#71: “Wait…what did that say about women not being able to teach or have authority?”

#71: “Wait…what did that say about women not being able to teach or have authority?” by Brendon Wahlberg Some Bible passages stop you cold in your tracks, and make you question what you just read. One very famous and controversial passage is found in the New Testament letter known as 1 Timothy. Read the following excerpt and see if you agree that this passage is troubling. “I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” (1 Timothy 2:8-15) See what I mean? From a modern perspective of gender equality, in a time of many woman Pastors, this passage seems to have all manner of things wrong with it. Women must be silent? Women must not teach or hold positions of authority in the Church community? And this is Eve’s fault? Women are saved through childbearing? Wait…what?? This passage is the only passage in the New Testament that seems to say women should not have authority and teach. As such, it has been used throughout the centuries, in the Church, as a “proof text” to justify excluding women from these roles (along with another passage in 1 Corinthians, which I will deal with at the end). And even in the present day, 1 Timothy 2 is used to justify forbidding the ordination of women. The Presbyterian Church USA does not base its decisions upon this passage, and it does ordain women. But many branches of the Church do not ordain women, such as the Catholics, the Mormons, the Orthodox, and many of the Protestants. This passage is one of the many reasons why they do not. It would seem that the interpretation of this one passage holds great significance for Church policy in the real world. And, because it is the only source of Paul’s teaching on the matter of teaching and authority for women, don’t you think that it is especially important that we understand exactly what the passage means, before we use it to support such serious policies? Of course, many have argued over the correct interpretation, translation, context, and meaning of 1 Timothy 2. Much has been written about it, and there is no true agreement to be found between the two sides. But in studying the passage and all the arguments, I have come to the conclusion that the traditional interpretation, which leads to forbidding women teachers and leaders, is wrong. Let me reassure the proud and strong women of Calvin Church that this passage has been mistranslated, misunderstood, taken out of context, and incorrectly applied to the modern world as a universal truth instead of a text that was highly specific to one time, place, and set of circumstances. Let’s get one thing out of the way right now. Most scholars think that 1 Timothy wasn’t even written by Paul. Along with 2 Timothy and Titus, the other “pastoral” letters, 1 Timothy may have been the work of an unknown author who used Paul’s name to give authority to his writing. Why do scholars think the author wasn’t Paul? Well, comparing the pastoral letters to the seven unquestionably accepted letters of Paul (including Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians) reveals that the pastorals have a different style and vocabulary. Also, some of Paul’s key concepts are treated quite differently in the pastorals. Besides that, the pastorals seem to reflect a later time period than Paul’s life, when there was a much greater concern for correct teachings, church order, and church organization. But even if Paul did not write 1 Timothy, the letter was nevertheless accepted into the New Testament canon as inspired scripture, and so we must take it seriously as such. Let us now do some proper exegesis of 1 Timothy 2. That means explaining and interpreting what the passage really says, in its original context, language, and setting, rather than just assuming it says what we think it means, and what we want it to mean, according to our present day cultural ideas. We know that this letter was probably written between 90 and 120 CE in Asia Minor, to address problems within the Church at Ephesus. Certain disruptive people, including women, had begun to spread different teachings, threatening the Christian community’s social fabric and theological foundation. For example, they were convincing others that the true resurrection had already happened and that it was spiritual, and that marriage was no longer needed. The author wanted very much to fight these false teachings and preserve the correct beliefs, acceptable social behaviors, and organizational structure that were needed if the local Church was going to survive. Many interpreters have been puzzled by the vague descriptions of who the disruptive people were, and what, exactly, were the false teachings. The author was writing to a reader who was living in Ephesus, who knew all the details about what was going on. It is harder for us to know the big picture, because we have only one side of the conversation. But because this passage is so controversial, a lot of research has been done to explore these issues. The main point is this: We need to understand who the disruptive women were, and what they were trying to teach, because once we know, then we can understand that this letter was meant to address a specific situation in a specific time and place. It was meant to fight against and refute specific people with specific false claims. It was NOT meant to make a universal statement about all women for all times and places. It seems that the real problems behind the letter were caused by rival religions in Ephesus. The city was a cultic center for the worship of the fertility goddess Artemis. There was a great Temple to Artemis there, one of the seven wonders of the world. Statues of Artemis still exist today, showing a divine female with dozens of breasts. Acts 19:23-41 shows the strong rivalry between Artemis worship and Christianity. It tells the story of a riot that was instigated by merchants, who were upset over Paul’s coming to Ephesus and preaching about Jesus. These merchants made silver shrines of Artemis, but Paul said idols to Artemis were no gods at all. Seeing that Paul was convincing many people, and fearing to lose their business, the merchants started an uproar against Paul and in support of the great divinity of Artemis. The angry chaos spread across the city. Artemis worship was a powerful force when 1 Timothy 2 was written. Artemis was very popular with women, who were rather downtrodden in Greek society. What was so appealing to women about this cult? Artemis was a fertility Goddess with the power to protect women through the difficult and sometimes deadly experience of childbirth. The Artemis cult also taught that women were superior to men because they were descended from Amazons who founded the city of Ephesus. Artemis’ followers would create long genealogies to prove they were descended from the warrior women. It may be that the author of 1 Timothy was referring to this when he wrote to Timothy, “…you may command certain persons not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.” (1 Timothy 1:3-4) If that is true, then it means that some of the women, who called themselves Christians, were also involved with Artemis worship. And, the women were teaching other Christian women about Artemis. It means that some people were sort of combining the two religions. And who do we know of in early Christian history, who tended to combine pagan concepts with Christian beliefs, introducing all manner of false teachings? The Gnostics, of course. The troublemakers were evidently a variety of Gnostic believers in Ephesus. The Gnostic Christians believed that only special knowledge could bring salvation. An example might be the concept that the resurrection had already happened, and that it was not physical resurrection, but instead a special spiritual event that only some people could understand and recognize. The Gnostics in Ephesus had special knowledge based on the superiority of women. Instead of seeing women as inferior, as in the larger Greek society, or, as in the patriarchal Jewish religion, these Gnostics turned the biblical creation story on its head and asserted that Eve was created first. Adam received life from her, not the other way around, and Eve was a bringer of light and salvation when she ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, giving that special knowledge to Gnostic believers. The Artemis cult also taught that women had secret divine knowledge. Part of her worship involved sexual rituals with her priestesses. These priestesses were empowered in their own way, and dressed grandly with expensive clothes and jewelry, and fancy braided hairstyles. So we are getting a sense of a muddled religious environment, in which some downtrodden women were looking for empowerment wherever they could find it. They wanted to be protected by Artemis, and they wanted to think they were specially descended from Amazons. They wanted to be safe from death in childbirth. They wanted to believe that Eve, not Adam, was created first. They wanted freedom from marriages in which their husbands so dominated them. The new religion of Christianity was appealing, yes, but so were all these other ideas which were swirling around them and tempting them with ways to feel superior instead of inferior for once. Let us complete our exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 by taking the passage line by line in light of what we know about Ephesus. You will see how much the context helps illuminate the meaning of the passage. Also, let us consider some problems with the mistranslation of a few key words that can change the meaning of the passage for the worse. 1. “I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God.” This section may be referring to the influence of the cult of Artemis in Ephesus. The style of fancy dress, jewelry, and braided hair, as worn by the cultic priestesses, may have been influencing the Christian women, who wanted to feel empowered by these things as well. The author wanted women followers of Jesus to be more modest, and to worry more about good works. 2. “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.” Part of the problem with this section is the translation. The English word, “silence”, is not well chosen. A better translation would be that women should learn in peacefulness and quietness. When you say, silence, you imply a repressive, sexist commandment: be silent! Instead, the sense of this should be that women should learn the correct Christian teachings calmly, and without loud arguing. Perhaps in Ephesus, there were women who were confusing people with Gnostic ideas, or Artemis-influenced ideas. These false teachers, and their adherents, were probably argumentative, and not very submissive, in the face of church leaders trying to stifle them. The positive part of this is that in Greek, the phrase “let a woman learn” is a command. For the time period, teaching women was not very important to society. Among the Christians, both men and women were to be educated in the true knowledge of Jesus! However, having women teachers was discouraged. Perhaps that is because they were not well trained in the scriptures, and more vulnerable to mistakes. Yet, surely a passage like this, specific to mostly uneducated women in that particular time and place, cannot apply to the present day seminary-educated woman. Another difficult translation is in the word “authority”. The Greek word (“authentein”) used here and translated as “authority” is found nowhere else in the New Testament. When a word is found in several places, its meaning can be verified through the different contexts. When a word is found in only one place, its meaning can be hard to know, exactly. So scholars looked at other Greek literature from the time period. They found that the word in this passage, which is translated as “authority,” really has other meanings. We think of “authority” as a position of leadership, like a Pastor or a Priest. But “authentein” means, instead, the arrogant domination of someone, with harmful or sexual overtones. Well, we would all agree that in a Church, women should not dominate men in a threatening, sexual manner! Was this happening in Ephesus? Maybe the Artemis cult, which featured powerful priestesses engaging in ritual sex acts in their Temple, was inspiring some few of the Christian women in all the wrong ways? 3. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” This section seems to reflect the Gnostic belief that Eve was formed first. Here, the author is arguing against the false teachings of the Gnostics, correcting their story; no matter how empowering the new myths might be, actual scripture says otherwise. Furthermore, this section seems to emphasize that women are more easily deceived, for example, by false teaching. This is still a sexist statement, but keep in mind that in those particular circumstances, women were the ones being deceived. It is still wrong to make a universal generalization out of it. 4. “Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” Again, there is a translation problem here. The phrase “saved through childbearing” seems to suggest that women are saved, as in Christianity-saved, by giving birth to kids. Well, no. Basic Pauline theology says that we are all saved by grace through faith, men and women both. Women are not “saved” by childbirth. But see, this is not what the passage means. A better translation would be: she will be kept safe throughout the experience of childbirth. And there you see the same promise that was made to the followers of the goddess Artemis, safety during baby-making. The author, therefore, is promising that God, the one true God, is the one who will keep women safe, not Artemis, as long as the women continue in the right relationship with God – in faith, love, and holiness. My question to you is, after reading all this, do you buy any of it? I do, but admittedly, there is still room for doubt. However, that is the point. There is room for doubt. This exegesis, at the very least, casts strong doubt on the traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, the one which says it simply forbids women to teach and hold positions of authority, for all time. Therefore it should not be used as a proof text to uphold that tradition. Lastly, let us briefly examine a related passage in 1 Corinthians, an undisputed letter of Paul. “(As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) This passage seems to clearly echo 1 Timothy 2:11-12, in that it says women should be silent in church. So, if 1 Timothy 2 cannot be used to justify excluding women from teaching and leadership, should this passage be used to accomplish the same agenda? One theory says that this passage was inserted into Paul’s letter at some point, by someone who shared the viewpoint of the pastoral letters. It would not be the first time that ancient scribes inserted passages into the books they copied. In some ancient manuscripts, verses 34-35 are found in a different place within the letter, further suggesting that they were an insertion. Such an addition would first be written into the margin by one scribe, then added to the main text in two different places by two other scribes. In that case, these would not be Paul’s words. Does that seem possible? Maybe, because earlier in the same letter, Paul mentions women who pray and prophecy in church, indicating that this is fine as long as they cover their heads. Either Paul is contradicting himself, or verses 34-35 are an insertion. And if they are possibly an insertion, should church policy in the modern world be based on them? In any case, we should look at the views of Paul as a whole. Did Paul support women or repress them? In fact, Paul showed respect and support for various women leaders in the early church, including Chloe (1 Corinthians 1:11), Pheobe (Romans 16:1), Junia (Romans 16:7), Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:12), and Euodia and Syntyche (Phillippians 4:2) – women who “contended at [Paul’s] side in the cause of the Gospel.” In conclusion, a passage like 1 Timothy 2 jumps out at us, and seems wrong to us today, precisely because it is “wrong”, as long as we mistranslate and misinterpret it, and take it out of context. We must use proper exegesis, and understand what a passage truly means before we simply assume it means what we want it to mean, and apply it to our society today. With so much at stake in this particular case, it is more important than ever.

#70: “Jesus vs. Moses”

#70: “Jesus vs. Moses” by Brendon Wahlberg Jesus and Moses are certainly two towering figures in the Bible. As such, many throughout history have compared the two. And there are many interesting similarities and differences. Christians in particular see Jesus as the successor to Moses. From the beginning, as seen in the book of Deuteronomy, there was an expectation that someday, a prophet would arise to follow Moses, who would speak to the people in God’s own words. “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: ‘If I hear the voice of the Lord my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.’ Then the Lord replied to me: ‘They are right in what they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) Early Christians understood this passage to refer to Jesus. Jesus, as the Son of God, could speak for God on Earth. Hearing the prophet Jesus, people could hear the voice of God and survive. In the book of Acts, Peter makes a speech that refers back to Deuteronomy 18, suggesting that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy. “‘And now, friends, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer. Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets. Moses said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out from the people.” (Acts 3:17-23) (see also: Acts 7:37 in which the martyr Stephen uses Deuteronomy 18). Because Moses was such a central and revered figure in the Jewish faith, when first century Jewish Christians wanted to convert other Jews to follow Jesus, it was necessary to compare Jesus to Moses and assert that Jesus was superior. The following passage from the Letter to the Hebrews is an example of this argument. “Therefore, brothers and sisters, holy partners in a heavenly calling, consider that Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses also ‘was faithful in all God’s house.’ Yet Jesus is worthy of more glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that would be spoken later. Christ, however, was faithful over God’s house as a son, and we are his house if we hold firm the confidence and the pride that belong to hope.” (Hebrews 3:1-6) The gospel of Matthew is very much interested in the comparison between Moses and Jesus. Issues within the Jewish religion were important to Matthew, and this is reflected in the general character of his gospel. One of Matthew’s goals was apparently to establish that Jesus was the “new Moses”, but also superior to Moses. Here are some of the parallels that can be drawn between the two in Matthew. 1. When Moses was born, the ruler Pharaoh ordered out of fear that babies were to be slaughtered. Moses escaped that fate. When Jesus was born, the ruler Herod ordered out of fear that babies were to be slaughtered. Jesus escaped that fate by being taken to Egypt, reminding us again of Moses. 2. After the birth story, the book of Exodus skips over the childhood of Moses, taking up the narrative when Moses is an adult. Matthew does the same thing with Jesus. 3. Moses climbs a mountain (Mt. Sinai) in order to teach the Law to his people. Jesus does the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus, however, makes many statements that revise the Laws given by Moses, interpreting the Law with authority. Moses receives the Law, but Jesus fulfills the Law. 4. Moses fasts in the wilderness for forty days and nights while receiving the Torah from God. Jesus fasts in the wilderness for forty days and nights while being tempted by Satan. In the wilderness, Moses is told to bring water from a rock. In the wilderness, Jesus is told to bring bread from a rock. 5. Moses gave the people the Ten Commandments. Jesus gave the Great Commandment. 6. Both Moses and Jesus communicated directly with God. Moses performed many miracles, such as saving his people at the Sea of Reeds crossing, yet his people often rejected him. Jesus performed many miracles, such as healings, yet his people often rejected him. Both Moses and Jesus could empower others. 7. Just before he dies, Moses climbs a mountain (Mt. Nebo) in order to give final instructions to the tribe leaders of Israel. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, he climbs a mountain in order to give final instructions to his remaining disciples, who symbolically represent the tribes of Israel. 8. Moses gave the people an elaborate Law that had the effect of making God seem remote. Jesus tried to simplify the Law without abandoning it, in order to make God accessible. So, you can see that Matthew was concerned with showing that moments in Jesus’ life echoed the life of Moses. But other ancient interpreters of the Bible thought of this in the reverse order. Even though Moses lived first, some said that Moses’ life was merely an echo of Jesus. This is an example of a way of thinking about people in the Bible, known as “typology”. In typology, it is thought that, for some characters and events in the Bible, the main reason they existed or happened was because they foreshadowed Jesus. It seems to me to be an awkward way to phrase it, but according to typology, one would say that Moses was a “type of Jesus”. Moses’ whole life was for the purpose of being an imperfect model for Jesus who was yet to come along. It is possible to get carried away with thinking like this, and proponents of typology did often get carried away. Yet even Jesus seemingly got in on this, saying in the gospel of John, “No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” (John 3:13-15) In the end, all this talk of needing to establish Jesus’ superiority over Moses is sort of a moot point. Moses only ever claimed to be a mortal man. Jesus claimed to be one with God. There really are no competing claims. Besides, in the story of the transfiguration (Matthew 17), Jesus is shown to be talking with Moses and getting along just fine. That’s enough for me.

#69: “Wait…what did that say about a witch?”

#69: “Wait…what did that say about a witch?” by Brendon Wahlberg So you’re reading along in the book of Exodus, and suddenly you come to a rather surprising passage, Exodus 22:18. In the famous King James phrasing it reads: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” In the more familiar NRSV, it reads “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.” Coming right before this jarring statement are laws about paying the owner for an injured borrowed animal, and about paying a father for a seduced virgin daughter. So the thing about witches is a sudden change of subject. Then the text right after that moves on to talk about completely different things, leaving you wondering, what was that about witches? What did that strange brief statement even mean? Right away, you may think about Salem witch trials, but really, that period is far removed from the Old Testament age. What did it mean to be a witch in the time of Moses and David? Why were they to be put to death? What was so bad about them? Various Hebrew words get translated as “witch” in English. These words variously mean “sorceress”, “medium”, or “necromancer”. It can be hard to pin down exactly what a witch was, so let us look at an example from 1 Samuel 28, which may shed some light on the subject. This is the story of the so-called “Witch of Endor”. “Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. Saul had expelled the mediums and the wizards from the land. The Philistines assembled, and came and encamped at Shunem. Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped at Gilboa. When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. When Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, not by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then Saul said to his servants, ‘Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, so that I may go to her and inquire of her.’ His servants said to him, ‘There is a medium at Endor.’ So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes and went there, he and two men with him. They came to the woman by night. And he said, ‘Consult a spirit for me, and bring up for me the one whom I name to you.’ The woman said to him, ‘Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the wizards from the land. Why then are you laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?’ But Saul swore to her by the LORD, ‘As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.’ Then the woman said, ‘Whom shall I bring up for you?’ He answered, ‘Bring up Samuel for me.’ When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman said to Saul, ‘Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!’ The king said to her, ‘Have no fear; what do you see?’ The woman said to Saul, ‘I see a divine being coming up out of the ground.’ He said to her, ‘What is his appearance?’ She said, ‘An old man is coming up; he is wrapped in a robe.’ So Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance. Then Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’ Saul answered, ‘I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; so I have summoned you to tell me what I should do.’ Samuel said, ‘Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy? The LORD has done to you just as he spoke by me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor David. Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you today. Moreover, the LORD will give Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will also give the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.’ Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of the words of Samuel; and there was no strength in him, for he had eaten nothing all day and all night. The woman came to Saul, and when she saw that he was terrified, she said to him, ‘Your servant has listened to you; I have taken my life in my hand, and have listened to what you have said to me. Now therefore, you also listen to your servant; let me set a morsel of bread before you. Eat, that you may have strength when you go on your way.’ He refused, and said, ‘I will not eat.’ But his servants, together with the woman, urged him; and he listened to their words. So he got up from the ground and sat on the bed. Now the woman had a fatted calf in the house. She quickly slaughtered it, and she took flour, kneaded it, and baked unleavened cakes. She put them before Saul and his servants, and they ate. Then they rose and went away that night.” (1 Samuel 28) The witch in this story hardly seems to be a terrible being who deserves to be put to death. Saul himself is rather a hypocrite, who has banished her kind from the land on pain of death, but seeks her out and uses her power when it suits his own purposes. And what is that power? She is reluctant to use it, but she can enable Saul to speak to the dead. The prophet Samuel is forced up out of the shadowy underworld of Sheol, so that Saul can question him. This act angers Samuel, who did not want to be disturbed. God has ceased to speak to Saul, and nothing that Saul can learn from the dead can help him. Saul turned to the witch because his own attempts at divination failed, and he needed the powers of the witch. “Divination” was the practice of trying to determine God’s will, when God was not being forthcoming. The passage mentions that Saul tried asking prophets, waiting for God to reveal himself in a dream, and using the “Urim”. The Urim and the Thummim were two mysterious objects kept inside the breastplate of the High Priest, who would use them in some way (now lost to history) to determine God’s answer to yes-or-no questions. Perhaps they were tossed like coins or cast like dice or bones – a sort of Magic 8-ball for the Priests. Saul was not pleased to be told, “Reply hazy, ask again later.” Divination was a common magic practice in Old Testament times. One method of divination was to kill an animal and look at the internal organs for signs of the divine will. The Babylonians were known to do this: “For the king of Babylon stands at the parting of the way, at the fork in the two roads, to use divination; he shakes the arrows, he consults the teraphim, he inspects the liver.” (Ezekiel 21:21) But the Prophets warn against the lies of diviners, in Jeremiah 27:9, and in Ezekiel, because “They have prophesied falsehood and lying divination; they say, ‘Says the LORD’, when the LORD has not sent them, and yet they wait for the fulfillment of their word! Have you not seen a false vision or uttered a lying divination, when you have said, ‘Says the LORD’, even though I did not speak?” (Ezekiel 13:6-7) The main problem with divination, then, is that it can be a lie, giving a false answer that has nothing to do with God’s will. It was up to God and God alone to determine God’s will for the people. (The Urim and Thummim were not really exceptions to this rule – it was understood that God sanctioned the use of these items (Exodus 28:30, Numbers 27:21) and communicated his actual will through them.) Divination was considered to be an evil that only led to God’s anger. “…they used divination and augury; and they sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger. Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight…” (2 Kings 17:17-18) In the Book of Acts, there is a brief story that shows divination as the power of an actual evil spirit. “One day, as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave-girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners a great deal of money by fortune-telling. While she followed Paul and us, she would cry out, ‘These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.’ She kept doing this for many days. But Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, ‘I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.’ And it came out that very hour.” (Acts 16:16-18) God’s people are told to reject divining “witches”, and to “set your face against the daughters of your people, who prophesy out of their own imagination.” (Ezekiel 13:17) God says, “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth; who frustrates the omens of liars, and makes fools of diviners”. (Isaiah 44:24-25) In order to provide Saul with divination, the witch of Endor used the powers of a medium to speak to a dead prophet. Mediums are also condemned in the Bible, as the following passages show. “Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:31) “If any turn to mediums and wizards, prostituting themselves to them, I will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people.” (Leviticus 20:6) “A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned to death, their blood is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:27) “Now if people say to you, ‘Consult the ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter; should not a people consult their gods, the dead on behalf of the living, for teaching and for instruction?’ surely, those who speak like this will have no dawn! They will pass through the land, greatly distressed and hungry; when they are hungry, they will be enraged and will curse their king and their gods. They will turn their faces upwards, or they will look to the earth, but will see only distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be thrust into thick darkness.” (Isaiah 8:19-22) Curiously, there is no explanation of the source of the power of a medium. Was it a real power, or another type of fakery? The passage describing the medium of Endor makes it seem as if she really could contact the dead. But, real or not, God clearly did not want people to turn to such dark pursuits. When we asked ourselves what a witch was in Old Testament times, we discovered that they were diviners and mediums. There were of course male sorcerers at the time, and so it seems odd that Exodus 22:18 singles out the female sex and condemns “witches” specifically. Maybe this was a reflection of the Patriarchal society of the time. If only men were allowed to be part of the official Priestly organization, perhaps women were forced to become so-called “witches” in order to get into the prophecy and divination game. It seems like a harsh judgment to sentence them to death, but Exodus 22:18 no doubt reflects the ongoing struggle to prevent the people of Israel from adopting the pagan customs of the Canaanites, so that they could remain God’s people. “When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations. No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD; it is because of such abhorrent practices that the LORD your God is driving them out before you. You must remain completely loyal to the LORD your God. Although these nations that you are about to dispossess do give heed to soothsayers and diviners, as for you, the LORD your God does not permit you to do so.” (Deuteronomy 18:9-14)

#68: “Q and A”

#68: “Q and A” by Brendon Wahlberg This is the story of a document that no one has seen for two millennia. No one is completely sure it ever existed. But Bible scholars are pretty sure it must have existed. It was a collection of the sayings of Jesus, known as the Q-sayings source, or “Q” for short. Q contained the sayings of Jesus, and only the sayings of Jesus. Q did not have any detailed stories about Jesus’ travels, healings, and miracles. Q did not have any stories about Jesus’ birth or his death and resurrection. No one today has a copy of Q, and ancient sources do not mention it. It is really just an educated guess that Q existed. So, why do scholars think that there was once a collection of Jesus’ sayings? Q is the solution to a puzzle. The puzzle begins with the question of how the gospels were written. Scholars call the puzzle the “synoptic problem”. Three of the gospels are called the synoptic gospels because they are so similar in their content. These are Mark, Luke, and Matthew. These three gospels share stories of Jesus, and sometimes the shared stories are so similar, they match word for word in places. Obviously, some of these gospel writers had copies of each other’s gospels in front of them. They used and reworked the material from the other gospels as they wrote. Sometimes they made large changes, sometimes almost none, as they made the stories their own. But who borrowed from who? That is the synoptic problem in a nutshell. The majority opinion is that Mark was written first. Then, working independently, Luke used Mark, and also Matthew used Mark. So, Luke and Matthew both have some Mark material in them. So far, so good. But what about when you look more closely at Luke and Matthew? Then you can see that there is more to those gospels than a reworking of Mark. For example, Luke has some material that is not found in Mark, or anywhere else. This is easy enough to understand. This material is Luke’s own inspired research and writing. Likewise, Matthew has some of his own unique material. Again, so far, so good. Next, however, you will find that Matthew and Luke have some material in common. There are sayings of Jesus found in both Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark. Some scholars will say that Matthew had a copy of Luke, or vice versa. But most scholars will say that both Matthew and Luke had a copy of another, totally different document in front of them. This was probably Q, the collection of Jesus’ sayings. What were the contents of Q? Scholars can generally reconstruct what Q must have had in it. Any of Jesus’ sayings material that was (a) not in Mark, and (b) shared by both Matthew and Luke, was in Q, or so the theory goes. If you look online, you can easily find a reconstruction of Q. Here are some of the highlights of what was in Q. 1. Jesus is tested by Satan in the desert (Luke 4, Matthew 4). 2. The beatitudes (Luke 6, Matthew 5). 3. Love your enemies (Luke 6, Matthew 5). 4. Don’t judge others; A tree is known by its fruit; A house built on sand (Luke 6, Matthew 7). 5. The faith of the Centurion (Luke 7, Matthew 7). 6. The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (Luke 9, Matthew 8). 7. Instructions to Jesus’ followers on their mission trips (Luke 10, Matthew 8). 8. No one knows the Father except the Son (Luke 10, Matthew 11). 9. The Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11, Matthew 6). 10. Ask and it will be given (Luke 11, Matthew 7). 11. Jesus replies to being accused of driving out demons in the name of the head demon; The sign of Jonah (Luke 11, Matthew 12). 12. God sees the fall of a sparrow (Luke 12, Matthew 10). 13. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Luke 12, Matthew 12). 14. Don’t worry about things (Luke 12, Matthew 6). 15. Son of Man coming unexpectedly (Luke 12, Matthew 24). 16. The mustard seed and the Kingdom (Luke 13, Matthew 13). 17. Parable of the feast (Luke 14, Matthew 22). 18. Parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin (Luke 15, Matthew 18). 19. What will happen when the Son of Man comes (Luke 17, Matthew 24). 20. Parable of servants investing the master’s money (Luke 19, Matthew 25). 21. Twelve thrones for the disciples (Luke 22, Matthew 19). It was fairly common in ancient times for students of great philosophers to record the words of their masters. Someone must have done so with the words of Jesus. It is interesting to see what Q contains and doesn’t contain. The people who wrote Q collected Jesus’ sayings, and copied and shared the ones that meant the most to them. In Q, a portrait of Jesus emerges. Jesus is a teacher, with very special authority from God. Jesus is revered as Wisdom personified. Like other Prophets, he is destined not to be heeded by the people, who fail to obey. The Q sayings are full of details of the rural world of Galilee. The people who preserved these sayings were Messianic Jews who were trying to spread the word about Jesus to other Jews and probably not succeeding much. The fact that Q says nothing about Jesus’ death and resurrection is a curious fact, and it may be that Jesus’ followers had other documents that focused on the Passion. Certainly, Paul’s letters show that the events of Jesus’ resurrection were known. Q, however, focused on Jesus as a teacher. Now, some scholars will say that Q does not exist. And they cannot be proven wrong. But there is one piece of evidence that supports the existence of Q, and that is the finding of a different collection of Jesus’ sayings. I’m referring to the Gospel of Thomas, which was found among the Gnostic writings which were buried in the fourth century and dug up in 1945 in Egypt. The Gospel of Thomas consists of 114 sayings of Jesus, without any narrative. In other words, Thomas looks just like what people think Q would look like. The existence of Thomas makes it possible that a similar sayings collection, Q, also existed. But don’t jump to the conclusion that Thomas is Q. Q was written before the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. Thomas was written much later – it is clear that Thomas is very much a Gnostic book. That is to say, many of the sayings in Thomas, which are ascribed to Jesus, are rather unlikely to have been said by him. Instead, they are Gnostic religious ideas which have been put into Jesus’ mouth. Thomas probably does contain some real sayings of Jesus, and in fact, some think that these sayings are preserved in a very early, more authentic wording. But Thomas also contains some wild and crazy sayings that are just classic Gnostic mysticism and not from Jesus at all. Here are two examples, the first seemingly authentic, the second very Gnostic: 1. “The disciples said to Jesus, ‘Tell us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like.’ He said to them, ‘It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it falls on prepared soil, it produces a large branch and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky.’ (Thomas 20; see also Mark 4:30-32, Matthew 13:31-32, and Luke 13:18-19). 2. “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven.’ (Thomas 114). It is interesting to think about Q and about the early transmission of Jesus stories. People talked about Jesus, spreading an oral tradition, but it is good that others wrote down his sayings. Between the time of the life of Jesus, and the writing of the first gospels, perhaps three or four decades passed. It is reassuring to know that Jesus’ words were kept safe in writing during that time. For the words of Jesus are precious treasures. Clearly the Q community thought so as well. We are in their debt.

#67: “Bad Neighbors”

#67: “Bad Neighbors” by Brendon Wahlberg When you think of modern day Israel, you think about the bad relationship it has with its neighbors, such as the Palestinians. Sadly, if you go back and look at the Old Testament period, you will find that the situation was pretty much the same. Back then, Israel was also surrounded by enemies. To the east, across the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, there were the small countries of Ammon and Moab. To the south, there was the country of Edom. Israel’s history with these three countries was a centuries-long chronicle of warfare, which is ironic, considering that the peoples of all four countries were closely related to each other. In fact, the Hebrew Bible tells stories which explain the origins of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, and sure enough, their ancestors were blood relatives of such biblical figures as Lot and Jacob. Predictably, these ancestor stories made sure to deeply insult Ammon, Moab, and Edom, proving that no one can put each other down like family can. The stories in Genesis which relate to the origins of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, are called Etiological tales. This means they are the kind of stories that give a reason for the way things are in the present day. For the writers of Genesis, the “present day” neighbors to the east and south were long time enemies. Etiological stories were needed, not only to explain why the enmity began centuries ago, but also to explain exactly why Israel was superior, and why those enemies were inferior. In my study Bible, Genesis 19:30-38 is entitled, “The shameful origin of Moab and Ammon.” The story picks up right after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the escape of Lot (nephew of Abraham) and his two daughters. “Now Lot went up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; so he lived in a cave with his two daughters. And the firstborn said to the younger, ‘Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.’ So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, ‘Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.’ So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The firstborn bore a son, and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day. The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day.” Here, in one brief story, you have the origins of both the Moabites and the Ammonites. Writings on an ancient artifact called the Moabite Stone (from around 800-900 BCE) describe the victory of a Moabite king over Israel’s king, but they also show just how similar the languages of the two peoples were. The cultural closeness of these semitic countries is reflected in Genesis, which says that Israel and Moab share a common ancestor. But look at the obvious insults to Ammon and Moab. Genesis says that both countries were the result of drunken incest between Lot and his daughters. Even the names in the story reflect this incest. Moab is from the Hebrew, Me’Ab, which means “from father.” Ammon is from Ben-ammi, which means “my father’s son.” Historically, Israel and Ammon were constantly at war, and most of the biblical references to Ammon reflect this. Sometimes Israel conquered and ruled over Ammon, and sometimes not. The following words from Ezekiel illustrate the deep animosity between the two countries. “Say to the Ammonites, Hear the word of the Lord God: […] Because you said, ‘Aha!’ over my sanctuary when it was profaned, and over the land of Israel when it was made desolate, and over the house of Judah when it went into exile; therefore I am handing you over to the people of the east for a possession. They shall set their encampments among you and pitch their tents in your midst; they shall eat your fruit, and they shall drink your milk. I will make Rabbah a pasture for camels and Ammon a fold for flocks. Then you shall know that I am the Lord. For thus says the Lord God: Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all the malice within you against the land of Israel, therefore I have stretched out my hand against you, and will hand you over as plunder to the nations. I will cut you off from the peoples and will make you perish out of the countries; I will destroy you. Then you shall know that I am the Lord.” (Ezekiel 25:3-7) Moab’s conflict with Israel goes back to the Exodus, when the two nations fought each other during Israel’s entry into Canaan. It was the king of Moab who wanted Israel cursed in Numbers 22. The fighting continued through the time of King David and beyond, until Babylon destroyed the Moabite kingdom. The following words from Isaiah illustrate the animosity between Israel and Moab. “We have heard of the pride of Moab—how proud he is!—of his arrogance, his pride, and his insolence; his boasts are false. Therefore let Moab wail, let everyone wail for Moab. […] This was the word that the Lord spoke concerning Moab in the past. But now the Lord says, In three years, like the years of a hired worker, the glory of Moab will be brought into contempt, in spite of all its great multitude; and those who survive will be very few and feeble.” (Isaiah 16:6-14) The biblical origin of Edom is also found in Genesis, in the story of Jacob and his brother Esau (Genesis 25:19-34). “These are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean. Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his prayer, and his wife Rebekah conceived. The children struggled together within her; and she said, ‘If it is to be this way, why do I live?’ So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.’ When her time to give birth was at hand, there were twins in her womb. The first came out red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they named him Esau. Afterwards his brother came out, with his hand gripping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them. When the boys grew up, Esau was a skilful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, living in tents. Isaac loved Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah loved Jacob.” Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. Esau said to Jacob, ‘Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!’ (Therefore he was called Edom.) Jacob said, ‘First sell me your birthright.’ Esau said, ‘I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?’ Jacob said, ‘Swear to me first.’So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.” Again, Israel and Edom were closely related, having a similar language, so to explain this, Genesis tells us that the ancestors of both countries were brothers. Just as Israel and Edom frequently fought, so did Jacob and Esau fight, even in the womb. The names in the story also explain some things about the country of Edom. Edom is similar to the Hebrew adom, which means “red”. Esau was born red, and he was eating red food in the story above, so he and the nation which descended from him were called red. Edom was a region with lots of reddish sandstone, and many of its people may have had red hair or ruddy skin like Esau. Esau was very hairy, and this may have been a joking reference to the main mountain in Edom, Mount Seir. In Hebrew, Sa’ir means hairy, and the two words sound alike. Jacob’s name comes from the Hebrew word for heel, because he grasps his brother’s heel in an attempt to be born first. In the story above, Jacob claims Esau’s birthright, and later steals their father’s blessing that belonged to Esau. Jacob disguises himself as Esau, tricking his father into giving him the precious blessing of the firstborn. When Esau discovers this, the following events occur. “When Esau heard his father’s words, he cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry, and said to his father, ‘Bless me, me also, father!’ But he said, ‘Your brother came deceitfully, and he has taken away your blessing.’ Esau said, ‘Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright; and look, now he has taken away my blessing.’ Then he said, ‘Have you not reserved a blessing for me?’ Isaac answered Esau, ‘I have already made him your lord, and I have given him all his brothers as servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?’ Esau said to his father, ‘Have you only one blessing, father? Bless me, me also, father!’ And Esau lifted up his voice and wept. Then his father Isaac answered him: ‘See, away from the fatness of the earth shall your home be, and away from the dew of heaven on high. By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you break loose, you shall break his yoke from your neck.’ Now Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him, and Esau said to himself, ‘The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then I will kill my brother Jacob.’” (Genesis 27:34-41) Again, the story seems to explain the inferiority of the country of Edom, in an etiological manner. Jacob/Israel got the blessing while Esau/Edom did not. Despite Edom’s military prowess, Israel would still rule over it, even if sometimes Edom threw off that “yoke”. Historically, Edom was sort of an “older brother” who nevertheless came in second. The Israelites encountered the Edomite nation during the Exodus. Later, King David conquered Edom; down through the centuries, Edom was sometimes ruled by Israel, and sometimes not. After the victory of the Maccabees, Israel conquered the Edomites one last time, and forced the population to convert to Judaism. By the time of Jesus, the territory that was once Edom became the Roman province of Idumea. King Herod the Great was an Idumean, which partly explains why he was so disliked as a ruler of Judea. He was, after all, one of those descendants of Esau who were so inferior, outsiders who only worshipped the true God because they were forced to. Israel, Edom, Ammon, and Moab were altogether bad neighbors. Despite being similar and having common ancestors, they worshipped different gods and fought and hated each other for centuries. It is a poor way to live, and sadly it continues in the modern age. As a people, we should instead follow the teaching found in both the Old and New Testaments about how to interact with our neighbors. “You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbour, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19:17-18) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 19:19)

Hey, Jude

#66: “Hey, Jude” by Brendon Wahlberg
The letter of Jude is one of the four shortest documents in the New Testament. Tucked in next to the book of Revelation, it fills up only one page of the Bible. Yet this little letter contains some very big mysteries. Chief among them are such basic questions as who wrote it, and what enemies is it talking about? These questions perplex scholars to this day. Additionally, although it is very short, Jude is loaded with references to other writings. Some of these references are very obscure and surprising. So let us take these mysteries one at a time, and see if there are any answers.
“And don't you know that it's just you? Hey Jude, you'll do…” -The Beatles
Who is this Jude person anyway? The short answer is, no one is sure, and we probably cannot ever be sure. But there are a few candidates. The first thing to realize is that the name Jude is a translation of the Hebrew name “Ye’hudah”. This name is variously translated in English as Judah, Jude, and Judas. That’s right – the name Jude is the same as the name Judas. The letter of Jude could just as easily be called the letter of Judas. But then people would associate the letter writer with the Judas who betrayed Jesus. For this reason, in some Bible translations, other Judases besides the betrayer are called “Jude” instead.
So who are the candidates? Number one is Judas Iscariot. But of course it probably isn’t him, because he was long dead by the time the letter was written. That was easy, wasn’t it? So, who else is there?
Number two is the Disciple/Apostle Jude, one of the Twelve. When the Gospel of Luke lists the twelve disciples (6:14-16), one of them is named “Judas son of James”. He is carefully differentiated from “Judas Iscariot who became a traitor”. Likewise, the Gospel of John mentions “Judas (not Iscariot)” (14:22). Curiously, when Mark and Matthew list the twelve disciples, they omit Judas and replace him with Thaddaeus (or Lebbaeus). This has made some scholars conclude that Judas son of James and Thaddaeus are really the same person.
So, did one of the twelve apostles write the letter of Jude? Again, the answer is that it is unlikely. The author never claims to be one of the apostles. If he was one of them, he probably would have said so. The author of the letter introduces himself instead as “Jude, a servant [literally, “a slave”] of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). However, the apostle Judas was called the son of James in Luke’s gospel, not the brother of James. Also, later in the letter, the author says, “remember the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, for they said to you…” (Jude 17-18). If the author was an apostle, why would he talk about the apostles as if he was not one of “them”?
Moving on. Who else is there? Number three is perhaps the most likely candidate. Mark 6:3 lists the male siblings in Jesus’ family. “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon…” So, one of Jesus’ brothers was named Jude/Judas. Christian tradition holds that this Jude wrote the Letter of Jude. It is possible that this was the case. Jesus’ brothers, including Jude, became leaders in the early Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem. The most important of these sibling leaders was “James the Just”. He could have been the brother “James” mentioned in Jude 1. If the author was Jude, brother of Jesus, it would make sense that his letter would have been saved. But then, why didn’t the author call himself “brother of Jesus Christ” in the beginning of the letter? Wouldn’t that be at least as important to mention as “brother of James”? Or, was Jude a brother of Jesus who was too humble to mention it, calling himself a slave/servant instead?
Candidate number four is: anyone at all. Some letters were “pseudepigrapha”, meaning that they were written by anonymous authors who used the names of apostles to lend authority to their works. Jude might have been one of those. In the end, without more evidence, we can never know for sure.
“Hey Jude, don't make it bad, take a sad song and make it better…” -The Beatles
What bad situation is Jude writing about in his letter? Who are the good people he is writing to? Who are the bad people he is complaining about, and what have they been doing wrong? What can be done about it? The Letter of Jude is rather vague about all of this. In some of Paul’s letters, there are specific details regarding places, events, names, and conflicts between people. These details make it possible to identify dates and historical situations in Paul’s letters. Not so for Jude. Scholars cannot determine when or where Jude wrote. It is hard to decide who he was writing to or exactly who he was attacking.
So, what do we know? Jude seems to be a general letter, meant to be spread around to everyone, encouraging believers to defend their faith and fight against the influence of troublemakers among them. Jude condemns an unspecified group of bad people for their bad behavior. The following verses mention some of the things they were doing. These ungodly intruders have stolen in among the faithful, perverting the grace of God into licentiousness and denying Jesus (4). Jude mentions that they are sexually unnatural and immoral, indulging their lusts (7). Furthermore, these malcontents reject authority and complain all the time (8,16). In their ignorance, they speak slander against the angels (8,10). At the shared thanksgiving meals, the love feasts, these people eat greedily (12). They are insincere flatterers and scoffers (16,18). And they are causing divisions among the godly (19). Who were these people? Some scholars think they may have been Gnostics, that is, if the letter was written at a late date, say, in the early second century. If Jude was written in the mid-first century, then we just do not know.
What does Jude want the faithful to do? He hopes they will fight for the faith (3), pray in the Holy Spirit (20), look forward to eternal life (21), have mercy on those who are wavering (22), and save others from “the fire” (23). As I said, it is all pretty vague. Maybe Jude is describing the kind of behavior that could have arisen in a community which was expecting the end of the world. Some people may have decided that if the end was coming, they could join up with the Christians in order to save themselves, while also cutting loose and living it up with food and sex before Jesus returned.
“So let it out and let it in, hey Jude, begin - You're waiting for someone to perform with…” -The Beatles
What are all the references Jude makes to other books? Were you ever handed a small book containing a copy of only the New Testament? Those annoy me, because they are incomplete Bibles. I think that without the Old Testament, the New Testament is impossible to understand. The letter of Jude is a good example of why this is so. Despite its short length, Jude makes many references to Old Testament stories. Jude doesn’t explain the references. He assumes that the reader knows the Hebrew Bible and understands them. I counted at least eight interesting references in Jude. Each one is used to illustrate bad behavior and to show how the bad people are going to be punished. Let’s look at them one by one.
1) Jude 5 mentions “the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” This is obviously a reference to Exodus 14, the story of the Israelites leaving Egypt.
2) Jude 6 mentions “angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great Day.” This one is a reference to the story of the fallen angels, which is briefly mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. It is also a reference to a book which did not make it into the Bible, named “1 Enoch”. We still have the Book of 1 Enoch today, and we know that it was once considered authoritative by many people. Compare Jude 6 (above) to the following: “And to Michael God said, ‘Make known to Semyaza [a fallen angel leader] and the others who are with him, who fornicated with the women […] bind them for seventy generations underneath the rocks of the ground until the day of their judgment…” (1 Enoch 10:11-12). Jude quotes Enoch again later in the letter, as we shall see.
3) Jude 7 mentions “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities which […] indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust…” This is a reference to Genesis 19, the story of Lot’s escape from the destruction of Sodom.
4) This next reference is a tricky one. Jude 9 is talking about how it is bad to slander others, and to illustrate this, Jude refers to an example of a time when the Archangel Michael refused to sin, avoiding slandering even…Satan himself! “But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 9). The question is, what is this a reference to? The Bible has no story of Satan trying to claim Moses’ body while Michael confronts him. Fortunately, a third century Christian writer named Origen has the answer for us. Origen wrote: “…in the work entitled The Assumption of Moses, a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his letter, the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses…” So, you see, Jude was referring to an apocryphal book which is now lost to us.
5,6,7) A single verse, Jude 11, has three references to the Old Testament in it. “Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.” This is a lot of references to pack into one sentence! But we can identify them easily enough. Cain is the brother of Abel who responded to God’s disapproval with anger, jealousy, and violence (Genesis 4). Balaam was hired to go and curse God’s people, until an angel stopped him (Numbers 22). Korah was a Levite who led a rebellion against the authority of Moses and Aaron because he wanted to be a Priest but was denied (Numbers 16). Korah was swallowed up by the earth when God judged him.
8) Jude 14-15 is a second reference to 1 Enoch. You can compare the following two passages for yourself:
“It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘See, the Lord is coming with tens of thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’” (Jude 14-15)
“Behold, he will arrive with ten thousand times a thousand of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and rebuke all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him.” (1 Enoch 1:9)
The fact that Jude makes references to two non-canonical books, namely “1 Enoch” and “The Assumption of Moses”, has always been a problem for some readers and a source of controversy. It is assumed that any book that is in the Bible is inspired by God. It troubles people to think that an inspired letter can refers to apocryphal sources. What does it mean when Jude, an accepted book, quotes a rejected book? Does that confer any portion of authority or canonical status on the book which Jude is quoting? Probably not, but the very idea can be upsetting to some. In the fourth century, when the New Testament canon was being finalized, some people objected to including Jude, precisely because it made those references to things like Enoch.
So there you have it - Jude, a small book containing large mysteries. I am sorry there are few answers to give you. My own amateur scholar opinion is that Jude was a leader in a community that revered angels and complicated angel lore (like their names, types, and ranks). Jude’s letter has several direct and indirect references to angels, in verses 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14. That’s about 30% of the verses! Jude refers to books like Enoch, which tell detailed and elaborate stories about angels. Clearly, Jude was an angel fan. I think Jude’s enemies were fellow Christians who did NOT believe in all the angel lore, but instead scoffed at it, loudly enough to make others begin to doubt it too. Jude said that his enemies had slandered the angels, the glorious ones. Using poetic insults, Jude called his enemies “wandering stars for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved forever” (13). Wandering stars, known to us as planets, were once thought to be fallen angels. Jude meant that if you disrespect the angels, you deserve the same fate as the fallen angels.
(We’ll just have to finish by playing out the end of that old Beatles song, so that it will be stuck in your head as it is in mine. “Naa, Na Na, Na Na Na Naa, Na Na Na Naa , Hey Jude…”)

Paul's First Letter

#65: “Paul’s First Letter” by Brendon Wahlberg
The New Testament contains thirteen letters that are traditionally thought to be written by the Apostle Paul. However, scholars generally agree that Paul did not write all of them. For example, the great majority agree that the Pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, were not written by Paul. Instead, later authors probably wrote in his name to give their letters and beliefs more authority. (Hebrews is another letter that Paul probably did not write, and his authorship was in doubt even in ancient times.) Then there are the letters that scholars are evenly divided about. Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians may have been written by Paul, but many scholars are not sure. Scholars agree that seven letters were almost certainly written by Paul. These are 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Philemon. People arrive at this list by analyzing the similar or contrasting style, vocabulary, structure, and religious ideas of each letter while taking into account what is also known about Paul from the Book of Acts and other sources.
If you take this list of seven letters as the ones Paul really wrote, you can then ask, which letter was first? Of course, scholars have a consensus opinion about this, too. It is agreed that 1 Thessalonians is the oldest letter written by Paul that ended up in the New Testament. In fact, scholars agree that 1 Thessalonians in the oldest book in the whole New Testament. This letter was probably written around 51-53CE. Everything else came later – all four Gospels, Acts, Revelation, Paul’s other letters, and the non-Pauline letters – all later.
Think about that for a moment. In 52CE, Jesus’ crucifixion was about twenty-two years in the past. The public could not hear him speak or teach any more. Christianity was spreading around the Mediterranean and winning converts among Gentile nations, but there was no New Testament to read. A new convert in the busy port city of Thessalonica, in Macedonia, in 52CE, would have no Gospel of John, no Letter to the Romans, no Book of Revelation. This convert might well have never seen a Jewish scroll like Isaiah or Psalms either. The convert only knows that a travelling missionary named Paul came through Thessalonica about a year earlier, and started a small congregation among the people of the city, introducing them to a new version of the old Jewish religion, which could now include Gentiles. But maybe there was nothing from Paul that was written down, and the convert had to hear about the new faith through word of mouth. Maybe the convert had friends among the new, small gathering of the “Followers of the Way”, or “Christians” as they were eventually called in far away Antioch. The convert joins them, and around that same time, a letter arrives from the group’s founder Paul, who is writing from down south in Greek Corinth, where he has another congregation.
The letter is important to the group in Thessalonica. It is something they can hold onto, read from, and share. It addresses their fears and confusions and corrects their misconceptions. It tells them how they should be living. When Paul was there among them, he told them to expect the end of the world. The new convert is excited and uncertain about many things. But now there is a letter to reassure him or her. The letter is now the only written document in the city that contains Paul’s teachings about the new faith. The letter, along with the group’s memories of Paul’s verbal teaching, is all they have. One little letter, which only takes up about three pages in a modern Bible, was their whole scripture. No wonder they saved and copied it, so that we still have the text of it today.
Now, imagine that you are this new convert, who has been listening to the group leader read the letter to everyone (Paul commanded in the letter that this should be done (1 Thess 5:27)). This exercise allows us to put ourselves in the place of someone who has only 1 Thessalonians to go on. What does it say inside it? What can you learn about the Way? Once you have heard the letter, what concept of Christianity do you have? If your whole Bible was that one three-page letter, what would you know? What would you believe?
The letter begins with greetings to your small church from Paul and his coworkers, Silvanus and Timothy. Together, they visited your city a year ago. Paul had wanted to return, but could not. So he sent Timothy alone for a brief return visit, to check on whether your group had stayed faithful or fallen apart (3:5). Timothy was reassured by what he saw, and reported back to Paul, and so Paul’s letter is full of relief that things are still okay.
Paul greets you in the name of the God you now share. This is God, the Father of us all (1:3), who loves us and has chosen us (1:4). This God is true and living, unlike the false, nonliving idols you used to venerate. Now you serve this God (1:9). But God is not the only one you should worship. God has a Son (1:10), Jesus Christ (Jesus the anointed), who is also called the Lord (1:1). Jesus died, killed by some Jews in the small Roman Province of Judea (2:15), but God raised him from the dead (1:10). There is also something called the Holy Spirit, which helped Paul and his friends bring his message to your group a year ago, giving their words the power to win converts (1:5). God gives this Holy Spirit to you as well (4:8). Everybody in the group has this Holy Spirit. As a result, your group accepted Paul’s message as the word of God himself (2:13), not as mere human words. Since then, your group has been imitating Paul, his friends, and the Lord, trying to be a good example to others (1:6).
While you serve God, you are to wait for the Lord Jesus to return from Heaven, where he is now, in order to rescue you from God’s wrath that is coming (1:10). Paul has called his message “good news” (1:5), and you agree that being rescued from wrath is good news for you. What do you and your new group mean to these missionaries? Why do Paul and his friends care so much about you? Apparently, your group is their pride and joy (2:19-20). When the Lord returns, the only achievements that will matter to God are works such as converting people like you! Paul calls your group his “brothers” again and again in the letter. You are like family to him.
When Paul visited a year ago, he showed your group how to live properly (4:1). Now, in his letter, he reiterates these guidelines. These are important rules – Paul says they are God’s will (4:3). Rule One (4:3) is: no fornication! This means, control your own body, people (4:4). Don’t be full of lustful passion like your neighbors who do not know God (4:5). Especially do not take sexual advantage of fellow members of the congregation (4:6), because you have all been called together by God to be “Holy”, which seems to mean the same as being pure (4:7). Rule Two (4:9) is: love each other. (Except, see rule number one for certain restrictions.) Rule Three (4:11) is: live quietly, and mind your own business. Rule Four (4:11-12) is: have a job so you can support yourself and not rely on others. You think you can live with these rules. In fact, God seems to be pretty sensible about these things.
Later on in the letter, Paul has some more rules to live by (5:12-22). These things also seem to make sense. Show respect for the leaders of the congregation, for the work they do. Have peace between the members of the group. Tell each other to keep working. Help the weak ones. Don’t ever be evil. If somebody is evil to you, don’t repay them in kind. Instead try to do good to everyone. Always rejoice, give thanks, and pray. This all sounds good. And why should you do all of these things? Because the Lord Jesus is coming back, and when he does, you will need to be blameless (5:23). Paul is satisfied with how well your congregation is doing so far (4:1), but he wants you all to do more and more of the right things. This is all because of what Paul says is coming in the future.
When Jesus returns, it will be like this… Something called an archangel will call out, there will be a sound like the blast of a horn, and Jesus will descend from Heaven. At the same time, your group will be lifted up to meet him in the clouds. After that, you will all be with the Lord forever (4:16-18). Jesus died for you so that you can live with him (5:10). This will be your salvation, because if you are not included, you are in for destruction and wrath from God (5:3,9).
You know that some people in your group have been worrying about exactly when Jesus will return. Also, a few of the oldest people have died during these past few months, and what if that means they won’t be included in this salvation, just because they died a little too early? Paul probably heard about your worries from Timothy, and it is Paul’s goal to “restore whatever is lacking in your faith” (3:10). So now, in the letter, Paul has made sure to address those concerns. Jesus will return, he says, at an unexpected time (5:2). But as long as you keep on track spiritually, you will be ready. The ready person is “awake”, “sober”, a “child of the light and the day”, “faithful”, “loving”, and “hoping”. This is in contrast to those who are “of the night”, “of darkness”, and “drunk” (5:4-10). And as for those who have died, Jesus will be sure to raise them from the dead so that they can be included along with you and the rest of your group (4:14-16). So, there you go. It’s all good…as long as you are good.
It has been interesting to look at Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians as if it was the only book of the Bible that we had. If indeed this was Paul’s earliest letter, then for some people, that must have been the situation. When you look at the letter from this perspective, you nevertheless see that the basics of Christianity are all there. You can find the trinity, the second coming, the promise of eternal life, ethical instructions about how to live in peace and holiness as a community, and a description of the end times. Our imaginary convert would, in fact, have a pretty good understanding of Christianity from 1 Thessalonians alone!
There isn’t much in there about Jesus, however. The gospels, written later, reveal just how much was remembered about Jesus, his life, and his teachings: quite a lot, in fact. But for Paul, little of that was important enough to include in his letters. Paul seems to have wanted to stick to the bare bones – Jesus was God’s Son who died for all of us so that we might have eternal life. Jesus was raised from the dead by God, and he will return to us from Heaven. In the meantime, God has called us to live according to his will. What more do you need to know?