Showing posts with label galatians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label galatians. Show all posts

21 September 2010

Sep 21

Reference links:
Old Testament

All of today's reading is again almost word for word identical to 2 Kings. The main differences comes near the end of the reading. You may have noticed that today's reading is kind of garbled, as if something had gotten mixed up somewhere. Isaiah tells Hezekiah he will recover from his sickness and then immediately tells Hezekiah what sign will show this to be the case. After that, at the end of today's reading, Hezekiah asks Isaiah what sign he could look for. Peeking ahead, it looks like there is no follow-up to this statement. The version in 2 Kings is certainly more coherent. A scholar could probably use that to conclude something about the relationship between the texts.

Today's reading also contains Hezekiah's poem of praise following his healing. I do not think this appeared in the account in 2 Kings.

New Testament

We finish Galatians today. One thing I can say for Paul is that if you agree with his basic premise, he can be pretty persuasive. He cannot make an argument, but he can make a point. Today, when he briefly made a statement that did not refer to God or Jesus, I was even inspired by it:
Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won’t need to compare yourself to anyone else. For we are each responsible for our own conduct.
After spending a lot of time the last few days thinking about how to best present my work to others (performance review season), this verse is a nice reminder about the principles I really like to bring to my work.

Paul closes with some words written in his very own (apparently large) handwriting. He makes one last appeal to the Galatians to resist the teachings of those who want to force circumcision and to emphasize why it is not needed.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing of particular note.

20 September 2010

Sep 20

Reference links:
Old Testament

One thing that seems unique about Isaiah's visions (so far in our OT readings) is the directness of God's rule. It seems like in most of what we have read, God's interventions have been temporary and/or indirect. In Isaiah's vision, God will rule directly over the people. For example,
Your eyes will see the king in all his splendor,
and you will see a land that stretches into the distance.
and
There the Lord will display his glory,
the splendor of our God.
After those visions, we get an account of when the Assyrians attacked Judah. As far as I can remember, it is nearly word-to-word identical to the earlier account in Kings.

New Testament

Paul tells the Galatians that they should live according to the impetus of the Holy Spirit. As he has before, Paul starts from a basic assumption that I disagree with. His point assumes that human nature consists of two separable parts: the sinful nature and the nature inspired by the Holy Spirit. All that is good comes from the former and all that is bad comes from the later.

But human nature cannot be cleanly separated. Some things are not clearly good or bad. It sometimes depends on the context. Is my questioning nature which helps me understand the world and makes it impossible for me to believe any god good or bad? Some situations are truly ambiguous. Would you kill a child to save the planet? Furthermore, often that which is bad is a good quality taken to excess.

Paul's model of human nature is wrong, and bad models can lead to bad decisions. Humanity still has a lot to learn about human nature, but we can do better than this.

Psalms and Proverbs

I like this one, even if my beliefs about what constitutes truth probably differ from that which the author intended:
Get the truth and never sell it;
also get wisdom, discipline, and good judgment.

19 September 2010

Sep 19

Reference links:
Old Testament

Today I am struck most by the overall structure of Isaiah, especially in today's reading. Isaiah alternates between visions of destruction (for Jerusalem, Egypt, Assyria, complacent women, etc.) and visions of the Lord's reconciliation with his people. Those cycles contrast relying on human strength and God's strength implying, obviously, that the former brings destruction and the later prosperity.

In the midst of all that we read this,
The moon will be as bright as the sun, and the sun will be seven times brighter—like the light of seven days in one!
For the record, I think that would very bad.

New Testament

Paul says: Circumcision cannot make one right with God. Only faith can. Why in the world are the Galatians believing these lies? They certainly don't match up with what Paul teaches (despite rumors they may have heard otherwise).

Paul also makes a reference to yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough. Both the kingdom of heaven and the teachings of the Pharisees were compared to yeast in the gospels. I wonder whether Paul got the yeast imagery from the traditions about Jesus he was familiar with or if yeast was just a common analogy at the time. Since the letters of Paul were written before the gospels, if yeast were not a common analogy, we would have reason to suspect that yeast imagery was part of the early tradition surrounding Jesus.

Psalms and Proverbs

Today's proverb is about respecting your parents.

18 September 2010

Sep 18

Reference links:
Old Testament

No unifying thread today. Just a bunch of one line thoughts.

I wonder if this is where the phrase, "You've made your bed, so now you have to lie in it" came from:
The bed you have made is too short to lie on.
The blankets are too narrow to cover you.
Apparently it's God who gives farmers knowledge about farming. Funny. I thought it was trial and error that developed farming techniques.

I wonder if Paul was inspired to talk about clay vessels by this verse:
How foolish can you be?
He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay!
Should the created thing say of the one who made it,
“He didn’t make me”?
Does a jar ever say,
“The potter who made me is stupid”?
Note however that Isaiah, unlike Paul, does not imply that the potter can use the created vessel however he wishes.

Also, various blessings and curses. Making alliances with Egypt is bad.

New Testament

Paul continues to talk about why the law existed in the first place if it is so useless now. Apparently, it was a temporary guardian. So because the law was like a guardian, the people who accept Jesus are like children of God. Or something like that.

Paul then mentioned his great concern for the former gentiles in the church. After that we get a typically Pauline bit of exegesis. Paul, as usual, stretches our credulity when he tries to use examples from the Hebrew scriptures to illustrate his point.

Today he does this by comparing people to Abraham's two children: Isaac, the son of his wife and Ishmael, the son of his concubine. Paul states that
The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them.
Right... so Hagar represents Mount Sinai and the law and, symbolically, the Jews who still follow the law. Despite the fact that by Jewish tradition it is Sarah, mother of Isaac, who is the ancestor of the Jews. In short, Paul is just taking a story about a slave woman and a free woman and tearing it away from the original context to make his point.

And people complain when atheists quote from the Bible without, they claim, providing the proper context.

Psalms and Proverbs

Don't hang out with drunkards and gluttons.

17 September 2010

Sep 17

Reference links:
Old Testament

The first part of today's reading consists mostly of a prayer/psalm of praise for God and the judgment he will bring (both good and bad). This text further emphasizes the theme of justice for the downtrodden. Overall, this part of the reading definitely has a number of lines that I can see being brought into modern prayers.

Today's reading also contains what I believe is a fairly well known verse that expresses a sentiment that seems to hark back to the deuteronomic vision of history (the good will prosper and the wicked suffer):
But for those who are righteous,
the way is not steep and rough.
You are a God who does what is right,
and you smooth out the path ahead of them.
As we are well aware by now, this sentiment is in direct contrast with the idea developed elsewhere, especially in Job and the New Testament, that the righteous do sometimes have a "steep and rough" path to tread. I would say that the New Testament authors, especially Paul, sometimes even go so far as to imply that being on the steep and rough path is a sign of righteousness.

After that, we switch back to Isaiah's standard gloom and doom. The message here is that the Lord's anger will serve to purify the Israelites and Jerusalem. Through suffering, their sin will be purged. Both this and the preceding section help me see why many Christians seem so fond of Isaiah. I had been quite confused on this point when Isaiah was mostly going on about the downfall of long gone kingdoms.

Speaking of which, the reading ends with some gloom and doom against Samaria. It does have this highly amusing bit:
What sorrow awaits the proud city of Samaria—
the glorious crown of the drunks of Israel.
What great imagery!

New Testament

Paul continues to describe the hopelessness of
those who depend on the law to make them right with God
Paul then tries to make an argument by quoting several pieces of scripture. As usual, when Paul tries to make an argument instead of just declaring what he believes to be so, it comes across as somewhat incoherent and certainly not convincing. I like Harris's description of Paul's attempt to support his view on faith and the law using the Hebrew scriptures:
In support of his appeal to biblical authority, Paul finds only one additional relevant text, Habakkuk 2:4.
So let's see what Paul has going for him. A verse from a minor prophet and a particular interpretation of Abraham's call by God. From this, he tries to conclude that
The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise. For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God’s promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise.
Now, it is true that God's promise to Abraham was phrased as unconditional and the promises given with the law of Moses were conditional. However, I do not think that one can conclude from that that the two were incompatible. Certainly, hundreds of years of Jewish thinkers (and, now, thousands of years of Jewish thinkers) do not think the two scenarios as obviously incompatible as Paul wants his readers to think.

As a side note, passages like that which start out today's reading make it very easy to see how the Christian church ended up, for so many years, being anti-semitic.

I wonder what the Jewish believers thought of Paul's letters. It seems that often when Paul refers to the Hebrew scriptures, he is stretching the credulity of one who is familiar with them. I assume it must be even worse for those who are actually knowledgeable about them (such as Jewish scholars).

The converted gentiles, like many (sadly, that probably should be most) modern Christians, would not be familiar enough with the Hebrew scriptures to see how weak Paul's case really is and how much he is picking and choosing to prove his point. (And if you allow yourself to start picking and choosing, you can use the Bible to justify nearly any position.)

Psalms and Proverbs


Nothing of particular note.

16 September 2010

Sep 16

Reference links:
Old Testament

After an an extended prophecy against Jerusalem, we read a prophecy that is, oddly enough, against a specific individual. Isaiah says that Shebna, the palace administrator, will lose his position to Eliakim son of Hilkiah. Both Shebna and Eliakim were mentioned back in the books of Kings. There, Eliakim is the palace administrator and Shebna the court secretary.

This means that, for once, we may have a prophecy that was actually fulfilled (although making predictions about the current political climate can hardly be called prophecy). However, the Lord's hurling away of Shebna seems to have been merely a demotion from palace administrator to court secretary which does not seem as dramatic as Isaiah makes it sound.

This is followed by a long prophecy against Tyre and a prophecy about the destruction of the earth. When the earth is destroyed, God will hand out punishment and rule on Mount Zion.

Now, I know we haven't gotten to Daniel or Revelations yet, but from what little I know of them, this mini-apocalypse of Isaiah seems much more tame. Which is to say, there is nothing which causes me to suspect the author was writing this while on drugs. 

Side musings: Given that most of Isaiah's prophecies did not come true, why were they included in the Bible? Maybe those choosing the canon thought they would still come true. Maybe they thought some of them had come true. Maybe they interpreted the prophecies symbolically.

But maybe something else is going on. Maybe Isaiah was included because of the twist he gave to the story of Israel. Isaiah, in addition to emphasizing the idea of God's justice, also emphasized the idea of God's universality. This was something that had been largely absent from the other writings that were contemporary with Isaiah in subject or composition. Isaiah's vision of a God who punishes all nations, not just the Israelites, was probably a welcome take on the past for those living in a world where the idea of Yahweh as the most powerful tribal God no longer cut it.

Maybe what's important about Isaiah isn't its relationship to actual historical events, it is it's relationship to the evolving Jewish understanding of their God.

New Testament

Paul recounts some of his common themes: the inadequacy of the law for making one right with law, crucifixion of the self, reception of the Holy Spirit through faith, the adoption of believers as children of Abraham.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing of particular note.

15 September 2010

Sep 15

Reference links:
Old Testament

Isaiah predicts more doom and gloom. Today mostly about Egypt and Ethiopia and Babylon, plus some ambiguous messages about other places.

The most exciting part of today's reading is the bit where Isaiah wanders around naked to make a point:
In the year when King Sargon of Assyria sent his commander in chief to capture the Philistine city of Ashdod, the Lord told Isaiah son of Amoz, “Take off the burlap you have been wearing, and remove your sandals.” Isaiah did as he was told and walked around naked and barefoot.
Then the Lord said, “My servant Isaiah has been walking around naked and barefoot for the last three years. This is a sign—a symbol of the terrible troubles I will bring upon Egypt and Ethiopia. For the king of Assyria will take away the Egyptians and Ethiopians as prisoners. He will make them walk naked and barefoot, both young and old, their buttocks bared, to the shame of Egypt.
New Testament

Paul's version of his relationship with the folks in Jerusalem is distinctly different from that of Acts. In particular, Paul describes himself as only having briefly interacted with the leadership in Jerusalem until after he has been preaching for 14 years. Acts, on the other hand, made a big deal of how Paul, right after his conversion, met the apostles and then went around with them.

Acts also makes it sound like Barnabas already had an established reputation with the Jerusalem church while Paul implies that Barnabas was accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem later. While some of these discrepancies could be explained by different perspectives, it is hard to accept these two accounts as consistent.

Paul emphasizes his vision of Christianity's independence from Jewish law. Not only was following Jewish law unnecessary for those who had come to believe in Christ it was, in some circumstances, hypocritical. To me, Paul's discussion of the Jewish law in today's reading just serves to emphasize the diversity of early Christianity. In particular,
But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Paul paints this incident as an example of clear hypocrisy and giving in to fear on Peter's, but the fact that so many prominent people followed this alternate view point makes me think the case was not as cut and dry as Paul wants his readers to think. When modern folks talk about getting back to the true roots of Christianity, they should realize that even the early Christians had a diverse set of beliefs.

Psalms and Proverbs

A proverb praising discipline of children, particularly of the physical sort.

14 September 2010

Sep 14

Reference links:
Old Testament

Isaiah prophecies against Moab. Isaiah prophecies against Damascus. Isaiah prophecies against Ethiopia. Erika wonders if she is going to be able to get through Isaiah without losing her mind...

Isaiah's God is a vengeful God. The language of destruction and desolation are repulsive. The violence goes beyond the requirements of justice to the extreme of revenge. These sounds more like the words of Isaiah, the man living in uncertain and fearful times, than any God worthy to be called such.

Also, Eglath-shelishiyah is an awesome place name.

New Testament

We start a new letter today: the letter to the Galatians. According to Harris in Understanding the Bible:
Like the letters to Corinth, this letter to the Galatian churches reflects Paul's ongoing struggle with opponents who challenged his apostolic authority and his "gospel" that believers must live free of the Mosaic Law. An angry declaration of Christianity's independence of Judaism, Galatians vigorously defends Paul's doctrine of salvation through faith. The letter also proclaims Paul's independence of Jerusalem's Christian leadership. 
This uniquely Pauline gospel [that only faith in redemption through Christ can obtain salvation] revolutionized the development of Christianity. By sweeping away all Torah requirements, including circumcision and dietary restrictions, Paul opened the church wide to Gentile converts. 
Paul has a twofold purpose: (1) to prove that he is a true apostle, possessing rights equal to those of the Jerusalem "pillars" and (2) to demonstrate the validity of his gospel that Christian faith replaces works of law, including circumcision.
It is important to remind ourselves just how much these ideas about salvation are uniquely Pauline. Many of the standard ideas of Christianity came from Paul's interpretation of his knowledge of Jesus. Given that the gospels, which were written after Paul's letters, have very little overlap in things like the finer points of salvation, it seems reasonable to assume that in Paul's time and after, there were multiple competing Christian traditions (the difference between the gospel of John and the synoptics presents yet another potential competing tradition).

Although Christians like to look at the Bible as having a unified message, it is important to realize that the authors themselves came from diverse backgrounds and would, most likely, often have disagreed with each other, even if you only consider the authors of the New Testament books.

On to today's content! Paul admonishes the Galatians for following a different gospel than the one he preached (more proof of competing traditions) and defends his authority. Here we see Paul claiming that his authority comes directly from Jesus and is independent of (but approved by) existing authorities.

Psalms and Proverbs
Commit yourself to instruction;
listen carefully to words of knowledge.
Random musings today. People often think they are committing themselves to  knowledge and instruction when, in reality, they are actually only committing themselves to knowledge and instruction that match their preconceived notions.

I have had people reject what I have to say about the Bible just because I am an atheist. That's just dumb. I may be an atheist, but I am also someone who has spent 8.5 months reading and learning about the Bible. I have under my belt what is probably the equivalent of two semesters of Biblical introduction classes. There is a ton I don't know, but I have learned a lot, and it disappoints me when people dismiss what I have to say just because they think they only need to listen to those who share their same conclusions.