Posts
#47: “The virgin shall conceive” by Brendon Wahlberg
“‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’, which means, ‘God is with us.’” (Matthew 1:20-23)
That’s one of the most famous passages in the New Testament. The virgin shall conceive. Generations of Christians have taken this passage to be one of many proofs that the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, predicted the birth of Jesus. But what prophecy was Matthew referring to? When Matthew mentioned “the prophet”, he was talking about Isaiah, and he was quoting Isaiah 7:14. The problem is, Matthew was taking that one line out of context. If we look at the whole passage in which that line appears, we might not think it is so obvious that it refers to Jesus.
However, taking a line out of context like this is a valid and very ancient way of interpreting the Bible. Ancient interpreters like Matthew were Jews who were trying to convince other Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. To Matthew, the writings of Isaiah were already centuries old, and it was impossible to know for sure what the prophet meant or did not mean by his words. There was a whole way of thinking that scripture could be cryptic and have hidden meanings which had to be teased out. Scripture could say one thing and really mean another thing. Scripture was not just an old story of the past – it was a book of lessons which could teach people in the present day what they needed to know. Furthermore, there was a literal way to read scripture, of course, but because scripture was divinely given, there was also a spiritual way to read it. One could take the text at face value, yes, but one could also read it while seeing the details as representative of something else. People and events in the Old Testament were seen by early Christians as representing or foreshadowing people or events in the time of Jesus. It was in this way that Matthew read Isaiah.
But what was the original passage about? Here it is for you to read. After that, we can work through what it means. I’ve added some words in brackets to clarify some meanings. “Then the Lord said to Isaiah, Go out to meet [Judah’s young King] Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, and say to him, Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, because of the fierce anger of [King] Rezin and [his country of] Aram and [King Pekah] the son of Remaliah [who rules Israel in its capital of Samaria]. Because Aram—with Ephraim [Ephriam = Israel] and the son of Remaliah—has plotted evil against you, saying, Let us go up against Judah and cut off Jerusalem and conquer it for ourselves and make the son of Tabeel [our puppet] king in it; therefore thus says the Lord God : It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass. For the head of [or, the capital of] Aram is Damascus, and the head of [or, the king in] Damascus is Rezin. (Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered, no longer a people.) The head of Ephraim [or, the capital of Israel] is Samaria, and the head of [or, the king in] Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all.
“Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. Then Isaiah said: ‘Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, [here’s your sign] the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey [the food of royalty] by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good [meaning, old enough to know what is edible and what is not edible]. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.” (Isaiah 7:3-16)
There you have the passage in its NRSV translation. But the exact words which Matthew quoted are not in there. Instead of a virgin there is just a young woman. That’s because Matthew was using the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and that translation gave Matthew the exact “virgin” wording which he quoted in his gospel. From Matthew’s day onwards, people have argued about the correct translation of virgin vs. young woman (Greek “parthenos” vs. Hebrew “almah”), usually for the purpose of debating whether Judaism or Christianity is the “true religion”. That is not what this article is about. Instead I want to illustrate how you can take a passage and read it literally or spiritually, and how different the results can be.
Let’s work through the passage and understand it. The situation behind it was this. There were two Jewish kingdoms, southern Judah and northern Israel. To the northeast lay the mighty military power of Assyria, where modern day Iraq lies. Israel felt threatened by Assyria, and it wanted to make an alliance with its small neighbor country, Aram, in order to become strong enough to defend against Assyria. Israel wanted Judah to join their coalition. This placed Judah’s King Ahaz in a bind. If he joined the coalition, then mighty Assyria could attack and defeat all three of the small countries! If he refused to join, then Israel and Aram would angrily attack Judah and install a puppet king who would cooperate with them. Ahaz heard that Israel and Aram had joined up in this manner, and he became very afraid of them teaming up against him.
It was then that Isaiah spoke to Ahaz on behalf of God. Don’t be afraid of those two countries with their angry but impotent kings (who are like smoldering sticks pulled from the fire - they’re just blowing smoke), said Isaiah. They may be planning to conquer you, but it will not come to pass. You have to stand firm in your faith in God or you’ll fall. Look, said Isaiah, do you need a sign to prove it? The sign is this: a child will be born and named Immanuel (which means God-with-us, because God is with us in this difficult time). Soon, before that child is even old enough to know the difference between what he can eat and not eat, things will be so good and prosperous in Judah that he’ll be eating like a king. And those two countries you’re so worried about? They’ll be gone by then. So don’t be afraid. God is with us, in Jerusalem, and we’ll be safe.
So, what happened next? Aram and Israel did besiege Jerusalem. Ahaz did not listen to Isaiah or place his faith in God. In his fear, he called for help from Assyria. “Then King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel came up to wage war on Jerusalem; they besieged Ahaz but could not conquer him. […] Ahaz sent messengers to King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, saying, ‘I am your servant and your son. Come up, and rescue me from the hand of the king of Aram and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me.’ Ahaz also took the silver and gold found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent a present to the king of Assyria. The king of Assyria listened to him; the king of Assyria marched up against Damascus [in Aram], and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir; then he killed Rezin.” (2 Kings 16:5-9) So Ahaz became just a vassal to the Assyrian king.
The literal meaning of the passage would seem to have nothing to do with Jesus. The sign of the child Immanuel was a sign to reassure Ahaz in his near future, not a sign to appear about seven hundred years later, long after Ahaz was dead. The passage does not mention Jesus by name, nor does it describe a miraculous virgin birth (just a young woman, maybe a virgin, maybe not, getting pregnant in the usual way). The main meaning of the passage is that the time until the defeat of Judah’s enemies is very short, so do not fear.
But ancient readers of the Greek version of the scriptures did see the word “virgin”, and they did see the meaning of the name Immanuel, God-with-us. It seemed like enough of a reason to read the passage spiritually instead of literally. To those wise enough to see the cryptic hidden meaning, instead of referring to God-with-us in the Temple, “Immanuel” referred to God-with-us in the person of Christ. The word virgin referred to the virgin birth. The old literal words of the text were given a new meaning. The Old Testament was foreshadowing something about the way Jesus would be born, and about his divine nature.
This whole issue is an old, old debate. And if you think about it, the whole point of saying that Isaiah talked about Jesus’ birth, is to say that God knew about his own plans ahead of time. If you can accept that idea, then a spiritual reading is at least possible. Today there are still several different ways to interpret the Bible text, and many of those ways stand opposed to each other. The Bible is a living document because the people who read and interpret it are ever living and changing. How you read the Bible depends on what you see there and what you bring with you to the experience. Literal or spiritual? Or both? You decide.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Wheel in the Sky Keep on Turning
#46: “Wheel in the Sky Keep on Turning” by Brendon Wahlberg
When I was growing up in the 1970’s, “Chariots of the Gods” was a popular book. The basic idea of this book was that ancient alien astronauts had visited Earth and influenced mankind in the distant past. Monuments like the pyramids and statues like those on Easter Island were said to be evidence of these visits. Another thing said to contain evidence of ancient aliens was the Bible. Specifically, the visions of the prophet Ezekiel were said to contain a record of a visit from flying saucers and strange alien beings. It amazes me how the Bible can be so wildly misinterpreted sometimes.
Here is the passage which supposedly describes aliens and their spacecraft. “Then I looked, and above the dome that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in form resembling a throne. […] and a cloud filled the inner court. Then the glory of the Lord rose up from the cherub to the threshold of the house; the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the glory of the Lord. The sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of God Almightywhen he speaks. […] I looked, and there were four wheels beside the cherubim, one beside each cherub; and the appearance of the wheels was like gleaming beryl. And as for their appearance, the four looked alike, something like a wheel within a wheel. When they moved, they moved in any of the four directions without veering as they moved; but in whatever direction the front wheel faced, the others followed without veering as they moved. Their entire body, their rims, their spokes, their wings, and the wheels—the wheels of the four of them - were full of eyes all round. As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing ‘the wheel-work’. Each one had four faces: the first face was that of the cherub, the second face was that of a human being, the third that of a lion, and the fourth that of an eagle.
The cherubim rose up. These were the living creatures that I saw by the river Chebar. When the cherubim moved, the wheels moved beside them; and when the cherubim lifted up their wings to rise up from the earth, the wheels at their side did not veer. When they stopped, the others stopped, and when they rose up, the others rose up with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in them. Then the glory of the Lord went out from the threshold of the house and stopped above the cherubim. The cherubim lifted up their wings and rose up from the earth in my sight as they went out with the wheels beside them. They stopped at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the Lord; and the glory of the God of Israel was above them. These were the living creatures that I saw underneath the God of Israel by the river Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubim.” (Ezekiel 10:1-20)
U.F.O. enthusiasts took this passage to be a description of the wheel shapes of flying saucers, the physics-defying flight capabilities of those ships, and the alien faces of their pilots. Poor Ezekiel had a close encounter, and could only describe it in his primitive terms.
Of course, what is really going on in the passage is something completely different. To put it in a nutshell, God is leaving the defiled Temple in Jerusalem to go into exile with his people in Babylon, traveling on a mobile throne carried by angels, to return only in the future, when Jerusalem and the Temple are restored.
Ezekiel was probably both a Priest of the Temple and a prophet. A few dates will serve to sketch out his prophetic career (as worked out by scholars using clues within the book). In 597 BCE, Jerusalem was captured by Babylon and the first deportations of its people into exile began. Ezekiel’s prophecies began about four years later in 593, in Jerusalem. Six years after that, in 587, the Temple was destroyed, and another wave of deportations began. Ezekiel’s Priestly duties were over, and he went into exile himself. He continued his career as a prophet, comforting the people in exile with visions of future restoration, for another seventeen years.
So, Ezekiel was a prophet of the exile. His message had to help the people cope with the loss of their religious center. Prior to the destruction of the Temple, it was thought that God’s presence dwelled within the Temple, above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. If the people were taken to Babylon, then they were separated from their God, right?
The passage above, far from being about aliens, is really meant to address this problem. And it does so be proposing that God has a mobile throne which can go anywhere he wants, including to Babylon. In fact, God has already left the Temple even before it gets destroyed, because of the abominations carried out there by people who think God has already deserted them. In Ezekiel 8, God explains why he must leave the Temple. The once Holy place is full of idols being worshipped. Women are weeping to the god Tammuz, and men are bowing down to a sun god.
“He said to me, ‘Mortal, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? […] So I went in and looked; there, portrayed on the wall all round, were all kinds of creeping things, and loathsome animals, and all the idols of the house of Israel. […] Then he said to me, ‘Mortal, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the dark, each in his room of images? For they say, “The Lord does not see us, the Lord has forsaken the land.” […] Therefore I will act in wrath; my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity; and though they cry in my hearing with a loud voice, I will not listen to them.” (Ezekiel 8:6-18)
Ezekiel describes how God exits via the east gate and leaves Jerusalem behind, his Holy presence unwilling to stay in a defiled place. “Then the cherubim lifted up their wings, with the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was above them. And the glory of the Lord ascended from the middle of the city, and stopped on the mountain east of the city. The spirit lifted me up and brought me in a vision by the spirit of God into Chaldea, to the exiles. Then the vision that I had seen left me. And I told the exiles all the things that the Lord had shown me.” (Ezekiel 11:22-25)
Ultimately, Ezekiel offers a vision of hope and restoration. After describing a Temple rebuilt to exacting specifications, he reveals that God will return to the sanctuary, flying in through the same gate from which he left. “Then he brought me to the gate, the gate facing east. And there, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east; the sound was like the sound of mighty waters; and the earth shone with his glory. The vision I saw was like the vision that I had seen when he came to destroy the city, and like the vision that I had seen by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. As the glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east, the spirit lifted me up, and brought me into the inner court; and the glory of the Lord filled the temple.” (Ezekiel 43:1-5)
Far from being an account of a past alien encounter, the vision of Ezekiel is about an encounter with God which is ongoing and forever. “Thus says the Lord God: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms. They shall never again defile themselves with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all the apostasies into which they have fallen, and will cleanse them.
Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God. My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes. They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived; they and their children and their children’s children shall live there forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary among them for evermore. My dwelling-place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations shall know that I the Lord sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them for evermore.” (Ezekiel 37:21-28)
When I was growing up in the 1970’s, “Chariots of the Gods” was a popular book. The basic idea of this book was that ancient alien astronauts had visited Earth and influenced mankind in the distant past. Monuments like the pyramids and statues like those on Easter Island were said to be evidence of these visits. Another thing said to contain evidence of ancient aliens was the Bible. Specifically, the visions of the prophet Ezekiel were said to contain a record of a visit from flying saucers and strange alien beings. It amazes me how the Bible can be so wildly misinterpreted sometimes.
Here is the passage which supposedly describes aliens and their spacecraft. “Then I looked, and above the dome that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in form resembling a throne. […] and a cloud filled the inner court. Then the glory of the Lord rose up from the cherub to the threshold of the house; the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the glory of the Lord. The sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of God Almightywhen he speaks. […] I looked, and there were four wheels beside the cherubim, one beside each cherub; and the appearance of the wheels was like gleaming beryl. And as for their appearance, the four looked alike, something like a wheel within a wheel. When they moved, they moved in any of the four directions without veering as they moved; but in whatever direction the front wheel faced, the others followed without veering as they moved. Their entire body, their rims, their spokes, their wings, and the wheels—the wheels of the four of them - were full of eyes all round. As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing ‘the wheel-work’. Each one had four faces: the first face was that of the cherub, the second face was that of a human being, the third that of a lion, and the fourth that of an eagle.
The cherubim rose up. These were the living creatures that I saw by the river Chebar. When the cherubim moved, the wheels moved beside them; and when the cherubim lifted up their wings to rise up from the earth, the wheels at their side did not veer. When they stopped, the others stopped, and when they rose up, the others rose up with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in them. Then the glory of the Lord went out from the threshold of the house and stopped above the cherubim. The cherubim lifted up their wings and rose up from the earth in my sight as they went out with the wheels beside them. They stopped at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the Lord; and the glory of the God of Israel was above them. These were the living creatures that I saw underneath the God of Israel by the river Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubim.” (Ezekiel 10:1-20)
U.F.O. enthusiasts took this passage to be a description of the wheel shapes of flying saucers, the physics-defying flight capabilities of those ships, and the alien faces of their pilots. Poor Ezekiel had a close encounter, and could only describe it in his primitive terms.
Of course, what is really going on in the passage is something completely different. To put it in a nutshell, God is leaving the defiled Temple in Jerusalem to go into exile with his people in Babylon, traveling on a mobile throne carried by angels, to return only in the future, when Jerusalem and the Temple are restored.
Ezekiel was probably both a Priest of the Temple and a prophet. A few dates will serve to sketch out his prophetic career (as worked out by scholars using clues within the book). In 597 BCE, Jerusalem was captured by Babylon and the first deportations of its people into exile began. Ezekiel’s prophecies began about four years later in 593, in Jerusalem. Six years after that, in 587, the Temple was destroyed, and another wave of deportations began. Ezekiel’s Priestly duties were over, and he went into exile himself. He continued his career as a prophet, comforting the people in exile with visions of future restoration, for another seventeen years.
So, Ezekiel was a prophet of the exile. His message had to help the people cope with the loss of their religious center. Prior to the destruction of the Temple, it was thought that God’s presence dwelled within the Temple, above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. If the people were taken to Babylon, then they were separated from their God, right?
The passage above, far from being about aliens, is really meant to address this problem. And it does so be proposing that God has a mobile throne which can go anywhere he wants, including to Babylon. In fact, God has already left the Temple even before it gets destroyed, because of the abominations carried out there by people who think God has already deserted them. In Ezekiel 8, God explains why he must leave the Temple. The once Holy place is full of idols being worshipped. Women are weeping to the god Tammuz, and men are bowing down to a sun god.
“He said to me, ‘Mortal, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? […] So I went in and looked; there, portrayed on the wall all round, were all kinds of creeping things, and loathsome animals, and all the idols of the house of Israel. […] Then he said to me, ‘Mortal, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the dark, each in his room of images? For they say, “The Lord does not see us, the Lord has forsaken the land.” […] Therefore I will act in wrath; my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity; and though they cry in my hearing with a loud voice, I will not listen to them.” (Ezekiel 8:6-18)
Ezekiel describes how God exits via the east gate and leaves Jerusalem behind, his Holy presence unwilling to stay in a defiled place. “Then the cherubim lifted up their wings, with the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was above them. And the glory of the Lord ascended from the middle of the city, and stopped on the mountain east of the city. The spirit lifted me up and brought me in a vision by the spirit of God into Chaldea, to the exiles. Then the vision that I had seen left me. And I told the exiles all the things that the Lord had shown me.” (Ezekiel 11:22-25)
Ultimately, Ezekiel offers a vision of hope and restoration. After describing a Temple rebuilt to exacting specifications, he reveals that God will return to the sanctuary, flying in through the same gate from which he left. “Then he brought me to the gate, the gate facing east. And there, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east; the sound was like the sound of mighty waters; and the earth shone with his glory. The vision I saw was like the vision that I had seen when he came to destroy the city, and like the vision that I had seen by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. As the glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east, the spirit lifted me up, and brought me into the inner court; and the glory of the Lord filled the temple.” (Ezekiel 43:1-5)
Far from being an account of a past alien encounter, the vision of Ezekiel is about an encounter with God which is ongoing and forever. “Thus says the Lord God: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms. They shall never again defile themselves with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all the apostasies into which they have fallen, and will cleanse them.
Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God. My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes. They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived; they and their children and their children’s children shall live there forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary among them for evermore. My dwelling-place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations shall know that I the Lord sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them for evermore.” (Ezekiel 37:21-28)
Demons 101
#45: “Demons 101” by Brendon Wahlberg
In the gospel of Mark, we read about Jesus casting out demons from people. “That evening, at sunset, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. And the whole city was gathered around the door. And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons” (Mark 1: 32-33). There are many passages concerning demons in the four gospels, but what do we really know about demons? What are they? Where do they come from? What do they do, and why?
Demons seem to be common in the New Testament. Their existence is taken for granted and is unexplained. Demons, like angels, are not described or defined in any systematic way. All we can find are scraps of information scattered about scripture. All we can do is try to make a coherent picture out of those pieces. We cannot even look to older scriptures for more information; there are no demons in the Old Testament. Some English translations mention “demons” in a few places in the Hebrew Bible, but a more careful translation shows that those passages (such as Deuteronomy 32:16-17) are really talking about idols. Neither Testament gives any particular origin for demons. The Bible can’t tell us where they originally came from or how they came to be. The pagan Greeks thought of demons (they called them daimons) as lesser deities. Perhaps Greek ideas about demons were imported into Jewish theology between the two Testaments, and then altered.
Was a demon merely the same thing as an illness?
It is tempting, in the modern scientific world, to explain the nature of a demon as equivalent to a mental or physical illness, and to say that the people of the first century simply did not understand such things, calling them “demons” out of ignorance. But that is not what the New Testament says. The passage at the beginning of this article is one example of how the Bible distinguishes between sickness and demon-possession (being a “demoniac”). Another is found in Matthew: “So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he cured them.” (Matthew 4:24) Some of the people who came to see Jesus were sick and some had demons. These were two different things, although they could be confused because the presence of a demon could cause disease symptoms in a person (such as convulsions - Mark 9:20).
What is the nature of a demon?
A demon is a spirit (Matthew 8:16) and not a physical being. There are many of them, and more than one can inhabit a person (Luke 8:2, Mark 5:9). It is unclear why they inhabit people, but scripture says they are evil (e.g. Luke 7:21) and unclean, so their reasons are no doubt evil. It may be that they try to exist in places like the desert, but are unable to find rest there, so they inhabit people (Matthew 12:43-44). Some demons are more evil than others (Matthew 12:45). They are said to torment people (Acts 5:16) and indeed, their presence can bring madness (Mark 5:5), muteness (Matthew 9:32), or blindness (Matthew 12:22). A demon can talk through the voice of the possessed person (Luke 4:33-36), and they are intelligent enough to recognize the authority of Jesus and to fear his power to cast them out and back into the abyss (Matthew 8:29-31, Luke 8:31). Demons are said to teach lies to men (1Timothy 4:1) and to be able to tell the future (Acts 16:16). They can have a sort of name, for example, “Legion” (Mark 5:9). And, they did seem to know that their time of being able to possess people had a built-in ending (Matthew 8:29). It is possible that demons were made by Satan and worked for him (Revelation 16:13-14).
If Demons are evil, why did God allow them to possess people in the first century?
I said that there were no demons in the Old Testament. Actually, there is one possible exception in the story of King Saul. “Now the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. And Saul’s servants said to him, ‘See now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command the servants who attend you to look for someone who is skilful in playing the lyre; and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will feel better.’” (1 Samuel 16:14-16) In this passage, God sends an evil spirit (possibly a demon?) to torment Saul, possibly to manipulate him into sending for David.
The passage makes some commentators uncomfortable because it is God who sends the evil spirit. Yet, God has power over all things, including evil spirits. If God has power over evil spirits, then God has power over the demons of the New Testament period, and could conceivably prevent them from possessing people in the first place. It’s another example of the question of: why does God allow evil to do its work?
It is possible that there was a divine purpose in allowing demon possession in the first century. The following passages suggest that purpose. Jesus said, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” (Matthew 12:28) “The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!’ He said to them, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.’” (Luke 10:17-18)
The various signs and miracles that Jesus performed with God’s power were meant to prove that the Kingdom of God had arrived. Jesus demonstrated his power over many aspects of the world, including disease (curing sickness), the forces of nature (calming a storm), and even death (raising Lazarus). It may be that God allowed demons to possess people so that Jesus could demonstrate his power over the world of evil spirits as well, providing one more important sign of the coming of the Kingdom of God. After that purpose was accomplished, and the Apostolic age had passed, demons were no longer allowed the power they once had, and demon possession became a thing of the past. Certainly, aside from “Exorcist” movies, we see nothing in the modern world to indicate that demons have the power to inhabit people any more.
In the modern age, it is easy to question the entire existence of demons. But if we do, we have to ask ourselves whether we truly respect scripture and the gospel accounts of Jesus. The New Testament assumes that demons are real, and the gospels are clear about Jesus treating demons as real, and dealing with them in a real way. It is hard for me to imagine Jesus merely humoring the superstitions of the people of the time, and pretending to cast out imaginary beings from people while secretly healing their actual mental or physical illnesses. That would not be the behavior of the same Jesus who made such a point of telling us the truth all of the time.
In the end, we must at least keep our minds open and allow for the possibility that demons exist exactly as described in the New Testament. If that is true, then we should also be grateful that our century is so very different from the first century CE, and that we are free from the threat of unclean evil spirits on top of all the many mental illnesses and diseases from which we still do suffer.
In the gospel of Mark, we read about Jesus casting out demons from people. “That evening, at sunset, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. And the whole city was gathered around the door. And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons” (Mark 1: 32-33). There are many passages concerning demons in the four gospels, but what do we really know about demons? What are they? Where do they come from? What do they do, and why?
Demons seem to be common in the New Testament. Their existence is taken for granted and is unexplained. Demons, like angels, are not described or defined in any systematic way. All we can find are scraps of information scattered about scripture. All we can do is try to make a coherent picture out of those pieces. We cannot even look to older scriptures for more information; there are no demons in the Old Testament. Some English translations mention “demons” in a few places in the Hebrew Bible, but a more careful translation shows that those passages (such as Deuteronomy 32:16-17) are really talking about idols. Neither Testament gives any particular origin for demons. The Bible can’t tell us where they originally came from or how they came to be. The pagan Greeks thought of demons (they called them daimons) as lesser deities. Perhaps Greek ideas about demons were imported into Jewish theology between the two Testaments, and then altered.
Was a demon merely the same thing as an illness?
It is tempting, in the modern scientific world, to explain the nature of a demon as equivalent to a mental or physical illness, and to say that the people of the first century simply did not understand such things, calling them “demons” out of ignorance. But that is not what the New Testament says. The passage at the beginning of this article is one example of how the Bible distinguishes between sickness and demon-possession (being a “demoniac”). Another is found in Matthew: “So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he cured them.” (Matthew 4:24) Some of the people who came to see Jesus were sick and some had demons. These were two different things, although they could be confused because the presence of a demon could cause disease symptoms in a person (such as convulsions - Mark 9:20).
What is the nature of a demon?
A demon is a spirit (Matthew 8:16) and not a physical being. There are many of them, and more than one can inhabit a person (Luke 8:2, Mark 5:9). It is unclear why they inhabit people, but scripture says they are evil (e.g. Luke 7:21) and unclean, so their reasons are no doubt evil. It may be that they try to exist in places like the desert, but are unable to find rest there, so they inhabit people (Matthew 12:43-44). Some demons are more evil than others (Matthew 12:45). They are said to torment people (Acts 5:16) and indeed, their presence can bring madness (Mark 5:5), muteness (Matthew 9:32), or blindness (Matthew 12:22). A demon can talk through the voice of the possessed person (Luke 4:33-36), and they are intelligent enough to recognize the authority of Jesus and to fear his power to cast them out and back into the abyss (Matthew 8:29-31, Luke 8:31). Demons are said to teach lies to men (1Timothy 4:1) and to be able to tell the future (Acts 16:16). They can have a sort of name, for example, “Legion” (Mark 5:9). And, they did seem to know that their time of being able to possess people had a built-in ending (Matthew 8:29). It is possible that demons were made by Satan and worked for him (Revelation 16:13-14).
If Demons are evil, why did God allow them to possess people in the first century?
I said that there were no demons in the Old Testament. Actually, there is one possible exception in the story of King Saul. “Now the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. And Saul’s servants said to him, ‘See now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command the servants who attend you to look for someone who is skilful in playing the lyre; and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will feel better.’” (1 Samuel 16:14-16) In this passage, God sends an evil spirit (possibly a demon?) to torment Saul, possibly to manipulate him into sending for David.
The passage makes some commentators uncomfortable because it is God who sends the evil spirit. Yet, God has power over all things, including evil spirits. If God has power over evil spirits, then God has power over the demons of the New Testament period, and could conceivably prevent them from possessing people in the first place. It’s another example of the question of: why does God allow evil to do its work?
It is possible that there was a divine purpose in allowing demon possession in the first century. The following passages suggest that purpose. Jesus said, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” (Matthew 12:28) “The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!’ He said to them, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.’” (Luke 10:17-18)
The various signs and miracles that Jesus performed with God’s power were meant to prove that the Kingdom of God had arrived. Jesus demonstrated his power over many aspects of the world, including disease (curing sickness), the forces of nature (calming a storm), and even death (raising Lazarus). It may be that God allowed demons to possess people so that Jesus could demonstrate his power over the world of evil spirits as well, providing one more important sign of the coming of the Kingdom of God. After that purpose was accomplished, and the Apostolic age had passed, demons were no longer allowed the power they once had, and demon possession became a thing of the past. Certainly, aside from “Exorcist” movies, we see nothing in the modern world to indicate that demons have the power to inhabit people any more.
In the modern age, it is easy to question the entire existence of demons. But if we do, we have to ask ourselves whether we truly respect scripture and the gospel accounts of Jesus. The New Testament assumes that demons are real, and the gospels are clear about Jesus treating demons as real, and dealing with them in a real way. It is hard for me to imagine Jesus merely humoring the superstitions of the people of the time, and pretending to cast out imaginary beings from people while secretly healing their actual mental or physical illnesses. That would not be the behavior of the same Jesus who made such a point of telling us the truth all of the time.
In the end, we must at least keep our minds open and allow for the possibility that demons exist exactly as described in the New Testament. If that is true, then we should also be grateful that our century is so very different from the first century CE, and that we are free from the threat of unclean evil spirits on top of all the many mental illnesses and diseases from which we still do suffer.
Almost in the New Testament
#44: “Almost in the New Testament” by Brendon Wahlberg
Recently, an ancient copy of the New Testament was put online for the first time. You can now see every page of the famous Codex Sinaiticus (found on Mt. Sinai), which may have been one of the copies commissioned by the Emperor Constantine in the year 331. This copy shows how the canon of the New Testament was not yet finalized at the time, because although it contains all of the books we are familiar with now, it also contains two books which were later rejected from the final New Testament collection. These books, which were “almost in the New Testament”, were the “Letter of Barnabas” and “The Shepherd of Hermas”. What were these books about? And why were they kicked out of the canon in the end?
“The Shepherd” was a very popular book during the first four centuries of Christianity. It was probably written between 140 and 170CE by a man named Hermas, the brother of Pius, the Bishop of Rome. Many churches regarded it as holy scripture, which explains why it was included in the Codex found on Mt. Sinai. Basically, “The Shepherd” is about an angel who appears to Hermas in the form of a shepherd and shows him five visions, twelve commandments, and ten parables. These revelations are symbolic and hard to understand, so Hermas begs the angel to explain each one. The reader is expected to glean valuable Christian lessons from each explanation. Most of these lessons are about repentance.
The most important of these lessons concerns the question of what happens to baptized people who join the Church and are saved, but later return to a life of sin. “The Shepherd” claims to be a new divine revelation that such people get one, and only one, second chance. In “The Shepherd” (Fourth Commandment Chapter Three) Hermas is talking to the angel, and they have the following conversation.
“And I said, "I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins." He said to me, "That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity. […] For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them; and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once. But if he should sin frequently after this, and then repent, to such a man his repentance will be of no avail…"”
Why did “The Shepherd” get rejected from the final canon? Part of the reason was that it had been written too recently. It did not go back to the Apostolic times. It was known exactly who wrote it, and Hermas was not connected to the Apostles. So, the book was not old enough or authoritative enough. But on top of those reasons, there was a problem with the way the book discussed Jesus. In Parable 9, “The Shepherd” suggests that Jesus was a normal person who became a host for the Holy Spirit. “The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after laboring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it. For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit.” This view of Jesus was rejected by the Church, and that may have banished “The Shepherd” from the canon. But before it was rejected, “The Shepherd” was almost part of the New Testament. It is precisely because it was once so popular that we still have the complete text of this long book.
The other book which was almost in the New Testament, and which can be found in the Codex of Mt. Sinai, is called the “Letter of Barnabas.” We don’t really know who wrote this epistle, but tradition associates it with either Barnabas, the companion of Paul, or someone named Barnabas of Alexandria. It was written around 130CE, for Christian Gentiles to read. The letter takes a very strong anti-Jewish position, and basically, it says that the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament, and the Jewish religion, are completely wrong. The letter says that Judaism is a false religion. Jews have never been part of a Covenant with God. Only Christians have a Covenant with God. Jews have never understood their own scriptures. An evil angel has led Jews to take their scriptures literally, when they were always meant to be taken figuratively. In fact, everything in the Old Testament is a really only a symbolic way to foreshadow the future Jesus.
For example, “Barnabas” says that circumcision was really only a symbol of Jesus on the cross. To make this point, he notes that Abraham circumcised 18 and 300 men in his household. Then Barnabas converts numbers to letters and makes the number 18 into Jesus, and the number 300 into the cross. The point is that the Jews were never supposed to take circumcision literally and actually go and do it, but that the circumcision story was really meant to point to the future event of Jesus’ death.
Likewise, Barnabas says that keeping Kosher was not to be taken literally either. “Now when Moses said, “Eat neither pig, nor eagle, nor hawk, nor crow, nor any fish that is without scales […] it is not God’s commandment that they literally should not eat, but Moses spoke in the spirit. For this reason, then, he mentions the pig: Do not associate, he is saying, with such people – people who are like pigs. That is, people who forget their Lord when they are well off, but when they are in need, they acknowledge the Lord; just as when the pig is feeding it ignores its keeper, but when it is hungry it makes a din.” (Barnabas 10:1-3)
It may be a blessing that “Barnabas” was excluded from the canon. Anti-Semites have used certain New Testament passages to justify their hatred through the ages. The “Letter of Barnabas” would have been the kind of material that they would have loved to use, if it had been ranked with Holy Scripture.
So there you have it, a brief introduction to two books that were almost Scripture. John Greenleaf Whittier wrote, "For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'" It might have been that our New Testament was two books longer than it is today. Instead, “The Shepherd” and “Barnabas” were tossed on the discard pile of history. But perhaps such things are part of God’s plan and for the best after all.
Recently, an ancient copy of the New Testament was put online for the first time. You can now see every page of the famous Codex Sinaiticus (found on Mt. Sinai), which may have been one of the copies commissioned by the Emperor Constantine in the year 331. This copy shows how the canon of the New Testament was not yet finalized at the time, because although it contains all of the books we are familiar with now, it also contains two books which were later rejected from the final New Testament collection. These books, which were “almost in the New Testament”, were the “Letter of Barnabas” and “The Shepherd of Hermas”. What were these books about? And why were they kicked out of the canon in the end?
“The Shepherd” was a very popular book during the first four centuries of Christianity. It was probably written between 140 and 170CE by a man named Hermas, the brother of Pius, the Bishop of Rome. Many churches regarded it as holy scripture, which explains why it was included in the Codex found on Mt. Sinai. Basically, “The Shepherd” is about an angel who appears to Hermas in the form of a shepherd and shows him five visions, twelve commandments, and ten parables. These revelations are symbolic and hard to understand, so Hermas begs the angel to explain each one. The reader is expected to glean valuable Christian lessons from each explanation. Most of these lessons are about repentance.
The most important of these lessons concerns the question of what happens to baptized people who join the Church and are saved, but later return to a life of sin. “The Shepherd” claims to be a new divine revelation that such people get one, and only one, second chance. In “The Shepherd” (Fourth Commandment Chapter Three) Hermas is talking to the angel, and they have the following conversation.
“And I said, "I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins." He said to me, "That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity. […] For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them; and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once. But if he should sin frequently after this, and then repent, to such a man his repentance will be of no avail…"”
Why did “The Shepherd” get rejected from the final canon? Part of the reason was that it had been written too recently. It did not go back to the Apostolic times. It was known exactly who wrote it, and Hermas was not connected to the Apostles. So, the book was not old enough or authoritative enough. But on top of those reasons, there was a problem with the way the book discussed Jesus. In Parable 9, “The Shepherd” suggests that Jesus was a normal person who became a host for the Holy Spirit. “The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after laboring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it. For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit.” This view of Jesus was rejected by the Church, and that may have banished “The Shepherd” from the canon. But before it was rejected, “The Shepherd” was almost part of the New Testament. It is precisely because it was once so popular that we still have the complete text of this long book.
The other book which was almost in the New Testament, and which can be found in the Codex of Mt. Sinai, is called the “Letter of Barnabas.” We don’t really know who wrote this epistle, but tradition associates it with either Barnabas, the companion of Paul, or someone named Barnabas of Alexandria. It was written around 130CE, for Christian Gentiles to read. The letter takes a very strong anti-Jewish position, and basically, it says that the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament, and the Jewish religion, are completely wrong. The letter says that Judaism is a false religion. Jews have never been part of a Covenant with God. Only Christians have a Covenant with God. Jews have never understood their own scriptures. An evil angel has led Jews to take their scriptures literally, when they were always meant to be taken figuratively. In fact, everything in the Old Testament is a really only a symbolic way to foreshadow the future Jesus.
For example, “Barnabas” says that circumcision was really only a symbol of Jesus on the cross. To make this point, he notes that Abraham circumcised 18 and 300 men in his household. Then Barnabas converts numbers to letters and makes the number 18 into Jesus, and the number 300 into the cross. The point is that the Jews were never supposed to take circumcision literally and actually go and do it, but that the circumcision story was really meant to point to the future event of Jesus’ death.
Likewise, Barnabas says that keeping Kosher was not to be taken literally either. “Now when Moses said, “Eat neither pig, nor eagle, nor hawk, nor crow, nor any fish that is without scales […] it is not God’s commandment that they literally should not eat, but Moses spoke in the spirit. For this reason, then, he mentions the pig: Do not associate, he is saying, with such people – people who are like pigs. That is, people who forget their Lord when they are well off, but when they are in need, they acknowledge the Lord; just as when the pig is feeding it ignores its keeper, but when it is hungry it makes a din.” (Barnabas 10:1-3)
It may be a blessing that “Barnabas” was excluded from the canon. Anti-Semites have used certain New Testament passages to justify their hatred through the ages. The “Letter of Barnabas” would have been the kind of material that they would have loved to use, if it had been ranked with Holy Scripture.
So there you have it, a brief introduction to two books that were almost Scripture. John Greenleaf Whittier wrote, "For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'" It might have been that our New Testament was two books longer than it is today. Instead, “The Shepherd” and “Barnabas” were tossed on the discard pile of history. But perhaps such things are part of God’s plan and for the best after all.
What is the 'Song of Songs' about?
#43: “What is the ‘Song of Songs’ about?” by Brendon Wahlberg
The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon, is a very unusual book in the Bible. It is a collection of erotic love poetry that does not mention God. Consequently, its place in the canon of scripture was questioned by many in antiquity. Yet, the famous first century Rabbi Akiva said in its defense, “the whole of the world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; all the writings are Holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.” Akiva’s opinion ensured that the Song of Songs made it onto the final list of accepted Bible books.
The secret of Rabbi Akiva’s great respect for this puzzling book is that he saw it not as erotic love poetry, but as an allegory for the love between God and Israel. For example, where the Song says, “My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh that lies between my breasts (1:13),” an allegorical interpretation might claim that the two breasts represent the two cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant and that the bag of perfume represents God’s presence resting between them. Later Christians picked up on this theme and interpreted the book as a description of the love between Christ and the Church.
Others find the allegorical approach to be baseless, and they see only a collection of random love poems that celebrate the natural love between men and women. Including the poems in scripture is an affirmation that such love is a holy part of God’s creation, but there is no deeper meaning to be found in the book. They theorize that the poems were sung at weddings in ancient Israel.
Finally, there are those who see the Song of Songs as a sort of drama, a play with three characters who take turns speaking. When viewed this way, the Song of Songs tells of a young woman in love with a shepherd boy, and the powerful King who covets her beauty and tries to make her part of his harem. This last approach is perhaps the most interesting and meaningful, because we can take some powerful life lessons from a dramatic story, while a random collection of verses has less to offer us.
If the Song of Songs is indeed a story, who are the characters? One is King Solomon, the son of King David. The first line of the book says, “The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s.” (1:1) This line could mean that the book was written by Solomon, for Solomon, or about Solomon. Perhaps it is about Solomon, for the Song of Songs might be a subtle criticism of the promiscuity of the King, and it is unlikely that Solomon would have criticized himself.
What was there to criticize about Solomon? As the powerful King of Israel, Solomon had 1,000 women in his harem, as described in the following passage. “King Solomon loved many foreign women […] from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the Israelites, ‘You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you; for they will surely incline your heart to follow their gods;’ Solomon clung to these in love. Among his wives were seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.” (1 Kings 11:1-4)
So the problem was that his many wives led Solomon to worship other gods. He should have known better: the Torah specifically forbids the King to have so many wives. “When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me’, you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. […] And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away…” (Deuteronomy 17:14-17) According to the dramatic interpretation of the Song of Songs, despite having so many women, Solomon wants one more, and he only wants her for her looks. Her refusal of his advances and her choice to uphold true love may represent a rebuke to Solomon for his behavior in general. Not only did his promiscuity lead him to other gods, it also offended human ideals of romantic love.
The second character of this drama is a young virgin Shulammite maiden. Solomon wants to add her to his collection, but she is already in love with the third character, a young shepherd boy from her village. The other women in the harem, who are referred to as the “daughters of Jerusalem”, also speak in the story, acting as a sort of chorus.
The following is a summary of the dramatic story of the Song of Songs, along with chapter and verse numbers so you can follow along in your Bible if you wish. One weakness of this interpretation of the book is that it is hard to assign some of the verses to a specific character with real certainty. Some people would say that a particular line was spoken by the King, but some would say it was the maiden. Therefore, take the details with a grain of salt, so to speak. Besides the ambiguity of who is speaking in some parts, there is the difficulty of translation. The Song of Songs is notoriously hard to translate. The meaning of many of the Hebrew phrases is unclear, and many of the individual words are found only in this book, so we sometimes have to guess what they mean.
As the story opens, the young maiden lives in the north of Israel where she works on one of the King’s vineyards as a tenant farmer. Solomon has camped nearby to inspect his grape crops, and he sees the maiden and is taken with her beauty. The maiden is praising her young shepherd boyfriend (1:2-4) when she is summoned into the King’s tent (1:4). Women of the harem welcome her (1:4). We learn that the maiden’s skin is dark from tending grapes in the sun all the time (1:5-6) as she stands there wondering where the shepherd is at that moment (1:7). The harem women begin to tell her to go find him (1:8) when the King enters, reclines on a couch, and starts praising the maiden’s facial beauty and jewelry (1:9-10). The harem promises her even more jewelry (1:11) but the maiden can only stand and talk about her beloved the shepherd (1:12-14).
The King keeps praising the maiden’s beauty (1:15; 2:2) while the maiden steadfastly praises only her true love and talks about the house they’ll share, and how they first saw each other and fell in love (1:16-17; 2:1; 2:3-10). She describes what the shepherd said to her as their love grew (2:11-15). The maiden says (and she repeats it three times in the story) that love should not be rushed – it has to awaken when it is ready (2:7). Therefore what the King is doing is wrong. But Solomon will not release her, and she has to travel back to Jerusalem with him. On the way, she dreams she is in the city, looking in the streets for her beloved. She finds him in the dream, and they escape to her mother’s house (2:16-17; 3:1-5). But it is only a dream.
The King’s grand procession approaches Jerusalem. Solomon rides on a litter, a fancy travelling couch accompanied by many soldiers, and the rest of the harem comes out to greet it (3:6-11). The King is looking forward to another wedding, with the maiden. Many of his wives were princesses - daughters of foreign rulers, married to him to cement political alliances. But the Shulammite maiden was just a poor peasant – she must have been truly beautiful to so powerfully attract Solomon. The King extols her beauty at length, complimenting every part of her individually, discussing her virginity with great interest, and calling her his sister and bride (4:1-15). But the maiden is oblivious to his seduction, imagining the consummation of her love with the shepherd (4:16; 5:1).
In Jerusalem, the maiden dreams that her shepherd has come to find her. This time, the dream is more frightening than the last. The shepherd seems to be there, being intimate with her, but suddenly he vanishes. When she takes to the street looking for him, she dreams she is found and beaten by guards (5:2-7). The maiden wakes up and begs the harem women to tell the shepherd (if they see him) how much she misses him (5:8). The women ask what makes this boy so special (5:9) and of course the maiden tells them in detail (5:10-16). They ask where he has gone (6:1) and the maiden says her love is with his sheep and in his lily gardens (6:2-3). She then speaks words that have become famous in Jewish weddings, words which are sometimes inscribed on wedding rings: “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine.” (6:3)
The King is not finished trying to win her with over-the-top praise of her beauty, calling her perfect and complimenting every part of her body at great length. He lets her know how much he wants to make love to her (6:4-13; 7:1-9). Again, the maiden refuses the King. “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me.” (7:10) She speaks passionately to her shepherd as if he was there with her (7:10-13; 8:1-3). Again, she entreats everyone there not to force love, but to let love run its natural course. “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready!” (8:4)
With that final refusal, Solomon evidently relents, and we find the maiden returning north, home to her village. Her brothers spot her coming (8:5). She walks up the path, leaning on her beloved shepherd at last. As they walk, the maiden talks about how strong true love is, and how it helped her resist Solomon. “For love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If one offered for love all the wealth of one’s house, it would be utterly scorned.” (8:6-7) She reassures her concerned brothers that she remains a virgin (8:8-12), and hurries off with her shepherd to be with him alone (8:13-14).
It is impossible to say for sure if this dramatic interpretation of the Song of Songs is correct in general. But viewed in this way, it has important things to say about love and marriage. Love is natural and beautiful, but it cannot be forced to grow. True love is between two people who belong to each other, and has nothing to do with wealth or power. Solomon was wrong to let his desire come between two young people, and for all his flattery, his shallow, superficial attraction could not equal the deep and honest feelings shared by the two peasants.
If this interpretation is correct, then how did this book end up in the Bible in the first place? It is not a grand story of God and mankind, like the Exodus story. Was it included simply because it was a story of Solomon, and, as we know, even critical stories about the Kings of Israel were preserved? We may never know. Even if God is not in the Song of Songs, we are invited to think about God in relation to the book, simply because it is there in the Bible. Whether you look for God’s presence in the symbolism of the poetry, as Rabbi Akiva did, or if you see the story as an example of how God wants us to love each other - with delight and faithfulness - you can take something important from the Song of Songs.
The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon, is a very unusual book in the Bible. It is a collection of erotic love poetry that does not mention God. Consequently, its place in the canon of scripture was questioned by many in antiquity. Yet, the famous first century Rabbi Akiva said in its defense, “the whole of the world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; all the writings are Holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.” Akiva’s opinion ensured that the Song of Songs made it onto the final list of accepted Bible books.
The secret of Rabbi Akiva’s great respect for this puzzling book is that he saw it not as erotic love poetry, but as an allegory for the love between God and Israel. For example, where the Song says, “My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh that lies between my breasts (1:13),” an allegorical interpretation might claim that the two breasts represent the two cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant and that the bag of perfume represents God’s presence resting between them. Later Christians picked up on this theme and interpreted the book as a description of the love between Christ and the Church.
Others find the allegorical approach to be baseless, and they see only a collection of random love poems that celebrate the natural love between men and women. Including the poems in scripture is an affirmation that such love is a holy part of God’s creation, but there is no deeper meaning to be found in the book. They theorize that the poems were sung at weddings in ancient Israel.
Finally, there are those who see the Song of Songs as a sort of drama, a play with three characters who take turns speaking. When viewed this way, the Song of Songs tells of a young woman in love with a shepherd boy, and the powerful King who covets her beauty and tries to make her part of his harem. This last approach is perhaps the most interesting and meaningful, because we can take some powerful life lessons from a dramatic story, while a random collection of verses has less to offer us.
If the Song of Songs is indeed a story, who are the characters? One is King Solomon, the son of King David. The first line of the book says, “The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s.” (1:1) This line could mean that the book was written by Solomon, for Solomon, or about Solomon. Perhaps it is about Solomon, for the Song of Songs might be a subtle criticism of the promiscuity of the King, and it is unlikely that Solomon would have criticized himself.
What was there to criticize about Solomon? As the powerful King of Israel, Solomon had 1,000 women in his harem, as described in the following passage. “King Solomon loved many foreign women […] from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the Israelites, ‘You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you; for they will surely incline your heart to follow their gods;’ Solomon clung to these in love. Among his wives were seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.” (1 Kings 11:1-4)
So the problem was that his many wives led Solomon to worship other gods. He should have known better: the Torah specifically forbids the King to have so many wives. “When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me’, you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. […] And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away…” (Deuteronomy 17:14-17) According to the dramatic interpretation of the Song of Songs, despite having so many women, Solomon wants one more, and he only wants her for her looks. Her refusal of his advances and her choice to uphold true love may represent a rebuke to Solomon for his behavior in general. Not only did his promiscuity lead him to other gods, it also offended human ideals of romantic love.
The second character of this drama is a young virgin Shulammite maiden. Solomon wants to add her to his collection, but she is already in love with the third character, a young shepherd boy from her village. The other women in the harem, who are referred to as the “daughters of Jerusalem”, also speak in the story, acting as a sort of chorus.
The following is a summary of the dramatic story of the Song of Songs, along with chapter and verse numbers so you can follow along in your Bible if you wish. One weakness of this interpretation of the book is that it is hard to assign some of the verses to a specific character with real certainty. Some people would say that a particular line was spoken by the King, but some would say it was the maiden. Therefore, take the details with a grain of salt, so to speak. Besides the ambiguity of who is speaking in some parts, there is the difficulty of translation. The Song of Songs is notoriously hard to translate. The meaning of many of the Hebrew phrases is unclear, and many of the individual words are found only in this book, so we sometimes have to guess what they mean.
As the story opens, the young maiden lives in the north of Israel where she works on one of the King’s vineyards as a tenant farmer. Solomon has camped nearby to inspect his grape crops, and he sees the maiden and is taken with her beauty. The maiden is praising her young shepherd boyfriend (1:2-4) when she is summoned into the King’s tent (1:4). Women of the harem welcome her (1:4). We learn that the maiden’s skin is dark from tending grapes in the sun all the time (1:5-6) as she stands there wondering where the shepherd is at that moment (1:7). The harem women begin to tell her to go find him (1:8) when the King enters, reclines on a couch, and starts praising the maiden’s facial beauty and jewelry (1:9-10). The harem promises her even more jewelry (1:11) but the maiden can only stand and talk about her beloved the shepherd (1:12-14).
The King keeps praising the maiden’s beauty (1:15; 2:2) while the maiden steadfastly praises only her true love and talks about the house they’ll share, and how they first saw each other and fell in love (1:16-17; 2:1; 2:3-10). She describes what the shepherd said to her as their love grew (2:11-15). The maiden says (and she repeats it three times in the story) that love should not be rushed – it has to awaken when it is ready (2:7). Therefore what the King is doing is wrong. But Solomon will not release her, and she has to travel back to Jerusalem with him. On the way, she dreams she is in the city, looking in the streets for her beloved. She finds him in the dream, and they escape to her mother’s house (2:16-17; 3:1-5). But it is only a dream.
The King’s grand procession approaches Jerusalem. Solomon rides on a litter, a fancy travelling couch accompanied by many soldiers, and the rest of the harem comes out to greet it (3:6-11). The King is looking forward to another wedding, with the maiden. Many of his wives were princesses - daughters of foreign rulers, married to him to cement political alliances. But the Shulammite maiden was just a poor peasant – she must have been truly beautiful to so powerfully attract Solomon. The King extols her beauty at length, complimenting every part of her individually, discussing her virginity with great interest, and calling her his sister and bride (4:1-15). But the maiden is oblivious to his seduction, imagining the consummation of her love with the shepherd (4:16; 5:1).
In Jerusalem, the maiden dreams that her shepherd has come to find her. This time, the dream is more frightening than the last. The shepherd seems to be there, being intimate with her, but suddenly he vanishes. When she takes to the street looking for him, she dreams she is found and beaten by guards (5:2-7). The maiden wakes up and begs the harem women to tell the shepherd (if they see him) how much she misses him (5:8). The women ask what makes this boy so special (5:9) and of course the maiden tells them in detail (5:10-16). They ask where he has gone (6:1) and the maiden says her love is with his sheep and in his lily gardens (6:2-3). She then speaks words that have become famous in Jewish weddings, words which are sometimes inscribed on wedding rings: “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine.” (6:3)
The King is not finished trying to win her with over-the-top praise of her beauty, calling her perfect and complimenting every part of her body at great length. He lets her know how much he wants to make love to her (6:4-13; 7:1-9). Again, the maiden refuses the King. “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me.” (7:10) She speaks passionately to her shepherd as if he was there with her (7:10-13; 8:1-3). Again, she entreats everyone there not to force love, but to let love run its natural course. “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready!” (8:4)
With that final refusal, Solomon evidently relents, and we find the maiden returning north, home to her village. Her brothers spot her coming (8:5). She walks up the path, leaning on her beloved shepherd at last. As they walk, the maiden talks about how strong true love is, and how it helped her resist Solomon. “For love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If one offered for love all the wealth of one’s house, it would be utterly scorned.” (8:6-7) She reassures her concerned brothers that she remains a virgin (8:8-12), and hurries off with her shepherd to be with him alone (8:13-14).
It is impossible to say for sure if this dramatic interpretation of the Song of Songs is correct in general. But viewed in this way, it has important things to say about love and marriage. Love is natural and beautiful, but it cannot be forced to grow. True love is between two people who belong to each other, and has nothing to do with wealth or power. Solomon was wrong to let his desire come between two young people, and for all his flattery, his shallow, superficial attraction could not equal the deep and honest feelings shared by the two peasants.
If this interpretation is correct, then how did this book end up in the Bible in the first place? It is not a grand story of God and mankind, like the Exodus story. Was it included simply because it was a story of Solomon, and, as we know, even critical stories about the Kings of Israel were preserved? We may never know. Even if God is not in the Song of Songs, we are invited to think about God in relation to the book, simply because it is there in the Bible. Whether you look for God’s presence in the symbolism of the poetry, as Rabbi Akiva did, or if you see the story as an example of how God wants us to love each other - with delight and faithfulness - you can take something important from the Song of Songs.
My Old Friend from Antioch
#42: “My Old Friend from Antioch” by Brendon Wahlberg
I was reading the book of Acts one day, when I came across someone I really identified with. His name was Nicolas of Antioch, and here is his brief appearance in Acts 6:5. “Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait at tables. Therefore, friends, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task, while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.’ What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.” (Acts 6:1-5)
“Proselyte” is not a word many people would recognize, and perhaps a more modern translation of Acts 6:5 would help; here is one from the “New Living Translation”, one of those English paraphrases of the Bible: “and Nicolas of Antioch (a Gentile convert to the Jewish faith, who had now become a Christian).” I read this, and I thought, wow, this guy did the same thing I did, except he did it almost two thousand years ago. Like Nicolas, I was also a convert to Judaism who was later baptized as a Christian. I wondered if the road of faith Nicolas traveled was anything like mine.
When I was very young, I attended an old fashioned, small-town, New England Congregational Church, or at least I did until my adopted parents, one a lapsed Catholic and the other an Agnostic, told me I didn’t have to go any more. So, not knowing any better, I stopped going. As a result, I didn’t have any religious identity until I went to college and fell in love with a young Jewish woman. With an empty place in my life waiting to be filled with faith in God, I began to study Judaism. Eventually, I worked with the campus Rabbi and formally studied to become a convert. So Nicolas of Antioch and I were both converts, although today they call it becoming a Jew by Choice.
For me, conversion involved (1) demonstrating to a panel of three Rabbis that I had learned the basics of the faith, (2) a full immersion in water (just like long ago with John the Baptist, except in a small ritual pool inside a building, not in the Jordan River), and (3) a symbolic circumcision – symbolic because when I was a newborn in 1966, they routinely circumcised babies in Boston. As a Proselyte, a Gentile converting to Judaism in the first century CE, Nicolas of Antioch would have undergone something similar. Ancient sources tell us that it was required that a proselyte be circumcised, and that he undergo a proselyte baptism, a water ceremony.
After my conversion, I eventually had a proper Jewish wedding, with the canopy and stepping on the glass, and everything. I truly enjoyed being Jewish, and I continued to study and grow deeper in my faith. Nothing shook me from it, not even when my long-lost birth mother entered my life and turned out to be a Pentecostal, Charismatic, speaking-in-tongues, Holy-Ghost-filled, dancing-in-the-spirit, street preacher who was expecting the end of the world in one year’s time and wanted me to be saved in time for the Rapture. I am sorry to say, she did not present an attractive picture of Christianity. She did not shake my faith. It took the end of my marriage after twelve years and two children to do that.
After my divorce, I was broken-hearted and religiously adrift, feeling distant from God and waiting to see where life would take me. Over the next few years, I was blessed to begin a relationship with a wonderful woman named Toni who was a member of Calvin Presbyterian Church. I am convinced that the Holy Spirit really is present at Calvin. I believe this because when I began to attend there with Toni, it felt like the Holy Spirit began to very gently speak to me, to beckon me to come and join in, for healing and belonging and a new, closer relationship with the same God I once knew. At first I resisted, still confused and trying to work out where I belonged in terms of faith, but one day, I looked around at the kind and welcoming people in the Calvin congregation, and I realized I was the only one keeping myself out, like a person standing out in the cold when the door to the party is wide open and right there in front of him.
And so, I began to study with the Pastor, and he taught me that faith was another word for trust. I learned to trust again, and eventually, I was baptized a Christian at Calvin. (Unlike the babies who are baptized, I was not carried around the room by the Pastor.) I have loved being at Calvin ever since. I have always enjoyed religious studies, and one day I realized that if I was going to study and learn anyway, why not share it in the form of a monthly column in the newsletter? My perspective in knowing both the Jewish and Christian sides of things would make me a good person to write about the Old and New Testaments alike. It would be like a mini-ministry in adult education, my way of serving at Calvin. Service to others is central, after all.
Which brings us back to old Nicolas of Antioch. Do we know what happened in Antioch that made him want to convert to Judaism after growing up as a Gentile (perhaps a Greek pagan of some sort)? Most proselytes were people who encountered Judaism in synagogues in the diaspora and were attracted to that ancient faith. Do we know how and why he later became a Christian? Did he hear the preaching of Peter or another Apostle and decide that the Jewish Messiah had come? We can never know the answers for sure. But we do know that he was a servant at heart.
The passage from Acts concerns the distribution of food to the poor in Jerusalem. As the passage notes, the new and growing Christian community there was made up of two groups: Hebrews (who were Jewish Christians) and Hellenists (who were Greek Christians). They were all equally “disciples” but some of the Greek widows were not getting their share of food. Nicolas was chosen, along with six others, to distribute food daily to the community of the disciples. The twelve Apostles of Jesus were unable to carry out that kind of duty. Instead, their task as given by Jesus was to pray and preach the gospel. But Nicolas’ job was really no less important. Without him, some widows could starve. Those widows had to be fed and healthy before they could hear the good news from the Apostles.
And the Apostles did seem to respect the service Nicolas performed, even if they felt they were too busy to do it. Notice that the Apostles required “men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” to carry out the food distribution duty. Acts 6:6 tells us that the Apostles prayed and laid their hands on Nicolas and the other six men. Perhaps they were being placed in positions of authority in the infant Jerusalem church, where these seven men would attend to the needs of both the Greek and Hebrew Christians among them. Nicolas was probably a good person to choose because of his mixed background, making him better able to identify with both types of Christians.
I feel a kinship with Nicolas because I imagine that, like me, he felt it was okay to have a religious identity blending Judaism and Christianity, and that he could see that both faiths, usually thought of as separate by most people, were really two sides of the same coin.
How many ways are there to serve others in a church? There are as many different ways as there are different people in the church. This column is my way; what is yours? Whatever it is, thank you for doing it, and may it “please the whole community” like the service of my old friend from Antioch, Nicolas.
I was reading the book of Acts one day, when I came across someone I really identified with. His name was Nicolas of Antioch, and here is his brief appearance in Acts 6:5. “Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait at tables. Therefore, friends, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task, while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.’ What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.” (Acts 6:1-5)
“Proselyte” is not a word many people would recognize, and perhaps a more modern translation of Acts 6:5 would help; here is one from the “New Living Translation”, one of those English paraphrases of the Bible: “and Nicolas of Antioch (a Gentile convert to the Jewish faith, who had now become a Christian).” I read this, and I thought, wow, this guy did the same thing I did, except he did it almost two thousand years ago. Like Nicolas, I was also a convert to Judaism who was later baptized as a Christian. I wondered if the road of faith Nicolas traveled was anything like mine.
When I was very young, I attended an old fashioned, small-town, New England Congregational Church, or at least I did until my adopted parents, one a lapsed Catholic and the other an Agnostic, told me I didn’t have to go any more. So, not knowing any better, I stopped going. As a result, I didn’t have any religious identity until I went to college and fell in love with a young Jewish woman. With an empty place in my life waiting to be filled with faith in God, I began to study Judaism. Eventually, I worked with the campus Rabbi and formally studied to become a convert. So Nicolas of Antioch and I were both converts, although today they call it becoming a Jew by Choice.
For me, conversion involved (1) demonstrating to a panel of three Rabbis that I had learned the basics of the faith, (2) a full immersion in water (just like long ago with John the Baptist, except in a small ritual pool inside a building, not in the Jordan River), and (3) a symbolic circumcision – symbolic because when I was a newborn in 1966, they routinely circumcised babies in Boston. As a Proselyte, a Gentile converting to Judaism in the first century CE, Nicolas of Antioch would have undergone something similar. Ancient sources tell us that it was required that a proselyte be circumcised, and that he undergo a proselyte baptism, a water ceremony.
After my conversion, I eventually had a proper Jewish wedding, with the canopy and stepping on the glass, and everything. I truly enjoyed being Jewish, and I continued to study and grow deeper in my faith. Nothing shook me from it, not even when my long-lost birth mother entered my life and turned out to be a Pentecostal, Charismatic, speaking-in-tongues, Holy-Ghost-filled, dancing-in-the-spirit, street preacher who was expecting the end of the world in one year’s time and wanted me to be saved in time for the Rapture. I am sorry to say, she did not present an attractive picture of Christianity. She did not shake my faith. It took the end of my marriage after twelve years and two children to do that.
After my divorce, I was broken-hearted and religiously adrift, feeling distant from God and waiting to see where life would take me. Over the next few years, I was blessed to begin a relationship with a wonderful woman named Toni who was a member of Calvin Presbyterian Church. I am convinced that the Holy Spirit really is present at Calvin. I believe this because when I began to attend there with Toni, it felt like the Holy Spirit began to very gently speak to me, to beckon me to come and join in, for healing and belonging and a new, closer relationship with the same God I once knew. At first I resisted, still confused and trying to work out where I belonged in terms of faith, but one day, I looked around at the kind and welcoming people in the Calvin congregation, and I realized I was the only one keeping myself out, like a person standing out in the cold when the door to the party is wide open and right there in front of him.
And so, I began to study with the Pastor, and he taught me that faith was another word for trust. I learned to trust again, and eventually, I was baptized a Christian at Calvin. (Unlike the babies who are baptized, I was not carried around the room by the Pastor.) I have loved being at Calvin ever since. I have always enjoyed religious studies, and one day I realized that if I was going to study and learn anyway, why not share it in the form of a monthly column in the newsletter? My perspective in knowing both the Jewish and Christian sides of things would make me a good person to write about the Old and New Testaments alike. It would be like a mini-ministry in adult education, my way of serving at Calvin. Service to others is central, after all.
Which brings us back to old Nicolas of Antioch. Do we know what happened in Antioch that made him want to convert to Judaism after growing up as a Gentile (perhaps a Greek pagan of some sort)? Most proselytes were people who encountered Judaism in synagogues in the diaspora and were attracted to that ancient faith. Do we know how and why he later became a Christian? Did he hear the preaching of Peter or another Apostle and decide that the Jewish Messiah had come? We can never know the answers for sure. But we do know that he was a servant at heart.
The passage from Acts concerns the distribution of food to the poor in Jerusalem. As the passage notes, the new and growing Christian community there was made up of two groups: Hebrews (who were Jewish Christians) and Hellenists (who were Greek Christians). They were all equally “disciples” but some of the Greek widows were not getting their share of food. Nicolas was chosen, along with six others, to distribute food daily to the community of the disciples. The twelve Apostles of Jesus were unable to carry out that kind of duty. Instead, their task as given by Jesus was to pray and preach the gospel. But Nicolas’ job was really no less important. Without him, some widows could starve. Those widows had to be fed and healthy before they could hear the good news from the Apostles.
And the Apostles did seem to respect the service Nicolas performed, even if they felt they were too busy to do it. Notice that the Apostles required “men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” to carry out the food distribution duty. Acts 6:6 tells us that the Apostles prayed and laid their hands on Nicolas and the other six men. Perhaps they were being placed in positions of authority in the infant Jerusalem church, where these seven men would attend to the needs of both the Greek and Hebrew Christians among them. Nicolas was probably a good person to choose because of his mixed background, making him better able to identify with both types of Christians.
I feel a kinship with Nicolas because I imagine that, like me, he felt it was okay to have a religious identity blending Judaism and Christianity, and that he could see that both faiths, usually thought of as separate by most people, were really two sides of the same coin.
How many ways are there to serve others in a church? There are as many different ways as there are different people in the church. This column is my way; what is yours? Whatever it is, thank you for doing it, and may it “please the whole community” like the service of my old friend from Antioch, Nicolas.
Rival Baptisms
#41: “Rival Baptisms” by Brendon Wahlberg
In Christian tradition, John the Baptist was the revered forerunner to Jesus, sent to help announce Jesus to the world. To Christians, John was certainly secondary in importance and authority to Jesus. But John had followers of his own, disciples to whom John was the important one. To them, John was the great Rabbi who brought forgiveness of sins and was put to death by the authorities. In New Testament times, there were followers of John, and followers of Jesus, and they were probably rivals, at least in the eyes of Jesus’ followers, the ones who wrote the Gospels. The Gospels reveal hints of this rivalry if you look closely enough.
John the Baptist was born of the priestly line, but as an adult, he preached in the wilderness of Judea, dressed like a prophet, and offered a new ritual, baptism. John said that people had to radically repent and be immersed in the waters of the Jordan to be cleansed of their sin in advance of the coming Day of the Lord. Those baptized were redeemed and reborn. This new ritual made the Temple and all its old rituals unnecessary. Men and women flocked to John to participate, and among them was Jesus.
Was Jesus baptized by John? It sounds like a simple question, until you think like a follower of Jesus who feels a rivalry with John’s followers, in the years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, when the Gospels were written. If John baptized Jesus, then John could be considered superior to Jesus in some way. The superior one blesses the inferior one. This idea was not acceptable, and if you look at the Gospels in the order that they were written, you can see how the writers began to deal with it.
Let’s take the Gospel of Mark first. In Mark, there is no question; John baptized Jesus. “John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. […] He proclaimed, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’ In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” (Mark 1:4-9) Mark was not troubled by John baptizing Jesus, but notice that he has John make a little speech about how he is not worthy to untie Jesus’ sandals (the action of a slave). Mark has to make sure we know that John is the inferior person.
Luke, like Mark, does not mind saying that John baptized Jesus. “Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’” (Luke 3:21-22)
But later in his Gospel, Luke makes sure we know that John is just the messenger preparing the way for Jesus. “The disciples of John reported all these things to him. So John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?’ When the men had come to him, they said, ‘John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” ’ Jesus had just then cured many people of diseases, plagues, and evil spirits, and had given sight to many who were blind. And he answered them, ‘Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.’ When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who put on fine clothing and live in luxury are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.’” (Luke 7:18-28)
Mark and Luke are okay with John baptizing Jesus, but they make sure we know that John is not superior to Jesus. Matthew is a little different. Matthew has a problem with the baptism itself. Matthew’s Gospel has the following exchange between Jesus and John. “Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented.” (Matthew 3:13-15) Matthew couldn’t deny that the baptism had happened, but he could portray Jesus and John as saying, in effect, we know how this looks, but it is okay, it is proper to fulfill God’s plan by doing this.
Then we get to the Gospel of John, probably the last one written. This Gospel deals with the baptism in another way – by not even mentioning it. “The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him and declared, ‘Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, “After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.’ And John testified, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.’” (John 1:29-34)
The beginning of the Gospel of John is a famous poem about Jesus being the same as God and present at creation. There are two passages that seem to interrupt the flow of it, and these are both about John the Baptist. Both passages make it clear that John was secondary to Jesus. “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.” (John 1:6-9) “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” ’)” (John 1:14-15)
Now we can see how the Gospels dealt with John the Baptist, putting him in his high place of reverence, but not too high. Were there still followers of John in the communities of these Gospel writers? Were there rivals who followed John, still enacting his baptism rite, and did the followers of Jesus feel they had to correct these people, or stop them from attracting more followers who might otherwise have joined the young Church? Were the passages in the Gospels, which we have just examined, ammunition for arguments against such rivals?
The Acts of the Apostles suggests that there were still followers of John in Paul’s time. “While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the inland regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?’ They replied, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ Then he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They answered, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:1-5) This passage suggests that sometimes the followers of John were absorbed into Christianity.
Another passage in Acts describes a hybrid believer in both John and Jesus who had to be corrected. “Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria. He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately.” (Acts 18:24-26)
What was to become of John’s followers? They could not be rivals forever. The Jesus movement continued to grow. Jesus rose from the dead and John did not. The following passage from the Gospel of John attempts to provide the consolation that John the Baptist himself would have been happy with his role and his fate. “Now a discussion about purification arose between John’s disciples and a Jew. They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him.’ John answered, ‘No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven. You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, “I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.” He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.’” (John 3:25-30)
Curiously enough, there are still followers of John the Baptist in the world. A religious group called the Mandaeans, perhaps the last surviving Gnostics, still reveres John the Baptist as one of their greatest teachers. And of course, John’s words will always be there to inspire us to repent. “John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our ancestor”; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.’ And the crowds asked him, ‘What then should we do?’ In reply he said to them, ‘Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.’ Even tax-collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, ‘Teacher, what should we do?’ He said to them, ‘Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.’ Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what should we do?’ He said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.’” (Luke 3:7-14) What then, should we do?
In Christian tradition, John the Baptist was the revered forerunner to Jesus, sent to help announce Jesus to the world. To Christians, John was certainly secondary in importance and authority to Jesus. But John had followers of his own, disciples to whom John was the important one. To them, John was the great Rabbi who brought forgiveness of sins and was put to death by the authorities. In New Testament times, there were followers of John, and followers of Jesus, and they were probably rivals, at least in the eyes of Jesus’ followers, the ones who wrote the Gospels. The Gospels reveal hints of this rivalry if you look closely enough.
John the Baptist was born of the priestly line, but as an adult, he preached in the wilderness of Judea, dressed like a prophet, and offered a new ritual, baptism. John said that people had to radically repent and be immersed in the waters of the Jordan to be cleansed of their sin in advance of the coming Day of the Lord. Those baptized were redeemed and reborn. This new ritual made the Temple and all its old rituals unnecessary. Men and women flocked to John to participate, and among them was Jesus.
Was Jesus baptized by John? It sounds like a simple question, until you think like a follower of Jesus who feels a rivalry with John’s followers, in the years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, when the Gospels were written. If John baptized Jesus, then John could be considered superior to Jesus in some way. The superior one blesses the inferior one. This idea was not acceptable, and if you look at the Gospels in the order that they were written, you can see how the writers began to deal with it.
Let’s take the Gospel of Mark first. In Mark, there is no question; John baptized Jesus. “John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. […] He proclaimed, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’ In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” (Mark 1:4-9) Mark was not troubled by John baptizing Jesus, but notice that he has John make a little speech about how he is not worthy to untie Jesus’ sandals (the action of a slave). Mark has to make sure we know that John is the inferior person.
Luke, like Mark, does not mind saying that John baptized Jesus. “Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’” (Luke 3:21-22)
But later in his Gospel, Luke makes sure we know that John is just the messenger preparing the way for Jesus. “The disciples of John reported all these things to him. So John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?’ When the men had come to him, they said, ‘John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” ’ Jesus had just then cured many people of diseases, plagues, and evil spirits, and had given sight to many who were blind. And he answered them, ‘Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.’ When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who put on fine clothing and live in luxury are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.’” (Luke 7:18-28)
Mark and Luke are okay with John baptizing Jesus, but they make sure we know that John is not superior to Jesus. Matthew is a little different. Matthew has a problem with the baptism itself. Matthew’s Gospel has the following exchange between Jesus and John. “Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented.” (Matthew 3:13-15) Matthew couldn’t deny that the baptism had happened, but he could portray Jesus and John as saying, in effect, we know how this looks, but it is okay, it is proper to fulfill God’s plan by doing this.
Then we get to the Gospel of John, probably the last one written. This Gospel deals with the baptism in another way – by not even mentioning it. “The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him and declared, ‘Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, “After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.’ And John testified, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.’” (John 1:29-34)
The beginning of the Gospel of John is a famous poem about Jesus being the same as God and present at creation. There are two passages that seem to interrupt the flow of it, and these are both about John the Baptist. Both passages make it clear that John was secondary to Jesus. “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.” (John 1:6-9) “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” ’)” (John 1:14-15)
Now we can see how the Gospels dealt with John the Baptist, putting him in his high place of reverence, but not too high. Were there still followers of John in the communities of these Gospel writers? Were there rivals who followed John, still enacting his baptism rite, and did the followers of Jesus feel they had to correct these people, or stop them from attracting more followers who might otherwise have joined the young Church? Were the passages in the Gospels, which we have just examined, ammunition for arguments against such rivals?
The Acts of the Apostles suggests that there were still followers of John in Paul’s time. “While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the inland regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?’ They replied, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ Then he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They answered, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:1-5) This passage suggests that sometimes the followers of John were absorbed into Christianity.
Another passage in Acts describes a hybrid believer in both John and Jesus who had to be corrected. “Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria. He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately.” (Acts 18:24-26)
What was to become of John’s followers? They could not be rivals forever. The Jesus movement continued to grow. Jesus rose from the dead and John did not. The following passage from the Gospel of John attempts to provide the consolation that John the Baptist himself would have been happy with his role and his fate. “Now a discussion about purification arose between John’s disciples and a Jew. They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him.’ John answered, ‘No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven. You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, “I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.” He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.’” (John 3:25-30)
Curiously enough, there are still followers of John the Baptist in the world. A religious group called the Mandaeans, perhaps the last surviving Gnostics, still reveres John the Baptist as one of their greatest teachers. And of course, John’s words will always be there to inspire us to repent. “John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our ancestor”; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.’ And the crowds asked him, ‘What then should we do?’ In reply he said to them, ‘Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.’ Even tax-collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, ‘Teacher, what should we do?’ He said to them, ‘Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.’ Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what should we do?’ He said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.’” (Luke 3:7-14) What then, should we do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)