Scriptural literacy

[TimCallahan]

I'm don't know why Luke would have made a stronger statemnt in this regard. As to the severing of family ties, we have to consider two things. One is that Jesus did use hyperbole to make a point. So the severng of family ties could have been overstated. However, these two passages aren't the only ones in which Jesus denigrates family ties. Some of these have already been posted on this thread.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'll just say how I would interpret that particular statement.

First, there is really no particular suggestion in the gospels that disciples generally were required to cut off family ties. There are numerous references to family members, including Jesus' own mother and brother, and Peter's mother-in-law. There were at least two pairs of brothers among the disciples.

Second, nobody in that society would have imagined that the man's father had died and the funeral was yet to take place. Funerals were always held before sunset, and the time between the death and the sunset would have been rather too busy for standing around listening to itinerant preachers. "Let me first bury my father" is simply a circumlocution for "I will come and join you at some time in the future, after my father is dead."

This is about commitment. Jesus is saying that a disciple has to be committed enough to get up and do what they say they will do, NOW. Not waffle vague half-promises about doing it some time in the future.

You also extended your interpretation to suggest that Jesus was specifically insisting on splitting from family who were not followers of his. I admit I'm not a great bible scholar, however I'm not aware that this is stated as a clear requirement anywhere in the gospels. Passages where one (or more) potential followers are spoken to sharply for indecision, procrastination and being Mummy's boys cannot really be extended to carry that interpretation. In my opinion.

I agree that sometimes the "bible class" explanation for awkward biblical passages can be strained or contrived. However I don't think this is one of them.

Rolfe.

Yes. Another good clue is the surrounding "narrative", since the entire thrust of the surrounding passages concerns fidelity to belief and serving God -- from the centurion who knows that Jesus will cure his servant to Peter's mother-in-law who, when healed, immediately arises to serve Jesus. The general thrust that I get from it is -- don't bother with the day to day tittle, but get on with the belief. The kicker being that disciples are worried about a storm, then Jesus quells it.

I get the impression these passages were written to say "keep up the faith, guys, and don't worry about the bad stuff happening around you" during a time of trial.

 

[Greediguts]

Work has been taking up the majority of my time, but I've still been reading about Jewish ideas re:resurrection/afterlife.

The Jewish idea of Sheol can be seen to develop over time. It shared traits with the Babylonian place of Aralu (both located beneath the earth). It has been suggested that the Mesopotamian mythical "land of no return" (kur-nu-gi-a) was used as a source for Sheol (mostly how it is described in Job 10:21-22). Also, many point to resemblances between Sheol and Hades from the Iliad and Odyssey. I'm sure Tim C. has much more thorough knowledge regarding these ideas and could probably offer others as well....... (Hint, hint).

The early ideas of Sheol describe it as completely amoral. It is not meant for the good or the bad. Just the dead. No punishment for acts committed while living and no rewards for righteousness either.

I think one interesting point is how death was viewed by ancient Hebrews. It was not looked at as total annihilation but rather the energy that one carries through life being diminished. The living have an abundance - the dead have very little. The word used was nefesh. Nefesh could be defined as life force, vital energy, or spirit. Nefesh was the total being of a person.

(One thing it was not was a differentiation between the body and "soul". The idea of a soul exiting the body upon death was unknown to the ancient Hebrews.)

While living, a human is nefesh hayyah (the Hebrew used in Genesis 2:7). When dead, they become nefesh met (the Hebrew used in Leviticus 21:11).

As the tribes came together under the belief in Yahweh, Sheol slowly began to fall under his jurisdiction. One's dead ancestors were to have superhuman knowledge of worldly events and attempts were made to contact them for guidance. As monotheism began to take hold, these practices were seen as idolatry and laws were established saying necromancy was bad (example Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Yahweh demanded loyalty unto Himself, not dead ancestors, so eventually Sheol fell under God's control and it became a place where you were sent to be punished for your actions.

Over several centuries, the idea of an individualized afterlife started to take shape. Those ideas become mixed after the temple was destroyed again in 70 CE. I'm still muddling my way through all of the Rabbinic traditions...

 

[Greediguts]

As I've been reading alot of Jewish history/commentary, I keep taking another look at Paul trying to figure out his transition from Pharisee to proto-Xian. Some verses of 2 Corinthians really stand out for me.

"Since then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside." (2 Cor. 3:12-13)

This is Paul's exegesis of Exodus 34:29-35. Here are those verses:

"Moses came down from Mount Sinai. As he came down from the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, the skin of his face was shining, and they were afraid to come near him. But Moses called to them; and Aaron and all the leaders of the congregation returned to him, and Moses spoke with them. Afterward all the Israelites came near, and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face; but whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he would take the veil off, until he came out; and when he came out, and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, the Israelites would see the face of Moses, that the skin of his face was shining; and Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with him." (Exodus 34:29-35)

Jewish thought on these verses, even back then, was that the shining was the restoration of the zelem, the true image of God that Adam had lost. Paul's idea of what this signifies is almost laughable. I mean, I know Paul had to go back and start looking for verses to explain what his vision meant and how that jived with the Tanakh, but for a trained Pharisee to come up with this???

I guess I really shouldn't be surprised since he hijacks and twists the Hebrew Bible to make it say that a Jew being murdered by the Romans means that man is the Messiah...

---

On a side note, I'm looking at asking a local Rabbi to let me take the adult Hebrew classes at a nearby synagogue. I've also been debating (via e-mail) with 2 evangelical Baptists (who each have different ideas on what is a Christian) plus the Pastor of a church who believes in the total depravity of mankind. My inbox is full of videos on Bible prophecy, Illuminati/Luciferian rulers, Obama is Hitler, chemtrails, and various UFOs are demons/ Senators have orgies with children blah,blah,blah....yakkity smackity stuff.

 

[Hokulele]

As I've been reading alot of Jewish history/commentary, I keep taking another look at Paul trying to figure out his transition from Pharisee to proto-Xian. Some verses of 2 Corinthians really stand out for me.

Interesting. I had gotten into the Jewish history, but never read any of the commentary as it applied to Paul. Do you have any recommendations?

On a side note, I'm looking at asking a local Rabbi to let me take the adult Hebrew classes at a nearby synagogue. I've also been debating (via e-mail) with 2 evangelical Baptists (who each have different ideas on what is a Christian) plus the Pastor of a church who believes in the total depravity of mankind. My inbox is full of videos on Bible prophecy, Illuminati/Luciferian rulers, Obama is Hitler, chemtrails, and various UFOs are demons/ Senators have orgies with children blah,blah,blah....yakkity smackity stuff.

Yumpin' yimminy!

 

[Ethnikos]

Jewish thought on these verses, even back then, was that the shining was the restoration of the zelem, the true image of God that Adam had lost. Paul's idea of what this signifies is almost laughable. I mean, I know Paul had to go back and start looking for verses to explain what his vision meant and how that jived with the Tanakh, but for a trained Pharisee to come up with this???

The giving of what brought death was accompanied by glory, so much more glorious should be he who brings forth that which gives life.
The glory Moses manifested would have killed others, and so the veil. The glory that originated with Jesus is spiritual in nature and can be gazed upon because it gives life, so no veil is necessary.

 

[Toke]

My inbox is full of videos on Bible prophecy, Illuminati/Luciferian rulers, Obama is Hitler, chemtrails, and various UFOs are demons/ Senators have orgies with children blah,blah,blah....yakkity smackity stuff.

Sounds like fun

 

[Nonpareil]

The giving of what brought death was accompanied by glory, so much more glorious should be he who brings forth that which gives life.
The glory Moses manifested would have killed others, and so the veil. The glory that originated with Jesus is spiritual in nature and can be gazed upon because it gives life, so no veil is necessary.

Oh, look. Off-topic preaching. That's not normal for Ethnikos AT ALL.

 

[Hokulele]

The giving of what brought death was accompanied by glory, so much more glorious should be he who brings forth that which gives life. The glory Moses manifested would have killed others, and so the veil. The glory that originated with Jesus is spiritual in nature and can be gazed upon because it gives life, so no veil is necessary.

You managed to interpret those verses even more incorrectly than Paul.

 

[Greediguts]

The giving of what brought death was accompanied by glory, so much more glorious should be he who brings forth that which gives life.
The glory Moses manifested would have killed others, and so the veil. The glory that originated with Jesus is spiritual in nature and can be gazed upon because it gives life, so no veil is necessary.

Ethnikos, I'm......at a loss really. Would you care to offer some scripture to show how it reinforces your interpretation?

Interesting. I had gotten into the Jewish history, but never read any of the commentary as it applied to Paul. Do you have any recommendations?

Well, so far it's been a mish-mash. I started volunteering at my local library so I've been hanging out there more often, briefly picking up various books, reading parts, and moving on. I haven't come across anything directly dealing with Paul; I've just read several Jewish commentaries on different books of the Hebrew Bible. I'll try to remember to write down some titles. I've also been surfing more Jewish websites.

I did find a book called The Trial and Death of Jesus by Haim Cohn (bargain bin Barnes & Noble $3.99). It was reprinted when Mel Gibson made his Passion movie. The author was an Israeli Supreme Court Justice who points out legal inconsistencies in the narrative of Jesus' arrest, trial, and execution, using his knowledge of ancient Hebrew law. Pretty good read.

For anyone interested I also recently read God against the Gods by Jonathan Kirsch. The author talks of the struggle between polytheism and monotheism and how various Caesars influenced the outcome.

 

[Hokulele]

...

I did find a book called The Trial and Death of Jesus by Haim Cohn (bargain bin Barnes & Noble $3.99). It was reprinted when Mel Gibson made his Passion movie. The author was an Israeli Supreme Court Justice who points out legal inconsistencies in the narrative of Jesus' arrest, trial, and execution, using his knowledge of ancient Hebrew law. Pretty good read.

...

Which one of the narratives?

Seriously though, I will be at a library this afternoon and will look for that.

 

[Nonpareil]

Ethnikos, I'm......at a loss really. Would you care to offer some scripture to show how it reinforces your interpretation?

Oh, please, don't ask him to do that. It'll start the whole translation thing all over again.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Funny, first they claimed Pilate never existed.

Rubbish.
No-one ever claimed Pilate didn't exist.

That's just another false claim of apologists.

K.

 

[Piggy]

I don't know that there is any definitive scholarship on the kvod (glory) that's associated with YHVH. But it's a very ancient idea.

Ezekiel saw the kvod moving to the east, which marked the transition from a God who tabernacled with his people in the Temple to a God who was omnipresent, and could be with his people wherever they were.

In the patriarchal (pre-temple) days, of course, only the priests -- and not all of them -- were allowed to experience the kvod and live. Only they could go into the sanctum sanctorum and commune with YHVH.

When Moses came down from the mountain, the kvod shone on his face, and the people were afraid lest they suffer death from experiencing the kvod, because they had not been offered the dispensation that Mosed had been granted.

The kvod does not seem to be a characteristic of El. El (the god of Adam and Abraham) walked among people with no implication that anyone would be struck dead from viewing his glory. So this notion of fatal glory seems to have been introduced into Hebrew religion along with the transition from El worship to YHVH worship.

Paul posits Jesus as the means by which the barrier of the kvod is removed. By appearing in human form, God allows us to see Him face to face, without fear of death. It's evidence of His love for us, as well as of the transition from the old covenants of Law to a new covenant of the heart.

 

[Ethnikos]

Oh, look. Off-topic preaching. That's not normal for Ethnikos AT ALL.

The poster that I was replying to seemed to be making fun of Paul's interpretation without explaining what it was about it that caused him so much amusement.
I might have the wrong idea of what is off-topic. To me, anything brought up in a thread is fair game.

 

[Ethnikos]

You managed to interpret those verses even more incorrectly than Paul.

I figured I would throw in my interpretation of part of what Paul meant.
His main point was the temporary nature of the Old Testament system of sacrifice. That part is clear, so I was expanding and the part that he did not go in depth on.

 

[Piggy]

His main point was the temporary nature of the Old Testament system of sacrifice. That part is clear, so I was expanding and the part that he did not go in depth on.

That doesn't seem clear to me. How does a discussion of the kvod relate to Jesus' or Paul's opposition to animal sacrifice?

 

[Ethnikos]

Ethnikos, I'm......at a loss really. Would you care to offer some scripture to show how it reinforces your interpretation?

Romans 4:15 For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either.
Galatians 3:20 . . .For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

The people who were coming up to the mountain, as Moses was coming down, were so startled and overcome with the fear of death, that they turned and retreated back down the mountain.
Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:13 says that the people could not directly look at his face. The Vulgate version of Exodus 34:29 says that his face "darted out rays".
If the only problem with Moses' face was just that people could not directly look at him while he was speaking, the problem would be solved just by not looking directly at him, which they could not do, anyway. There would seem to me to be a larger issue, which is there was some kind of power in in the plasma field that was dangerous to ordinary humans. The Targum of Onkelos (a contemporary of Paul) called the veil, the house of the face, which sounds more substantial than a piece of linen draped over his head.

 

[Piggy]

Romans 4:15 For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either.
Galatians 3:20 . . .For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

The people who were coming up to the mountain, as Moses was coming down, were so startled and overcome with the fear of death, that they turned and retreated back down the mountain.
Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:13 says that the people could not directly look at his face. The Vulgate version of Exodus 34:29 says that his face "darted out rays".
If the only problem with Moses' face was just that people could not directly look at him while he was speaking, the problem would be solved just by not looking directly at him, which they could not do, anyway. There would seem to me to be a larger issue, which is there was some kind of power in in the plasma field that was dangerous to ordinary humans. The Targum of Onkelos (a contemporary of Paul) called the veil, the house of the face, which sounds more substantial than a piece of linen draped over his head.

Frankly, this makes no sense to me.

First of all, the Israelites were not attempting to go up the mountain. They were afraid to do so once they had heard the commotion.

Secondly, this talk of "power in the plasma field" has nothing to do with scripture.

What we see in this passage is a fear of the Israelites to look upon Moses' face, for fear that the Glory of God would kill them.

Moses calls the leaders to him first and speaks to them, and they see that they are not struck dead.

So they calm the people. And whenever Moses delivers the Word of God to the people, they see the Glory of God on his face, and in that way they know he is delivering the Holy Word. But he puts a veil on at all other times during this period when he is not delivering the Word because the Glory of God is an awesome sight.

He takes the veil off when he is in the presence of the Lord.

It's fairly straightforward.

(Of course, this larger section of Exodus is not so straightforward, being a splicing together of many different traditions, but perhaps we shouldn't get into that.)

 

[Hokulele]

...

Paul posits Jesus as the means by which the barrier of the kvod is removed. By appearing in human form, God allows us to see Him face to face, without fear of death. It's evidence of His love for us, as well as of the transition from the old covenants of Law to a new covenant of the heart.

I read that sort of the opposite way. Moses seems to have taken the veil because it removed an excuse for interaction with the Israelites. In other words, the kvod was an obstacle created in the minds of the Israelites (as evidenced by Aaron's reaction) rather than an obstacle imposed by YHVH.

Paul, on the other hand, sees the veil as an obstacle created by Moses to separate the Israelites from their God.