Methodism

Despite not being religious now, there was I time when I was; I was raised in a Baptist church from the time I was too young to remember being taken to around ten years old. One of the things I remember most vividly about it was the bashing and general rivalry against Methodist churches– not to say that all Baptist churches do this, but it prompted me to learn more.

(To generalize… the major points the two really differ on are basically preferences for baptism and governance of the church–Episcopal Hierarchy for Methodists, congregational independence for Baptists. But I digress…)

John Wesley

Methodism is a branch of protestant religion which traces its roots back to 1739 where it developed in England as a result of the teachings of John Wesley. Wesley’s three basic precepts that began the Methodist tradition consisted of:

1. Shun evil and avoid partaking in wicked deeds at all costs,
2. Perform kind acts as much as possible, and
3. Abide by the edicts of God the Almighty Father. (about.com).

The Methodist Church is known for its missionary work and its establishment of hospitals, universities, orphanages, soup kitchens, and schools to follow Jesus’ command to spread the good news and serve all people.

What constitutes as evil, wicked deeds within Methodism though? Because as we’ve all learned by this point (at least those of us who took The Old Testament course), The Bible has a lot to say about that. A great deal of the beliefs and practices within Methodism are reflected from the Epistles as well, interestingly enough. For starters…

The Methodist Church opposes gambling, believing that it is a sin which feeds on human greed and which invites people to place their trust in possessions, rather than in God, whom Christians should “love … with all your heart” (Mark 12:29-30). It quotes the Apostle Paul who states:

“But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.” (1 Timothy 6:9-10).

It also differs from The Bible in a few rather surprising ways though, such as the Methodist Church stating that it “affirms our long-standing support of abstinence from alcohol as a faithful witness to God’s liberating and redeeming love for person” (nnu.edu). In fact, the United Methodist Church uses unfermented grape juice in the sacrament of Holy Communion. The church differs from The Bible in this sense, as even Jesus likes to have a glass every now and then.

Similarly, the Methodist Church still does not condone same-sex marriage or support homosexual behavior. In accordance with its view of Scripture, the Church officially considers, “the practice of homosexuality (to be) incompatible with Christian teaching” (religioustolerance.org). Their teachings follow more along the lines of more forgiving verses, though, (as they mantain that all individuals, regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. are still of worth and may be redeemed through God) such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor malakoi, arsenokoitai, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Overall, the Methodist church is still divided on homosexuality, much like it had been divded on the roles of women and of slavery in the past. Currently, the Methodist church obviously does not condone slavery and goes so far as to have women as ministers in some of their churches.

Methodists are concerned with personal holiness and emphasize the need to experience personal salvation (e.g. Matthew 19:25-26: “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”  Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”).

Obviously, this is all just an over-simplified and vague overview of very few points within Methodism. However, these few points show that while they genrally do not really hold The Bible as infallible (even though even though they affirm the authority of the Bible– 2 Timothy 3:16… this may be seen as indicative of many inconsistencies between the doctrine and practice of the Methodist Church), and tend to try to focus more on teachings practicing forgiveness and the realization that all men are imperfect before God.

“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.” Romans 2:1

Who was Melchizedek?

This week’s reading continued through the epistles, which were laregely made up of the Biblical equivalents of “get back in the kitchen, women” and some guy named Malchizedek (in the case of Hebrews, at least). Melchizedek is mentioned in Hebrews 5 and 6 in regards to the priestly Order of Melchizedek as well as briefly in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis (“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine– he was priest of God Most High.“) amd Psalms 110.

Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek

Melchizedek is described as a lot of things– primarily as a priest and king, of righteousness and peace, in Hebrews:

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace.” (Hebrews 7:1-2 ESV)

There is speculation over whether Malchizedek was a literal king or not with evidence for both sides. As stated, Melchizedek was king over a city called Salem, meaning “peace” in Hebrew. Beacause of this, some believe that his title of king is simply metaphorical. However, most scholars agree that Salem was the ancient name for Jerusalem (notice the root of “Jerusalem”). The Bible also supports such a notion: Psalm 76:2 equates Salem with Zion, where God’s tabernacle dwelt. It is common knowledge that God’s tabernacle and presence dwelt in Jerusalem (OnenessPentescostal). It appears that Melchizedek was a literal king over a literal city– ancient Jerusalem, to be specific.

Some also believe that Malchizedek wasn’t merely a man, laregely due to Hebrews 7:3: “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginnings of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” Many meanings can be derived from the verse. It seems to plainly indicate that Melchisedec was eternal; however, we must put ourselves back into the eastern world two thousand years ago to understand what the expression would have meant to the original readers. The expression may have been used not to indicate eternality, but to express the idea that an individual did not have a recorded geneology (or to indicate an obscure genealogy) or to express how long the message and priesthood of of Malcizedek would go on (GCI.org), meaning that the priest is only eternal in a metaphorical sense. 

There’s also a fair deal of interesting evidence supporting the claim that Malchizedek was a foreshadowing of sorts for Jesus Christ or perhaps even Christ himself. Melchizedek was “without mother, without father, without descent,” so it could be assumed that he was not born as human beings are. He was without father and mother. This does not mean that Melchizedek’s records of birth were lost and without such records human priests could not serve (Ezra 2:62) (CGG.org).

Either way, there are many similarities between Melchizedek and Jesus, including:

• Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine for Abraham as a sign of love. It was the only offering in the Old Testament which was not bloody. Christ offered his body and blood as bread and wine as the utmost love, which he gave for upon the cross for everyone’s salvation (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; John 6:51-54; 1 Corinthians 11:24).
• Both were called the “King of Righteousness” (Christ in Romans 3:24 and Hebrew 7:26 and Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18 and Hebrews 7).
• Melchizedek received the tithe of all from Abraham (Genesis 14:20). “Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him” (Hebrews 7:9, 10).  Christ receives the tithes of all from the believers, not only their tithes, but also their lives (Romans 12:1). (wiscopts.net)

It seems most likely that Melchizedek was just a foreshadowing of a Christ-like figure. As Herbews 7:3 states, he resembles the Son of God and that is likely all. Melchizedek seems to be an ordinary man who served as a priest and king over Salem for the duration of his life.

Jesus’ priesthood might just be compared to Melchizedek’s priesthood to show that one need not come from the tribe of Levi to be a priest.

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.(Hebrews 7:11-14 ESV)

 

Jesus’ priesthood needed to be like Melchizedek’s so he could by-pass the weaknesses of the Levitical order and save those who come to him. Jesus has both the office of King and Priest (which the Aaronic priesthood could not have) like Melchizedek, and serves for life. Because of these reasons, God ordained for Jesus to have a priesthood in the similitude of Melchizedek’s, and not of Aaron (answering-islam.org).

Thus, I find it most likely Melchizedek was just a priest/ king of Jerusalem, after whom a priestly order was named, thus eternalizing him and later leading him to be likened to men as righteous as Abraham and even Christ himself.

The Bible in Popular Culture

Being one of the most popular and influential books of all time, The Bible tends to make appearances throughout many of our favorite movies, music, television shows, books, art, etc. Any and every genre in any given medium contains a vast array of Biblical references, whether they are intentional and adhere to a theological viewpoint or are merely far-stretched parallels, or even secular in nature.

God, No! Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales

Magician, comedian, and atheist Penn Gillette’s semi-satrical, semi-autobiographical book, God, No! Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales, is directly influenced by The Bible. Prompted by Glenn Beck’s challenge for Gillette to create a reinterpretation of The Ten Commandments, the book is framed by “An Atheist’s 10 Suggestions” and contains anecdotes that are sometimes Biblical in nature as well.

Before I seem anymore blasphemous here, Penn Gillette is definitely a self-admitted asshole (and I’d probably have to agree)– one who is vulgar with gleeful, often very creative, abandon. Though I probably wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone who thinks that chapter titles like “Scuba F*****g,” “Auto-tune, Tattoos, and Big Fake T*ts,” or “I Also Couldn’t Get Laid in a Women’s Prison with a Fistful of Pardons” are a bit much, it displays a surpisingly humanistic mindset and there’s no denying that it’s a prime example of The Bible’s widespread and varied influence on popular culture.

The Ten Commandments, as listed in The Bible

Gillette’s Ten Suggestions:
1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.
2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let’s scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian, Garth Brooks versus Sun Ra— but when your house is on fire, I’ll be there to help.)
3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to God is now quite simply respecting yourself.)
4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you’re religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you’re a Vegas magician, that’ll be the day with the lowest grosses.)
5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)
6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that “Thou shalt not kill” only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it’s all human life.)
7. Keep your promises. (If you can’t be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don’t make that deal.)
8. Don’t steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes — you know who you are!)
9. Don’t lie. (You know, unless you’re doing magic tricks and it’s part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)
10. Don’t waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it’ll make you bugnutty.

In this particular case, this book wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for The Bible. Gillette’s satirical take on one of the most prominent ideas from The Bible is significant– though he doesn’t even believe in God, both he and his writing have been heavily influenced by The Bible in one way or another.

Breaking Bad

Two of the show’s main characters, Jesse Pinkman and Walter White

In case you haven’t been fortunate enough to venture toward shows on AMC beyond The Walking Dead, let me proceed to try to force everyone to watch Breaking Bad. AMC’s TV series Breaking Bad is about a terminally ill chemistry teacher, Walter White, who turns to “cooking” crystal meth with one of his former students in order to pay for his chemotherapy and provide for his family. Despite the many hours I’ve spent rewatching this show rather recently, I’ve failed to really find any direct Biblical influences beyond crosses hanging on walls. Though it’s a bit of a far stretch, it still seems that the show may contain a few of the same themes seen widely throughout The Bible.

The concept of original sin may be considered a parallel within the show and in The Bible. Every single unfortunate incident (ranging from deaths, infidelity, violence, webs of lies, etc.) throughout the show can ultimately be traced back to Walter’s decision to cook meth, much like all human errors can be traced back to Adam and Eve’s original sin in the Garden of Eden. The events in the narrative of the show build on each other as it progresses and attempts at redemption are nearly constant throughout the series. Again, it’s a far stretch, but still a possibility.

Saul Goodman

The more obvious impact from The Bible lies in the name of one of the show’s characters, Saul Goodman. The show is already known for its use of a deeper significance behind names, as seen with Walter White; “Walt White” is a term used to describe a meth-maker you wouldn’t automatically presume to be a meth-maker– such as a middle-class, white chemistry teacher with no former criminal record.
Saul’s real surname is McGilland and his first real name is never mentioned, but it is known that he has changed it as he claims his clients feel more comfortable with a Jewish lawyer. Interestingly, he chooses the name Saul for himself. Two different Sauls appear in The Bible: one is seen in 1 Samuel and is the first king of Israel, who starts out good but eventually loses God’s favor, and the other is Saul of Tarsus who later is known as Paul, as seen in the book of Acts. In Biblical times, a person’s name was often changed by God, as if to give the person a new start, or to signify their new assigned role. Though self-imposed, Saul’s change of names is reminiscent of this.

Ultimately, the show hasn’t been heavily impacted by The Bible, but it has definitely creeped in in the case of Saul and perhaps in potential parallels as well.

Zdzisław Beksiński

Untitled

I’m fascinated by the surrealistic and often nightmarish artwork of Zdzisław Beksiński. Apocalyptic imagery and themes are scattered heavily throughout his work, as are images of crosses. One of my favorite paintings by him that contains both of these themes is the untitled work shown above. Many things about this image automatically jump out as Biblical: the skeletal figure is hung from a cross (easily the most recognizable symbol from The Bible), the figure also has large black wings, and the black birds seen at the top of the painting (whether crows or actually even bats) may be viewed as an opposition to the enduring symbolism of doves throughout The Bible. These three elements all carry a symbolic nature and are easily three of the most widely recognized symbols from The Bible.

The important question, though, is why Beksinski chose to let The Bible influence his painting so highly. Following along with the apocalytpic themes seen in much of his work, the use of such prominent and hopeful Biblical symbols may be seen as an effective way to convey loss of hope. Typically seen as a beacon of hope, the cross is quite the opposite in this painting. This may be the artist’s way of visualizing and conveying the worst of times, the loss of all hope (which would also explain the blackened wings and black birds at the top).

Who was Junia?

Admittedly, a post about circumcision was pretty tempting. To sum Romans up: circumcision and theology– avoid judgement, love everyone, and be circumcised  (or don’t be. As long as you’re circumcised in your heart, you’re good, bro). In the end, however, I decided I’d already been given sufficient answers on the matter and there’s really only so much you can say about foreskin anyway. Thus, I had to settle for something else: who was Junia?

Toward the end of Romans, Paul addresses several people he knows in Rome who are all involved in the ministry, none of which are elaborated upon any further. One of these people, Junia, is mentioned in passing:

“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” Romans 16:7

Andronicus, Athanasius of Christianopoulos and Saint Junia

Many have suggested that one or both of these individuals were actually apostles, interpreting the phrase “among the apostles” (used in many translations of the verse) to mean Andronicus and Junia were part of that group (GotQuestions.org). The King James Version of the verse states, “who are of note among the apostles.” This is followed by the majority of translators– “of note” often translated, “prominent among” or “outstanding among.” A minority translate it as “well known to the apostles,” as seen in the ESV Literary Bible. (Bible.org). Since Junia is never mentioned elsewhere, this syntax of the Greek language provides the best means of understanding what Paul meant; it seems that Junia may very well have been an apostle. At the same time, however, it seems odd that Junia and Andronicus would not be mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament if they actually were even mildly prominent apostles.

Additionally, it has been theorized by many people that Junia was actually a female apostle. The actual name may be either Junias, a masculine name contracted from Junianus and used in some translations of the verse, or Junia, a common Italian, feminine name (Helium.com). Since there is such little material on Junia, the Greek syntax of feminine and masculine names is likely the best way to determine whether or not Junia was a female. Junia was a very common name in the period that Romans was written and there appears to be no record of any Roman male bearing the name Junia. (Zianet.com)

It was certainly not unusual for God to use women in very prominent roles among His people, as revealed in both Old Testament and New Testament historical writings. Athaliah, for example, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, reigned as queen over Judah for six years (2 Kings 11:3; 2 Chronicles 22:12). Deborah, who was a prophetess of God, served as a judge over Israel for 40 years (Judges 4:4-5). . We also see a husband and wife team of prophets — Isaiah and his wife (Isaiah 8:3). Joel 2:28-29 even foresaw a time, during the Christian dispensation, when both “your sons and daughters will prophesy … and even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” Thus, it should not surprise us too greatly to find a woman deacon (Phoebe — Romans 16:1-2), a woman apostle (Junia — Rom. 16:7), and women prophets (Philip’s daughters) (Womenpriests.org).

Whether or not Junia was a prophet or a female, it does seem to be clear that he/she was one of the first Christians. The fact that Junia was “in Christ before I was” would make Junia one of the earliest Christians, since Paul had become a believer within three years of the resurrection (Galatians 2). She may have even been in Jerusalem for Pentecost when Peter preached in Acts 2. Whenever Junia first believed, he/she was likely living in or near Jerusalem during the early days of the church. This would have given him/her ample time to become acquainted with the apostles, whether he/she was one or not (Helium.com).

Who was Theophilus and what made him so excellent?

It seems like everything– every little person, place, and thing– in the Bible has some sort of deeper story behind it, whether it’s mentioned with great detail or merely in passing. In this case, the first sentence of Luke piqued my interest. The Gospel of Luke begins with a dedication:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.(Luke 1:1-4 ESV)

The author of Luke handing the                          gospel to Theophilus– allegedly.

Theophilus is not mentioned again throughout the book, though he is mentioned once more in the book of Acts: “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach…” (Acts 1:1 ESV). Aside from that, no further explanation is offered, bringing to mind the question: who was Theophilus and what made him worthy of having an entire book dedicated to him?

After doing a bit of research, it turns out that no one actually knows who Theophilus was, but there are several good theories. One of the most common and widely accepted assumptions is that Theophilus was a Roman officer (or high-ranking official in the Roman government) or perhaps that he was even a sympathetic Roman ruler, but still a pagan, whom Luke was attempting to persuade of the truth of the gospel (Touchstone). The theory of Theophilus’ Roman origins stems largely from two Roman governors, Festus and Felix, being addressed as “most excellent” by the same author in the book Acts (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). Generally, “most excellent” was used as a formal Roman title and referred to someone who held  some sort of imperial power (The Compass News). On the other hand, though, the theory doesn’t hold much merit beyond that; throughout the Gospel of Luke, matters dealing with Jewish beliefs are referenced without thorough detail. Thus, it doesn’t seem that a Roman official (or ruler, etc.) unfamiliar with Jewish traditions would understand the significance of Luke’s gospel.

Some also hold the belief that Theophilus was a Roman lawyer who defended Paul during his trial in Rome. This would mean that Luke’s purpose in writing Luke and Acts was to write a defense of Christianity, meaning Luke’s writings were designed to defend Paul in court against charges of insurrection and, at the same time, to defend Christianity against the charge that it was an illegal, anti-Roman religion (Global Christian Center).

Another suggestion pinpoints Theophilus as an exact, particular person, the Jewish high priest named Theophilus ben Ananus– high priest in Jerusalem in A.D. 37-41, the son of Annas and the brother–in-law of Caiaphus (whoislog.info). Aside from the matching name, though, the only other support for this is that Theophilus ben Ananus was a Sadducee, which would explain Luke’s emphasis on the debates centering on doctrines particular to the Sadducees (Brakeman).

Though it is quite possible the Theophilus was a particular person to whom the Gospel was addressed, it doesn’t particularly matter whether he was a Roman official, a supporter of Paul, Jewish high priest, or anything of the sort. Since it seems impossible to acurately declare who Theophilus may have been, one of the most sound viewpoints I came across was that Theophilus may be viewed as a generic term encompassing all Christians. Translated from Greek, “Theophilus” literally means “loved by God” or “friend of God” (Behind the Name). Luke had in mind, of course, that these books would be read by other Christians besides Theophilus, so though it’s impossible to know who he actually was (if he actually was one, particular person) , the intention behind the writing of this sospel is clear: “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3-4 ESV). All in all, whether or not the “most excellent” refers to one person or perhaps to all Christians doesn’t particularly matter, as the author accomplishes the goal of his gospel in his historical account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the detailed spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

Did Jesus descend into Hell between his crucifixtion and resurrection (or Sheol? Or Hades? Or where the Hell?)? And why?

Jesus Pulling Adam and Eve from the Depths

Thus far, The New Testament still creates more of an obstacle in regards to juicy questions; in Mark, of course, Jesus is quite the philanthropist-turned-magician and gets crucified– it’s actually just a big bummer.
I couldn’t help but wonder, though: where was Jesus between crucifixtion and resurrection (aside from the tomb, of course. We all know he was in the tomb for a minute there)? I started to put thought into this while reading over Matthew last week and had already been somewhat familiar with the concept of Jesus going to Hell after being crucified. The Apostles’ Creed dates back to a rather early period in Christianity and states that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell,” but is still technically a mere speculation and not actually a part of the literary canon of The Bible (much like Dante’s Inferno and Paradise Lost, but more purposely accepted among current-day denominations). So what does The Bible say about the days between Jesus’ death and return, and what can be inferred from it?

The truth is: not much, actually, and it leaves a fair deal of room for interpretation. The Bible never explicitly states that Jesus took a trip to Hell, nor Hades, nor Sheol, but many verses do appear to allude to it.
Before going any further, a distinction should be made between Hell, Hades and Sheol. As described in The Bible, Hell really just appears to be a sort of fiery lake (e.g. Matthew 5:22), often confused with Sheol/ Hades, which is described as a type of abode for the dead, both the righteous and the unrighteous simply in seperation from God (e.g. Ecclesiastes 9:3-10).

It seems difficult to understand, so tl;dr: this chart describes life followed by death, upon which everyone– the righteous as well as the wicked– are sent to Sheol. This is followed by judgement into eternal salvation or damnation, which appears to have been made possible through Jesus’ crucifixition and descent into Hades, according to many theories.

GotQuestions.org points out that Revelation presents a pretty clear distinction between the two which goes against the idea of Jesus descending to Hell: “Hell (the lake of fire) is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place. So, no, Jesus did not go to hell because Hell is a future realm, only put into effect after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).” Given the distinction between Hell and Hades/ Sheol, it doesn’t seem that Jesus went down to a burning ring of fire. However, this certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility of Jesus descending to Sheol.

1 Peter 3:18-20 appears to describe such an event:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Ephesians 4:8-10 also appears to allude to Jesus making a journey to Sheol:

Therefore it says,
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

In reference to these verses in particular, Carm.org suggests that Jesus proclaimed to inhabitants of Sheol, the righteous (inhabitants or of the Paradisiacal realm of Sheol known as Abraham’s Bosom) and the wicked (inhabitants of what was known as Gehenna), the mystery of the gospel, and then led his followers into Heaven to dwell with God; it goes on to say: “the belief is that they were not permitted to enter into the presence of God in heaven until after the atonement. ”

Still, some maintain that that there is absolutely no clear textual basis in the New Testament for claiming that Jesus’ time between Good Friday and Easter Christ was spent preaching to souls imprisoned in either Hell or Hades. There’s not much of an argument to this point beyond a supposed lack of basis, though it is possible that the imagery or “spirits in prisons” and references to what would seem to be a Hellish setting are simply descriptions of the metaphorical Hell (or Sheol, as it seems to be) on Earth (hkbible.com).

Either way, I lean more toward the idea of Christ actually descending to Sheol. This speculation implies that prior to Christ’s incarnation no one could acheive salvation, so upon his death he was able to go to Sheol and release those who had been waiting.

What is the significance of Joseph’s genealogy?

                                              Joseph with the baby Jesus

I wasn’t so sure that I’d find anything incredibly blog-worthy for my post on Matthew since there appears to be a great deal less of our former class’ favorite topics– like dung, circumcision, incest, and God’s almighty wrath– but behold, I’ve managed (just in time, too). Already being so very familiar with the story of Jesus and Mary’s virgin birth via Yahweh, it struck me as odd that Matthew immediately jumped into the genealogy of Joseph:

Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.(Matthew 1:2-16 ESV)

(If you didn’t bother to read all of that, it’s okay. I’m not so sure either.)

If Joseph is merely the step-father of Jesus, why is it necessary to lay out his ancestry so vividly? Some theories seem to suggest that the genealogy is there to serve as proof of Jesus’ descent from David. Some say that Joseph, according to Matthew, was the heir apparent to David’s Throne. Since Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, he could have claimed the right to sit on David’s Throne because of his adoption by Joseph.

On the other hand, another genealogy is presented in Luke’s Gospel and it, of course, complicates matters. Some scholars suggest that both genealogies pertain to Joseph, despite the vast contradictions in number of descendants as well as their names. Others believe that Luke contains the true genealogy of Joseph while Matthew is simply the record of the succession of kings from the throne of David, through Solomon, to Christ. More likely than either of these conclusions, however, is the claim that Matthew describes Joseph’s genealogy while Luke describes Mary’s.

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23-38 ESV)

To complicate things even more, a man named Jeconiah lies in Joseph’s lineage. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David: “For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah,” (Jer. 22:30). However, Jesus is destined to sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. Thus, Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage — that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah does not apply. Though this explanation doesn’t directly prove Christ’s right to David’s throne through Joseph, in essence, Matthew’s point (including the lengthy ancestry of Joseph) is this: If Jesus was really Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s Throne because of the Jeconiah curse; Matthew then proceeds to show that Jesus was not truly Joseph’s son, being born of the virgin Mary.

 

Why did God command Ezekiel to bake his bread with dung?

                                                           Ezekiel lying on his side for 390 days

Ezekiel has been one of the more interesting books of the Old Testament, loaded with imagery and events similar to that of Revelation as well as some rather peculiar instructions from Yahweh. God’s commands range from the prophet Ezekiel shaving off all of his hair and burning some of it, cutting some with a sword, and scattering the rest (in order to symbolize that the Israelites will all suffer separate– but probably equally terrible– fates when God chooses to display his divine wrath) to Ezekiel lying on his side for 390 days (an indication of the number of years the Israelites will suffer through God’s wrath) to eating a scroll, but one of the most interesting of God’s orders to Ezekiel lies in Ezekiel 4:9-12:

“And you, take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and emmer, and put them into a single vessel and make your bread from them. During the number of days that you lie on your side, 390 days, you shall eat it. And your food that you eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day; from day to day you shall eat it. And water you shall drink by measure, the sixth part of a hin; from day to day you shall drink. And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.”

The recipe seemed legitimate enough at first, then God had to bring feces into his matters again. So why does God want to expose Ezekiel to airborne e. coli?

                               This comes to mind.

One seemingly logical– though still disgusting– explanation for bread baked in feces is that Ezekiel was to use the human dung as the fuel for the fire to heat the stones. Normally, animal dung could have been used for fuel, but with the high likelihood of the armies surrounding Jerusalem upon God’s outburst of wrath and judgment, the inhabitants would kill the animals in the city for meat. Thus, there would be no animal dung for fuel and Ezekiel couldn’t exactly go shopping for such a thing. In the end, however, God does give in and allow Ezekiel to use cow dung in place of human dung:

“Then I said, Ah, Lord GOD, I have never defiled myself. From my youth up till now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has tainted meat come into my mouth. Then he said to me, “See, I assign to you cow’s dung instead of human dung, on which you may prepare your bread.” 
(Ezekiel 4:14-15)

No matter the type of dung, it seems that Yahweh had ulterior motives. In verse 13 of the 4th chapter of Ezekiel God goes on to say: “Thus shall the people of Israel eat their bread unclean.”  It seems that baking the bread over dung was symbolic of defilement, being baked in a manner that would repulse the Israelites upon sight of it, much as God was repulsed by their defilement. Essentially, when God chose to unfold his divine wrath and throw his people out of the Holy Land, they would have to eat unclean food among unclean foreigners. Later verses in Ezekiel go on to describe the people being cast out among foreigners, describing the foreigners as uncircumcised (an indication of their lack of cleanliness) and describes similar fates for those who have sinned against God:  “You shall die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners; for I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 28:10 ESV)
It seems most likely that God’s incredibly outlandish instructions for making bread are all about a symbol and a message of degradation to the people who have sinned against him by worshiping false idols. All dung aside, Ezekiel 4:9 is an abomination of sorts in itself, directly defying both Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22 9-10, which both state  “You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed.” Still, it’s quite likely that both explanations have degrees of merit to them.

(Either way, Ezekiel’s consumption of dung is all for naught– the Israelites fail to get the point and the invasion of the Babylonians and the destruction of the temple are nearly upon them. Moral of the story: you, uh… probably shouldn’t eat dung in the first place.)

“It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in…” (Isaiah 40:22) What does the Bible say about cosmography and how is it signficant?

The Flammarion engraving, unknown artist

The Bible’s explanation of the way the world is and how it came to be is an interesting one which I’ve always been fascinated by. It’s easy enough to sum up how the world came into being in Biblical terms: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, as if I even have to cite that for anyone), but the layout of the cosmos itself isn’t so clear. This is obviously due to the fact that there was very little scientific understanding of the world around them in Biblical times, much less the entire cosmos, but jabs at an understanding of cosmography do appear throughout the Bible– albeit flowery, ambiguous ones. A prime example of such lies in Isaiah: “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.”

Isaiah 40:22 does, of course, leave a fair deal of room for interpretation though. It’s arguable that “the circle” referred to in this verse is just another way of calling the earth a sphere, which it indeed is. Since the language is so vague and not actually in the original Hebrew anyway, it’s pretty easy to argue that any of that passages line up with modern science in one way or another. Psalm 18:7, for instance, says:  “Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations also of the mountains trembled and quaked, because he was angry.” The so-called “foundations” or “pillars” of earth make small appearances through several instances in the Bible:

“He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.”
(1 Samuel 2:8 ESV)

“Thus says the LORD: “If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD.”
(Jeremiah 31:37 ESV)

“Then the channels of the sea were seen; the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.”
(2 Samuel 22:16 ESV)

While I personally picture huge, literal columns, some apologists believe that the scripture’s description of the earth having foundations should be interpreted as a culture that lacked modern scientific terms describing God’s divine message and explanation of tectonic plates. While it’s an interesting interpretation, along with all arguments that the Bible’s description of the universe being in accordance with modern science, it’s also not a terribly substantial one. It’s far, far more likely that it really was just Hebrew man’s best explanation of the world and its surroundings in a time without advanced scientific grasps on the world. Even so, it’s interesting to be able to compare and contrast the different interpretations of the cosmic geography presented in The Bible.

The three-tiered universe, comprised of: 1)Heaven,                            2)Earth, and 3)the Underworld

Apologist interpretations aside, the most-oft assumed and accepted Biblical view of cosmography is that of a three-tiered universe. Many different verses are supportive of this, but I’ll be going over the major ones. First and foremost, as described by Isaiah 40:22, the Earth appears to be flat and circular in shape according to The Bible, with heavens that stretch over it much like a dome or a tent (the “firmament”).
The Earth
Other verses supporting the claim of a flat, unmoving world settled below  the heavens include Psalm 96:101 and Chronicles 16:30 which both state: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” Psalm 24:1-2 describes the earth as well, conveying it as being surrounded by waters:  “The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.” Finally, 1 Samuel 2:8 ESV describes the flat earth as being held up by pillars: “He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.”
The Heavens (and the firmament)
Supposedly, the solid firmament that holds back the heavenly waters has “floodgates” or “windows of heaven” that let the water through to flood the earth in Noah’s day. (Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Isaiah 24:18). The firmament is described as a sort of water canopy which separates the hidden heavens and the waters below them from the earth. Thus, Heaven is imagined as being above the firmament. Psalm 19:1 states, “The heavens tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven reveals his handiwork.”
The “Underworld”
The so-called “underworld”– or Sheol, Hades, Hell– is also described, though not necessarily outright. Though the Bible does not contain any narratives of experiences in Sheol, it was nevertheless described as the abode of the dead. Though Sheol was sometimes used interchangeably with “Abaddon” as the place of destruction of the body (Proverbs 15:11; 27:20) and “the grave” as a reference to the state of being dead and buried in the earth (Psalm 88:11; Isaiah 14:9-11), it was also considered to be physically located beneath the earth.

Babylonian Map of the World (c.600 BCE), which is similar to the Bible’s concept of the cosmos with a flat earth surrounded by ocean and islands

These concepts appear all throughout the Biblical narrative, not only as a description of the physical world, but extended into metaphorical applications as well. For example, creation hymns (Psalm 33, 104; Hab 3, etc.) evoke these images as a form of praise, or in the Babel story God must “come down” to see the puny work of humanity (Genesis 11:5). For this reason, a basic understanding of the Biblical cosmos is crucial in order to properly understand the narrative.

Allusion #3: Pink Floyd’s “Sheep”

I’m pretty sure that these allusions are just a way to subject each other to music we’re generally going to feel pretty “meh” about; surely we can all agree on a bit of Pink Floyd though, yeah? Off of their 1977 concept album Animals (based loosely off of George Orwell’s Animal Farm), “Sheep” contains two pretty obvious Biblical allusions.

(But go ahead and skip to around 1:40 if you want to hear lyrics anytime soon, because that’s how prog rock works.)

Hopelessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I’ve looked over Jordan, and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.

What do you get for pretending the danger’s not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well-trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!

A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green
He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.

He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,

Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we’ll make the bugger’s eyes water.

Bleating and babbling we fell on his neck with a scream.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you’re told.
Get out of the road if you want to grow old.

Joshua Crossing by Doré

The first Biblical allusion, which continues to resonate throughout the song, refers to the Jordan River. In The Old Testament (specifically, in Joshua), the Hebrews are led out of captivity in Egypt by Moses, who dies before entering the Promised Land on the other side of the Jordan River, Cannan. Exodus 3 describes the land of Cannan, with The Lord saying, ” I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites,” a place ideal for prosperous agriculture and worthy or brighter future. Thus, in the context of this song, the singer has “looked over Jordan and seen that things are not what they seem”; referencing to the Industrial Revolution as well, he is describing it as something that was supposed to bring great promise, but instead was not what it was cracked up to be and brought oppression to the working-class (the “sheep”) instead of the hope and consolation that was promised.

The next Biblical allusion refers to what is one the most well-known of all the Psalms, Psalm 23:

 “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD
  forever.”

Rather than alluding to the Psalm in its entirety though,  the lyrics change to:  “He makes me down to lie through pastures green. He leadeth me the silent waters by. With bright knives he releaseth my soul” and so on. Drawing from one of the more famous verses of the Bible, he uses the Bible verse to further satirize upon notions of “pigs, dogs, and sheep” as described on this song and album (i.e., the working class or “sheep” being used used by “big brother” or the “pigs/ dogs” as mindless, obedient servants bound to be ruled over and ultimately fall if no change takes place).