconnected events: Jesus’ baptism and the crucifixion. But what appears to be unconnected at first is connected by a series of common elements and themes that happen both at the baptism and the crucifixion in Mark. The sandwich itself encloses Mark’s entire gospel by the two crucial events in Jesus’ life. Here are the relevant passages:
(1) At both times something descends. At the baptism it’s the spirit descending while at the crucifixion it’s the veil that is torn from “top to bottom” in a downward motion.
(2) At both times the Spirit is mentioned. At the baptism the “Spirit” descends while at the crucifixion Jesus gives up the “Spirit”, a fact which is demonstrated by Mark’s twice repetition of Jesus “breathing” (a Greek cognate of the word for Spirit: “pneuma”) his last.
(3) At both times there is the presence of Elijah. At the baptism it’s John the Baptist who is “Elijah” (Mark 9:11-13), while at the crucifixion the people believe that Jesus is calling for Elijah, and they want to see if Elijah will come save him.
(4) At both moments something is “split open”. At the baptism the heavens are torn, while at the crucifixion the veil is torn. To make this more interesting, we astonishingly learn in the description of the Temple equipment from the Jewish historian Josephus that the outer veil of the Temple was a “typified the universe” and was a “panorama of the entire heavens“ (Jewish War 5.5.4). So at the baptism and the crucifixion it’s not merely that something is “tearing open”, but in BOTH cases it’s the heavens that are tearing open. I don’t think the coincidence of the relation between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism and the veil to the outer court’s being symbolic of the heavens can be ignored as a mere coincidence. I think it’s clear that Mark intends us to understand the veil that is torn to be the outer veil, not the inner one. Noteworthy here too is that if the sequence in the events of the crucifixion are followed, the centurion makes his declaration of Jesus’ Sonship once he feels the earthquake and sees the veil torn. Of course, had the veil been to the Holy of Holies, the centurion could not have seen it torn in two and so he would not have been shocked into making his declaration.
(6) At both times Jesus is declared to be the Son of God. At the baptism it’s the voice from heaven that declares Jesus to be the Son, while at the crucifixion it’s the Roman Centurion that declares Jesus to be the Son. Interestingly, this is also Mark’s self proclaimed point of his own writing (Mark 1:1). He wants to tell us the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Mark’s creative genius also takes themes of Jewish apocalyptic imagery (the heavens tearing) and works them in such a manner to signify Jesus’ importance in the revelation of God’s plan. Jewish apocalyptic work is generally meant to be a ‘pulling back of the curtain’, a revelation of the hidden plan of God [2]. Mark takes this idea and shows how God’s hidden plan if finally revealed in the crucifixion of the Son of God.
Mark’s frame, the sandwich, around his entire work is done on purpose to point out to us that the entire story Mark has just told should be understood as just how it was that God revealed his age old plan in the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of God. He does this by framing his entire gospel around the two biggest events in Jesus’ life: baptism and crucifixion.
[1] Cf: “The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark’s Cosmic Inclusio”. David Ulansey. Journal of Biblical Literature 110:1 (Spring 1991) pp. 123-25
[2] For more on Jewish apocalyptic writings see “The Open Heaven” by Christopher Rowland.
The sandwich itself is formed by two, at first glance, seemingly unconnected events: Jesus’ baptism and the crucifixion. But what appears to be unconnected at first is connected by a series of common elements and themes that happen both at the baptism and the crucifixion in Mark. The sandwich itself encloses Mark’s entire gospel by the two crucial events in Jesus’ life. Here are the relevant passages:
Here are the common elements that you see in the baptism and the crucifixion:
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God………..1:9 Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan River. 1:10 And just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” 1:12 The Spirit immediately drove him into the wilderness. 1:13 He was in the wilderness forty days, enduring temptations from Satan. He was with wild animals, and angels were ministering to his needs.15:33 Now when it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 15:34 Around three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 15:35 When some of the bystanders heard it they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah!” 15:36 Then someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine,put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Leave him alone! Let’s see if Elijah will come to take him down!” 15:37 But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed his last. 15:38 And the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. 15:39 Now when the centurion, who stood in front of him, saw how he died, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”
(1) At both times something descends. At the baptism it’s the spirit descending while at the crucifixion it’s the veil that is torn from “top to bottom” in a downward motion.
(2) At both times the Spirit is mentioned. At the baptism the “Spirit” descends while at the crucifixion Jesus gives up the “Spirit”, a fact which is demonstrated by Mark’s twice repetition of Jesus “breathing” (a Greek cognate of the word for Spirit: “pneuma”) his last.
(3) At both times there is the presence of Elijah. At the baptism it’s John the Baptist who is “Elijah” (Mark 9:11-13), while at the crucifixion the people believe that Jesus is calling for Elijah, and they want to see if Elijah will come save him.
(4) At both moments something is “split open”. At the baptism the heavens are torn, while at the crucifixion the veil is torn. To make this more interesting, we astonishingly learn in the description of the Temple equipment from the Jewish historian Josephus that the outer veil of the Temple was a “typified the universe” and was a “panorama of the entire heavens“ (Jewish War 5.5.4). So at the baptism and the crucifixion it’s not merely that something is “tearing open”, but in BOTH cases it’s the heavens that are tearing open. I don’t think the coincidence of the relation between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism and the veil to the outer court’s being symbolic of the heavens can be ignored as a mere coincidence. I think it’s clear that Mark intends us to understand the veil that is torn to be the outer veil, not the inner one. Noteworthy here too is that if the sequence in the events of the crucifixion are followed, the centurion makes his declaration of Jesus’ Sonship once he feels the earthquake and sees the veil torn. Of course, had the veil been to the Holy of Holies, the centurion could not have seen it torn in two and so he would not have been shocked into making his declaration.
(6) At both times Jesus is declared to be the Son of God. At the baptism it’s the voice from heaven that declares Jesus to be the Son, while at the crucifixion it’s the Roman Centurion that declares Jesus to be the Son. Interestingly, this is also Mark’s self proclaimed point of his own writing (Mark 1:1). He wants to tell us the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Mark’s creative genius also takes themes of Jewish apocalyptic imagery (the heavens tearing) and works them in such a manner to signify Jesus’ importance in the revelation of God’s plan. Jewish apocalyptic work is generally meant to be a ‘pulling back of the curtain’, a revelation of the hidden plan of God [2]. Mark takes this idea and shows how God’s hidden plan if finally revealed in the crucifixion of the Son of God.
Mark’s frame, the sandwich, around his entire work is done on purpose to point out to us that the entire story Mark has just told should be understood as just how it was that God revealed his age old plan in the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of God. He does this by framing his entire gospel around the two biggest events in Jesus’ life: baptism and crucifixion.
[1] Cf: “The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark’s Cosmic Inclusio”. David Ulansey. Journal of Biblical Literature 110:1 (Spring 1991) pp. 123-25
[2] For more on Jewish apocalyptic writings see “The Open Heaven” by Christopher Rowland.
Friday, July 16, 2010
An Argument in Favor of the Soul?
I was considering an argument for the existence of the soul, initially put forward by Descartes and recently updated by people such as Alvin Plantinga (cf: “The Nature of Necessity”). It’s deceptively simple, yet very effective.
First, I will quickly define what I will call Leibniz’s Law (also called the Indiscernibility of Identicals) . For any 2 objects, let’s call them X and Y, if X and Y are identical, then everything that is true about X will be true about Y and everything that is true about Y will be true about X. For example, if we have 2 objects - Jimmie and the guy typing this paragraph - Jimmie’ and ‘the guy typing this paragraph’ are identical if and only if everything that’s true about one will also be true about the other.
Now take 2 objects - me (or my mind) and a material object (be it my brain or my body) - and let’s label them M (for either me or my mind) and B (for brain or body). Now consider the following:
(L) Leibniz’ Law
(1) It is logically possible that M exist without B
(2) B cannot exist without B.
(3) Therefore, M is not identical to B.
What this shows is that given Leibniz’s Law, there is at least one thing that is true about me that is not true about B. That one thing being “possibly existing apart from B”. Since there is one thing true of M that isn’t true of B, the 2 objects are not identical. So, I (or my mind) is not identical to a material object.
The truth of this hands on Leibniz’s Law or theorem (1). By saying that it’s logically possible for M to exist apart from B, I simply mean that it doesn’t break any logical laws and I don’t see how it’s impossible. Given those 2 things, I must concede that it’s possible that M exist without B. To deny the conclusion, it seems either it must be shown that it’s logically impossible for M to exist without B or that Leibniz’s Law is in fact false. I wouldn’t know how to begin to show the impossibility of M existing without B, and for the purposes of this post I‘m taking Leibniz‘s Law for granted.
Another version of this sort of argument is as follows:
(1) I have first person private access to my mind
(2) I do not have first person private access to my brain.
(3) Therefore, by Leibniz’s Law, my mind and my brain are not identical.
Just think about it.
First, I will quickly define what I will call Leibniz’s Law (also called the Indiscernibility of Identicals) . For any 2 objects, let’s call them X and Y, if X and Y are identical, then everything that is true about X will be true about Y and everything that is true about Y will be true about X. For example, if we have 2 objects - Jimmie and the guy typing this paragraph - Jimmie’ and ‘the guy typing this paragraph’ are identical if and only if everything that’s true about one will also be true about the other.
Now take 2 objects - me (or my mind) and a material object (be it my brain or my body) - and let’s label them M (for either me or my mind) and B (for brain or body). Now consider the following:
(L) Leibniz’ Law
(1) It is logically possible that M exist without B
(2) B cannot exist without B.
(3) Therefore, M is not identical to B.
What this shows is that given Leibniz’s Law, there is at least one thing that is true about me that is not true about B. That one thing being “possibly existing apart from B”. Since there is one thing true of M that isn’t true of B, the 2 objects are not identical. So, I (or my mind) is not identical to a material object.
The truth of this hands on Leibniz’s Law or theorem (1). By saying that it’s logically possible for M to exist apart from B, I simply mean that it doesn’t break any logical laws and I don’t see how it’s impossible. Given those 2 things, I must concede that it’s possible that M exist without B. To deny the conclusion, it seems either it must be shown that it’s logically impossible for M to exist without B or that Leibniz’s Law is in fact false. I wouldn’t know how to begin to show the impossibility of M existing without B, and for the purposes of this post I‘m taking Leibniz‘s Law for granted.
Another version of this sort of argument is as follows:
(1) I have first person private access to my mind
(2) I do not have first person private access to my brain.
(3) Therefore, by Leibniz’s Law, my mind and my brain are not identical.
Just think about it.
Mark's Sandwiches 1.3
There is one of Mark’s Sandwichs that I think people often interpret wrongly. Here I am talking about Mark 11:12-25:
The fig tree should be understood to symbolically represent Israel,. In the OT, the fig tree either directly represents Israel [1] or it is used to represent God’s favor or disfavor to Israel; if Israel was doing right, the fig trees blossomed [2] if Israel was in the wrong the fig trees were dying [3].
The Temple incident mutually interprets the fig tree cursing. When Jesus comes up to the fig tree it was producing no fruit, though he seemed to think it should have been. If understood to represent Israel, the fig tree producing no fruit represents Israel not living up to her calling. Jesus then curses the fig tree and we roll right into the Temple incident. The Temple incident, if mutually interpreted with the fig tree story, is a symbolic act of judgment on Israel [4]. Jesus’ actions in the Temple are very comparable to other symbolic actions done by the Prophets like Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel where the Prophet symbolically acts out their message (often in very vivid ways). The crashing of the Temple tables is symbolic of the much larger “crashing” that would eventually come in the form of Roman weapons and the Temple’s actual destruction.
This understanding also helps make sense of what would otherwise be very cryptic words that follow in verses 22-25. Jesus’ actions seem to be troubling for the disciples who comment on the withered fig tree (vs. 20). Jesus responds by going on about how if one has faith they can say to “this mountain” to be thrown into the sea. “This mountain” that can be thrown into the sea should be understood to be the Temple Mount whose destruction was just prophesied by the fig tree and Temple incidents. Jesus then goes on to talk about the disciples ability to forgive the sins of others. It’s important for Jesus to talk about this at this point since the place where forgiveness of sins took place (aka: the Temple with a sacrifice) just had it’s destruction prophesied. The disciples were concerned not just about the destruction that was coming, but the implication it carried about the forgiveness of sin and man’s ability to come into the presence of God.
Here we have another one of Mark’s Sandwiches which yields interesting results. Jesus directly prophecies against the Temple and predicts it’s fall, and he does so by use of symbolic actions in the Temple and with the fig tree.
[1] Jer 24:5; Hos 9:10
[2] 1 Kings 4:25; Hos 9:10; Joe 2:22; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10),
[3] Jer 5:17, 8:13; Joe 1:7; Am 4:9; Hag 2:19; Hos 2:12
[4] “The Last Week”, Borg & Crossan, pp 34-53.
“The Gospel of Mark”, Witherington, pp 311-318.
“Jesus Remembered”, Christianity in the Making vol. I, Dunn, pp 769-770.
“Jesus and the Victory of God”, Wright, pp 333-336.
“Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”, Beale & Carson, pp 208-212.
“Jewish New Testament Commentary”, Stern, pp 95-96.
Here we have the “turning of the tables” in the Temple. But the turning of the tables here in Mark actually splits another story into two halves forcing that story to sandwich the Temple incident. This passage is admittedly more difficult to interpret mainly due to what many people believe about the Temple incident. Many believe that the Temple incident is Jesus cleansing the Temple of the corrupt money changers who infest the Temple courts. But, if we see the Mark’s Sandwich here we see that the Temple incident mutually interprets the cursing of the fig tree story. It seems to be the case that the Temple incident isn’t a mere running out of some money changers, but rather it’s a more serious symbolic act of judgment on Israel.
11:12 Now the next day, as they went out from Bethany, he was hungry. 11:13 After noticing in the distance a fig tree with leaves, he went to see if he could find any fruit on it. When he came to it he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 11:14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.
11:15 Then they came to Jerusalem. Jesus entered the temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the temple courts. He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, 11:16 and he would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 11:17 Then he began to teach them and said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” 11:18 The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and they considered how they could assassinate him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed by his teaching. 11:19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.
11:20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 11:21 Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered.” 11:22 Jesus said to them, “Have faith in God. 11:23 I tell you the truth, if someone says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 11:24 For this reason I tell you, whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 11:25 Whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven will also forgive you your sins.”
The fig tree should be understood to symbolically represent Israel,. In the OT, the fig tree either directly represents Israel [1] or it is used to represent God’s favor or disfavor to Israel; if Israel was doing right, the fig trees blossomed [2] if Israel was in the wrong the fig trees were dying [3].
The Temple incident mutually interprets the fig tree cursing. When Jesus comes up to the fig tree it was producing no fruit, though he seemed to think it should have been. If understood to represent Israel, the fig tree producing no fruit represents Israel not living up to her calling. Jesus then curses the fig tree and we roll right into the Temple incident. The Temple incident, if mutually interpreted with the fig tree story, is a symbolic act of judgment on Israel [4]. Jesus’ actions in the Temple are very comparable to other symbolic actions done by the Prophets like Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel where the Prophet symbolically acts out their message (often in very vivid ways). The crashing of the Temple tables is symbolic of the much larger “crashing” that would eventually come in the form of Roman weapons and the Temple’s actual destruction.
This understanding also helps make sense of what would otherwise be very cryptic words that follow in verses 22-25. Jesus’ actions seem to be troubling for the disciples who comment on the withered fig tree (vs. 20). Jesus responds by going on about how if one has faith they can say to “this mountain” to be thrown into the sea. “This mountain” that can be thrown into the sea should be understood to be the Temple Mount whose destruction was just prophesied by the fig tree and Temple incidents. Jesus then goes on to talk about the disciples ability to forgive the sins of others. It’s important for Jesus to talk about this at this point since the place where forgiveness of sins took place (aka: the Temple with a sacrifice) just had it’s destruction prophesied. The disciples were concerned not just about the destruction that was coming, but the implication it carried about the forgiveness of sin and man’s ability to come into the presence of God.
Here we have another one of Mark’s Sandwiches which yields interesting results. Jesus directly prophecies against the Temple and predicts it’s fall, and he does so by use of symbolic actions in the Temple and with the fig tree.
[1] Jer 24:5; Hos 9:10
[2] 1 Kings 4:25; Hos 9:10; Joe 2:22; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10),
[3] Jer 5:17, 8:13; Joe 1:7; Am 4:9; Hag 2:19; Hos 2:12
[4] “The Last Week”, Borg & Crossan, pp 34-53.
“The Gospel of Mark”, Witherington, pp 311-318.
“Jesus Remembered”, Christianity in the Making vol. I, Dunn, pp 769-770.
“Jesus and the Victory of God”, Wright, pp 333-336.
“Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”, Beale & Carson, pp 208-212.
“Jewish New Testament Commentary”, Stern, pp 95-96.
Mark's Sandwiches 1.2
Here is an interesting example of one of Mark's sandwiches. Here the story of Jesus' being rejected by his family has been split into 2 by the story of rejection by some of the Jewish leaders:
The two stories mutually interpret each other. Both groups of people, the experts of the law and Jesus' family, want to divert Jesus from his mission. The experts in the law try to publically brand him as an outcast to stop him; his family wants to restrain him. The experts of the law try to say that he is demon possessed; his family thinks he is crazy. Both groups have rejected his mission and so Jesus has parted ways with them as well. For those who would try to stop him or associate him with demons, be they the experts in the law or his closest kin, they are committing the equivalent of blasphemy and doing the work of satan.
As a side note here, and very strangely, Jesus' own mother is grouped in with the rest of his family that seeks to restrain him.
Mark 3:20 Now Jesus went home, and a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat. 3:21 When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
3:22 The experts in the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “By the ruler of demons he casts out demons.” 3:23 So he called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 3:24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 3:26 And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand and his end has come. 3:27 But no one is able to enter a strong man’s house and steal his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can thoroughly plunder his house. 3:28 I tell you the truth, people will be forgiven for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter. 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin” 3:30 (because they said, “He has an unclean spirit”).
3:31 Then Jesus’ mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent word to him, to summon him. 3:32 A crowd was sitting around him and they said to him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you.” 3:33 He answered them and said, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 3:34 And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”
The two stories mutually interpret each other. Both groups of people, the experts of the law and Jesus' family, want to divert Jesus from his mission. The experts in the law try to publically brand him as an outcast to stop him; his family wants to restrain him. The experts of the law try to say that he is demon possessed; his family thinks he is crazy. Both groups have rejected his mission and so Jesus has parted ways with them as well. For those who would try to stop him or associate him with demons, be they the experts in the law or his closest kin, they are committing the equivalent of blasphemy and doing the work of satan.
As a side note here, and very strangely, Jesus' own mother is grouped in with the rest of his family that seeks to restrain him.
Mark's Sandwiches 1.1
Here is a simple example of one of Mark's sandwiches:
Here the story of the physical act of healing the paralyptic man is split
into 2 by the discussion of Jesus' authority to forgive sins. The healing
and the forgiveness of sins are tied together here and mutually interpret each
other. The act of healing is the proof that Jesus has the authority to
forgive sins.
Mark 2:1 Now after some days, when he returned to Capernaum, the news spread that he was at home. 2:2 So many gathered that there was no longer any room, not even by the door, and he preached the word to them. 2:3 Some people came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 2:4 When they were not able to bring him in because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Jesus. Then, after tearing it out, they lowered the stretcher the paralytic was lying on.
2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 2:6 Now some of the experts in the law were sitting there, turning these things over in their minds: 2:7 “Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 2:8 Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’?
2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” – he said to the paralytic – 2:11 “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.” 2:12 And immediately the man stood up, took his stretcher, and went out in front of them all. They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
Here the story of the physical act of healing the paralyptic man is split
into 2 by the discussion of Jesus' authority to forgive sins. The healing
and the forgiveness of sins are tied together here and mutually interpret each
other. The act of healing is the proof that Jesus has the authority to
forgive sins.
Mark's Sandwiches 1.0
The gospel writers seem to use a literary technique sometimes called an "inclusio" or a "sandwich". This is a device where you have 2 sections of text with common elements and themes that 'bracket off' and mutually interpret another section of text. Or it may be that there is a story that is split into two with another story sandwiched in between it. The story in the middle mutually interprets the surrounding story.
This techinque is often overlooked by most people. I think this is due to our (Protestants in general) tendency to read the New Testament either as a sort of textbook that follows a linear historical sequence of events or our tendency to read the text in a piecemeal fashion where we read a couple of verses at a time and don't consider Mark as a whole. I think it's important to realize that the gospel writers aren't trying to write a textbook or a dissertation for a PhD in history. It shouldn't surprise us if they write a little creatively so they don't bore their readers to tears, not to mention that trying to make the gospel writers write as we assume they should might just be anachronistic on our part.
I was trying to think of a modern day example of this literary technique. Perhaps a good example would be a "flashback" moment in a movie. A character in the movie is faced with some situation, and in the middle of the narrative the character has a flashback to some previous experience that relates to his present situation. After this flashback, the movie viewer is rushed foward in time and the narrative resumes where it left off. This is a simple "inclusio" where the story that has been split in half by the flashback is used to mutually interpret the flashback itself.
The gospel writers use similiar techniques, and Mark seems to use it heavily.
This techinque is often overlooked by most people. I think this is due to our (Protestants in general) tendency to read the New Testament either as a sort of textbook that follows a linear historical sequence of events or our tendency to read the text in a piecemeal fashion where we read a couple of verses at a time and don't consider Mark as a whole. I think it's important to realize that the gospel writers aren't trying to write a textbook or a dissertation for a PhD in history. It shouldn't surprise us if they write a little creatively so they don't bore their readers to tears, not to mention that trying to make the gospel writers write as we assume they should might just be anachronistic on our part.
I was trying to think of a modern day example of this literary technique. Perhaps a good example would be a "flashback" moment in a movie. A character in the movie is faced with some situation, and in the middle of the narrative the character has a flashback to some previous experience that relates to his present situation. After this flashback, the movie viewer is rushed foward in time and the narrative resumes where it left off. This is a simple "inclusio" where the story that has been split in half by the flashback is used to mutually interpret the flashback itself.
The gospel writers use similiar techniques, and Mark seems to use it heavily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)