#its like the exegesis to a bible verse

[freebiblestudyhub]

What Does Genesis 22:7 Mean?

Read the Daily Bible Verse – Genesis 22:7 To Strengthen Your Spiritual Journey.

The story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22 is one of the most compelling narratives in the Bible, especially when we reflect on the intricate details of faith, sacrifice, and obedience. Within this narrative lies Genesis 22:7, a verse that seems innocent at first glance, but on closer inspection, raises profound questions about human trust in God, divine testing, and the foreshadowing of ultimate sacrifice.

In this article, we will explore Genesis 22:7 through a detailed analysis and exegesis, addressing the historical and theological context surrounding the verse, and its relevance to both ancient and modern Christian life. We’ll also compare this verse to other similar texts in the Bible to reveal a deeper understanding of God’s will and relationship with humanity.

The Context of Genesis 22:7 KJV

To properly understand Genesis 22:7, it is essential to first set the stage by looking at the broader context of the story. Genesis 22 tells the story of God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on Mount Moriah. This narrative is known as the Akedah or the Binding of Isaac.

God tests Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice his promised son, Isaac. This was the son that God had promised Abraham and Sarah, a child born after many years of barrenness. Isaac represents the fulfillment of God’s covenant promise to make Abraham a great nation (Genesis 12:2-3).

The events leading up to Genesis 22:7 reveal the profound faith of Abraham. Without hesitation, Abraham prepares to obey God’s command, waking up early, saddling his donkey, taking two servants and his son Isaac, and setting off for the place God directed him to. After a three-day journey, Abraham sees the location and instructs his servants to stay behind while he and Isaac go forward to worship.

Genesis 22:7 (KJV) reads:

“And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”

At this moment, Isaac realizes something unusual. While they have the tools necessary for the sacrifice—fire and wood—there is no lamb for the burnt offering. Isaac’s question is not just one of curiosity but is pregnant with symbolism. It highlights both the faith of Abraham and the uncertainty of Isaac, who does not yet know that he is the one who is to be sacrificed.

The Genesis 22:7 Meaning

Genesis 22:7 serves as a pivotal verse in this story, where Isaac’s innocent question presents a tension between human understanding and divine intention. Isaac’s question echoes the inherent struggle in the narrative—the juxtaposition between human logic and divine command.

At a surface level, Isaac’s question seems practical. In ancient times, sacrifices were a common means of worship and devotion to God, particularly in the form of burnt offerings. Burnt offerings were made by presenting an animal on an altar, symbolizing the offering of something valuable to God in order to seek His favor, offer thanks, or atone for sins. Naturally, Isaac, having likely witnessed or participated in sacrifices before, knew that an animal was missing. His question is that of a son trusting his father yet curious about the missing lamb.

However, at a deeper level, Isaac’s question exposes a spiritual reality. Isaac is unknowingly asking about his own fate, for he is the one designated for the sacrifice, though at that moment, he is unaware of God’s ultimate plan. This brings into focus the deeper theological concept of substitutionary atonement that resonates throughout the Scriptures. The missing lamb foreshadows the Lamb of God—Jesus Christ—who would ultimately be sacrificed in place of humanity to atone for their sins.

From Abraham’s perspective, this question must have been heart-wrenching. Knowing that his beloved son is meant for the sacrifice, Abraham must have struggled internally. Yet, his unwavering faith in God and His promise prevails, as seen in his response in the following verse: “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:8 KJV). Abraham’s answer is a prophetic statement of faith, trusting that God will either provide an alternative sacrifice or bring Isaac back to life if necessary.

Genesis 22:7 Application in Life

Genesis 22:7 offers a profound application for believers today. At its core, the verse teaches us about trust—both the trust of Isaac in his father and the trust of Abraham in God.

Isaac’s inquiry is a reflection of the curiosity and concern we often feel when facing uncertainties in life. As humans, we tend to ask questions like, “Where is the provision?” or “Why is this happening?” These are moments where faith and logic seem to be at odds, much like Isaac’s question. But Isaac’s trust in his father represents how we, as believers, are called to trust our Heavenly Father, even when we do not understand the full picture.

For Abraham, Genesis 22:7 is a test of his faith and trust in God’s promises. Although he doesn’t have the immediate answer, he expresses confidence in God’s faithfulness. Abraham’s faith can inspire believers to trust God’s provision, even when the situation seems bleak. In times of testing or hardship, we must rely on God’s timing and provision rather than our own understanding.

The narrative of Abraham and Isaac also serves as a precursor to God’s ultimate plan of salvation. Just as God provided a ram in place of Isaac, so He provided Jesus Christ as the sacrificial Lamb to take away the sins of the world. For Christians, Genesis 22:7 can be seen as a foreshadowing of Christ’s sacrifice, teaching us about God’s redemptive love and His willingness to provide what is needed for our salvation.

Comparison with Other Biblical Texts

Genesis 22:7 shares thematic similarities with other passages in Scripture, particularly those involving sacrifice, testing, and divine provision. One such example is the story of the Passover in Exodus 12. Just as Isaac was spared from being sacrificed, the firstborn sons of Israel were spared during the Passover when the blood of a lamb was placed on the doorposts of the Israelites’ homes. In both instances, we see the substitutionary role of a lamb in sparing human life—a direct parallel to the sacrifice of Christ in the New Testament.

Another passage that resonates with Genesis 22:7 is found in Hebrews 11, often referred to as the “Faith Hall of Fame.” Here, the writer praises Abraham’s faith, particularly highlighting his willingness to offer Isaac as a sacrifice because he trusted that God could raise him from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). This further underscores Abraham’s faith in God’s ability to provide, even when circumstances seem impossible.

A final comparison can be made with John 1:29, where John the Baptist proclaims Jesus as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” The concept of the lamb as a substitutionary sacrifice finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ, connecting Genesis 22:7 to the central theme of the Gospel.

Modern-Day Relevance

The story of Abraham and Isaac, particularly as highlighted by Genesis 22:7, holds significant relevance for Christians today. This verse challenges believers to examine their own faith and trust in God. Do we trust God’s provision, even when we don’t see it immediately? Are we willing to obey Him, even when His commands seem difficult or unclear?

In a world filled with uncertainties, Genesis 22:7 encourages Christians to embrace a faith that trusts God wholeheartedly. It teaches us that, while we may not always understand the reason for our trials or tests, God is faithful and will provide what we need—be it strength, guidance, or material provision—at the right time.

Additionally, Genesis 22:7 serves as a reminder of God’s ultimate provision in Jesus Christ. Just as God provided a ram in place of Isaac, He provided His only Son to take our place on the cross. This act of grace and mercy is the foundation of the Christian faith and serves as a call to live in gratitude and obedience to God.

Conclusion

Genesis 22:7 is far more than a simple question from Isaac to his father. It is a deeply symbolic verse that encapsulates themes of faith, obedience, divine provision, and the foreshadowing of Christ’s sacrifice. Through Isaac’s innocent question, we see the human struggle to understand God’s plan, as well as the call to trust Him despite uncertainties.

The relevance of this verse extends beyond its historical context, offering timeless lessons for believers today. As we reflect on Genesis 22:7, we are reminded to trust in God’s provision, to walk in obedience, and to place our faith in the ultimate Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, who was sacrificed in our place.

Genesis 22:7 Commentary

Scholars and theologians have long reflected on Genesis 22:7 as a moment of tension and revelation. Many view Isaac’s question as an archetype of the human condition—our search for answers and understanding in the face of divine mystery. Abraham’s response, “God will provide,” has been seen as both an expression of his deep trust in God and a prophetic declaration of the coming Messiah.

Rabbinic interpretations often focus on Isaac as a willing participant in his near-sacrifice, seeing his question as a step toward realizing his role in the test of faith. Christian commentators, on the other hand, typically draw a direct parallel between Isaac and Christ, emphasizing the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice. Regardless of perspective, Genesis 22:7 remains a verse that invites readers to reflect deeply on the nature of faith, obedience, and God’s provision.

[pastorhogg]

Into the Text

Unveiling the Power of Colossians 1:11 – A Journey into Historical Context and Exegesis Introduction In the vast treasure trove of the Holy Bible, certain verses shine like diamonds, their brilliance radiating timeless wisdom and guidance. Colossians 1:11 is one such gem, whose multifaceted beauty can only be fully appreciated when we delve into its historical context and undertake a careful…

[ironwoman359]

This is probably not the best place to ask, but you’re also a Christian woman too. I was wondering what you thought about what the Bible says about women and how we must submit to husbands and some other stuff that has me (a potential ace) Christain woman kind of terrified. I would go to my church but social anxiety and my church is pretty conservative. I don’t want to think that we’re just second rate citizens with this. Um…that’s all. You don’t have to answer. Love your Tumblr. It’s one of the main ones I look at. Thanks for countless enjoyment!

— — —

(I’m responding on the submission and not the ask because the ask refused to post properly, I think it was too long for Tumblr’s fancy)

So I know you just asked for my thoughts and not a biblical interpretation lesson, but I didn’t spend 3 months writing an exegesis in college for me to never use those skills again, so buckle up for something of a long answer! (literally, this is almost 3 thousand words, so....sorry about that) *rubs hands together* The thing we need to take into consideration when reading the bible is Interpretation; any truly honest biblical scholar would tell you it is a mistake to take every word in the bible at its literal face value, ESPECIALLY since most of us are reading translations of scripture, not the original ancient hebrew/greek/aramaic/whatever else. So when interpreting scripture, we must consider these things:

Author (Who wrote it?)

Audience (Who was it written for?)

Context (What is written around it?)

So the verses you’re referencing are Ephesians 5:22-23, and in the NIV, they read as follows:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Isolated from author, audience, and context, they sound pretty sexist, don’t they? And male authority figures have used these verses as justification for the oppression of women for centuries, just as white men used the passage only a few verses away, Ephesians 6:5, as justification for the oppression and ownership of black people (Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ). So let’s look at each of the points above in regards to Ephesians 5 and 6. First, who wrote it? Sometimes that can be a tricky question to answer, but in this case, it’s actually very easy (though there is still a bit of fuzziness/debate). Traditionally, Ephesians is one of the Apostle Paul’s letters to the early church. Specifically, to the body of believers in Ephesus, a Greek city that was a part of the Roman Empire at the time. According to two different study bibles I have, the letter of Ephesians was not addressing any particular problem that the church in Ephesus had (as was often the case with Paul’s letters), but was meant as an encouragement of faith and to increase his readers’ understanding of what it meant to be a follower of Christ. So now what about the Context? Why are the verses at the end of chapter 5 and beginning of chapter 6 so damning to our modern sensibilities? To answer that, we must look at the passages both in context to the verses around them, and in historical and cultural context (which is where 1 & 2 come into play again). Going back to the beginning of chapter 4, which is subtitled “Unity in the Body of Christ” (and remember, these subtitles and groupings were come up with LONG after they were written; we grouped sections together in a way we thought was most logical, which honestly for a book as short as Ephesians I would argue is barely even necessary), we can see that the letter from chapter 4 onward is about living a Holy and Godly life. Chapter 4 urges us to be “completely humble and gentle, be patient, bearing with one another in love” and warns us against living “as the Gentiles* do, in the futility of their thinking.” *Gentiles in this case meaning not neccesarily all non-Jews, but non-believers. AKA, we should live like Jesus lived, WWJD and all that jazz. If the Holy Spirit is in our hearts and our relationship with God is at the forefront of our lives, then that should show clearly in our actions. The very first verse of chapter 5 reads “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Chapters 5 and 6 especially are meant to act as a sort of guide for how a follower of Christ should act. There’s some stuff about obscenity, greed, sexual impurity, 5:15 sums it up pretty well basically, “Be very careful, then, how you live- not as unwise but as wise,” and then we reach the all important verse. Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” That’s a full sentence, just that there. Submit to one another. The following three sections are all subsections of this point: one for Wives submitting to Husbands, one for Children submitting to Parents, and one for Slaves submitting to Masters. But when looking at all of these, bad shepherds (ie, racist, sexist assholes) like to ignore that first bit, submit to one another, just as they like to ignore 5:28, which says “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself;” or they ignore 6:4 which says “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord;” and they ignore 6:9, “Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” I do highly encourage you to read chapters 4, 5, and 6 in full, or at least start at 4:17, which is where Paul starts talking about “Living as Children of Light,” because it makes the intent of these apparently damning verses much more clear. Paul is stating that as Christians, we should treat everyone around us with honor and respect. According to one of my study bibles, the grammar of the original Greek suggests that the “submission” involved in all three sections is intended to be mutual submission, and is to come from a filling of the Holy Spirit. However, to be quite frank, Paul still Lived In A Society. A highly structured, patriarchal society, in which all members of a household (women, children, slaves) were expected to submit to the patriarchal head of that household. Male children until they reached adulthood, Slaves until they were freed (remember that, while by no means a purely morally good thing, the system of Roman Slavery was VASTLY DIFFERENT from the Atlantic Slave Trade that men later used this passage to justify existing), and women, unfortunately, for their whole lives. In another one of his letters, what is now the book of Galatians, Paul says in chapter 3 verse 27-29 that “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This would have been radical at the time. Paul is promising all people of all genders and classes that, in the eyes of God, they are Equal, One, and all “sons,” meaning that they all have a right to the Inheritance of the Father (remember, at this time and in this culture women did not get any inheritance, and younger sons got significantly less than the firstborn. Paul assures the believers that they ALL are equal receivers of the Promises of God). But this equality that Paul speaks of was, in his eyes, a spiritual equality. He was not particularly concerned with overthrowing the earthly patriarchal society that subjugated women and lower classes, but rather instructed all members of that society who also were Believers to submit equally to one another out of love and respect, for they were all Equal in God’s eyes and would be Equal in heaven. This is why he both tells women to submit to and obey their husbands, but also husbands to love, cherish, and care for their wives. Children, obey your parents, but Fathers, don’t be dicks to your kids. Slaves should obey their masters (slavery was much more like a job that you weren’t allowed to quit until your boss said so) but Masters shouldn’t abuse their slaves. There are Societal Authorities, and Paul is telling his readers “look you can’t just go around not respecting those Authorities, but also hey, if you’re the Authority? That’s not a free pass to be an asshole.” As one of my study bibles puts it, “Paul counseled all believers to submit to one another by choice…this kind of mutual submission preserves order and harmony in the family while it increases love and respect among family members.” Paul is basically saying “it’s better for everyone if we all get along, and remember that Christ had a servant’s heart, and intentionally lowered himself for us, so we should do the same for each other.” And while a patriarchal class system is still super sucky for like 80% of the people involved, at least it’s a whole lot more bearable if everyone involved is being a Nice, Good Member of that Society. You mentioned being worried about being treated like a “second rate citizen.” The fact of the matter is that when this was written, women were second rate citizens; that is the context in which Paul is writing. And while I firmly believe that that was wrong, in every sense of the word, Paul wasn’t especially concerned about challenging that aspect of society. Priority one was “Spread the Gospel” and Priority two was “Don’t Get Killed while Spreading the Gospel.” Speaking of Paul, let’s talk a little more about Saul of Tarsus, shall we? In all literary analysis, it is important to examine the author’s beliefs and what biases may have made their way into the work. And while we believe the bible to be a Holy Book, it can and should be subject to the same rules of literary analysis as non-religious texts. First, you must ask yourself, what do you believe about the bible? There are four general ways of looking at it (which are called Theories of Inspiration).

The bible is the Divine Word of God, dictated word for word across centuries directly to its human authors by God Himself.

The bible is the Divine Word of God, written across centuries by men Inspired by the Holy Spirit. While they are writing in their own words, this Inspiration means that the bible is Wholly Perfect with no errors.

The bible is the Divine Word of God, written across centuries by men Inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, because they are imperfect, fallible men, there is a possibility of errors in the text, both in the account of events that happened and in the teaching therein.

The bible is a collection of accounts written by men, with no Divine Intervention from God. It is not Holy, God’s Word, or Infallible.

I was raised to believe theory 2, but now I personally believe theory 3. And since I’m the author of this analysis, it is through the lens and bias of theory 3 that I now present my next point: Paul was sexist. I don’t think he was maliciously so (see again, Galatians 3, and the statement in Ephesians 5 that men should honor, cherish, and care for their wives), but he was a product of his time who had ingrained ideas about women and their place in society. This does not A) mean he was right about how women should act OR B) mean that we should toss out everything he had to say, about women or otherwise, because he was Problematic. Most biblical authors were, in fact, Problematic. Either by our modern standards, due to the time in which they lived, OR by the standards of their own time, because God liked to use Imperfect People (we’re all imperfect, but He liked particularly imperfect people) in His plans. David was an adulterer and murderer. Paul happily sent dozens of Christians to their deaths. Peter was hotheaded and super prejudiced against Gentiles and Samaritans. And most of them were, in one way or another, sexist, racist, and homophobic. These biases then found their way, intentionally or not, into their writings, and then other racist, sexist, homophobic men used those writings to justify systemic oppression of anyone who was not like them. Oppression that is not Christlike. So where does that leave us, in our 21st century application of scripture to our daily lives? We must examine how it was to be read at the time (which we have done), and then see what we can apply from it to our own lives. For myself in my marriage, I look again to the original grammar of Ephesians 5, that indicates the submission is to be mutual. I “submit” to my husband, and he “submits” to me. In other words, our relationship is built on Trust, Clear Communication, and Respect for one another. Sometimes we have to compromise, and I have to put aside my own desires for his sake, or he must set aside his own desires for my sake. It is a willingness to listen to one another, to approach conflicts with an open mind, to consider each other’s feelings before we speak. It is an equal, mutual submission based on love for each other, which doesn’t contradict what Paul says at all. God created all people to be equal. Humans are stupid sometimes and try to insist that we know better, try to create hierarchies and use the bible to try and justify that, but that doesn’t mean those humans are right. If your church is trying to make you feel less than because of your gender, or if you date somebody who pushes TradWife rhetoric and tries to use Ephesians as their justification, then you Run, and feel justified in doing so. (Especially if they also try to use Paul’s words to tell you why you owe your partner sex; see again, Paul was not only sexist but also lived in a patriarchal time when women were second class citizens that had very specific expectations placed on them AND he wasn’t even in a relationship himself, forgive me if I take his advice on my sex life with a grain of salt. Without doing this whole process again, a good modern reading of “don’t deprive one another” is “don’t use sex as a weapon in your relationship/withhold it for bs reasons when you’re mad at each other, etc. Like all other relationship things, sex (or a lack thereof) with your spouse should be based on mutual trust, communication, and love, not petty arguments or the standards of others.)

Trust me, as an ace woman myself, I totally get the fear. I’ve felt it myself, in the past. But God’s intentions for you are not that you become a doormat or servant to a man. If a romantic relationship (or any other partnership) is part of His plan for you, then the bible clearly states, both in Ephesians and elsewhere, that it should be one built on Love and Trust, not Subjugation and Servitude.

I hope this helped you, and again, sorry it was so long XD. Have an amazing day! <3

[a-queer-seminarian]

[id: thumbnail for a youtube vid labeled “Bible Tools Tour 1: Looking Up the Hebrew & Greek when you don’t know Hebrew & Greek!” Part of a Bible passage in both Hebrew and English with grammar notations is visible, with an image of me, a white nonbinary person with short brown hair, smiles at the viewer from the lower right corner.  / end id]

Hey y’all, i’m starting a video series where i show how YOU (yes, you!) can use free online resources to explore a Bible passage’s original language even if you don’t know it yourself! My goal is to make biblical exegesis as accessible to as many people as possible.

Most importantly, I offer examples of why it matters -- how knowing what's in the Hebrew or Greek, and what choices the makers of any given translated version made, can influence your interpretation of a passage

Feedback is super appreciated because it’s hard to gauge what’s like, common knowledge versus what needs deeper explanation when you’re personally very knowledgeable about a subject, ya know? So tell me if the video makes sense! If it’s helpful or if you’re totally lost! What questions ya have! what more you wanna see! and so on!

(Even if you don’t have time to watch the whole video, just watching a portion or two of it could be useful to you and feedback you have on those parts would help me!)

More details about what this video holds can be found under the readmore, or in the YouTube video description.

Not everyone has the time & resources to learn biblical Hebrew & Greek like I did -- but that doesn't mean you can't dig into a Bible passage's original language a little bit! These days, there are resources FREE to anyone with internet access -- the trick is knowing what they are and how to use them. That's what this video series is for!

In this first video, I guide you through the most basic things you can do via free websites like biblehub.com & netbible.org:

compare different translations;

focus on one word you want to study further and find it in the Hebrew/Greek + look up definitions;

do a word search to see all its occurrences in the Bible;

and find translators' commentary.

TIMESTAMPS:

(0:00 - 3:43) Introducing myself & the purpose of the video 

(3:44 - 8:19) Introducing biblehub.com & how to view parallel versions of a passage - the Cain & Abel story

(8:20 - 13:05) Choosing a verse for deeper study: Gen 4:4 - comparing numerous English translations

(13:06 - 20:10) Looking at the Hebrew - interlinear verses; choosing one Hebrew word to look up in Strong's Concordance and Brown-Drivers-Briggs

(20:11 - 26:54) Exploring each occurrence of the Hebrew word throughout the Bible to see what it means in different contexts; my conclusions for how I would translate the word into English, how different translations of this one word affect the story's overall meaning

(26:55 - 37:15) Another word study example - exploring the Hebrew behind "my brother's keeper"

(37:16 - 46:00) Lumina's NET Bible - a resource with similar tools AND with helpful translators' notes on every Bible passage!

(46:01 - end) wrapping up

[sojourner-between-worlds]

Why the Idea of Disabled Jesus is Heretical

(Or, at best, a gross misinterpretation of Scripture. But really, it's heresy.)

@aspiringautistic asked on this post from my side blog: "what would be so harmful if there were people who perceived jesus as disabled?" and I am happy to oblige in expanding on those thoughts (though since the answer has little to do with autism and everything to do with Christianity in general, I thought it more appropriate to answer here on main). In case you hadn't prior seen the linked post and don't feel like clicking through, the short of it is this: the Gospel Coalition recently published an article in which the author, Andrew Abernethy, argued that Jesus was disabled. I'm here to tell you where he went wrong.

Hold on to your hats, folks. This is a long post.

(All Scripture quotations taken from the ESV translation.)

1. Disabilities are a result of the Fall. Before I get into anything else, I need to make this point abundantly clear. While being disabled does not dictate worth and it is not an indication of personal sin, it is still not how we are meant to be. Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of God, and were, therefore, created without sin or any of the things that came with sin. They were perfect -- at least until they disobeyed (Genesis 2-3). Sometimes people ask "if there is a God, why do bad things happen?" and the answer is because we live in a sin-cursed world. Disabilities, illness, and death itself exist because Adam and Eve sinned. (Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.")

.

.

2. Old Testament laws regarding sacrifices. The Old Testament Law is very specific when talking about what makes an acceptable sacrifice. There are a lot of different types (everything from bulls to grain), but the relevant ones to this discussion are sacrifices made for the atonement of sins. 

There are two categories of sacrifices made for sin: sin offerings made for unintentional sins, and burnt offerings made for sin in general. Burnt offerings and sin offerings both ranged from bulls to doves (or flour for the latter, if nothing else could be afforded) and sin offerings varied depending on both the person and the sin as well (Leviticus 1, 4-5). But all of the animals sacrificed had two instructions about them in common: that they be "without blemish", and that the sinner must place their hand on the head of the animal. The difference between the two was that a sin offering was required as an act of repentance and a burnt offering was voluntary. In the case of burnt offerings, the requirements for bulls and sheep or goats are laid out very plainly: "a male without blemish" (1:3, 10). 

In addition to all of this, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, one bull and two male goats would be sacrificed for the people to remove their sins (Leviticus 16; only one goat was killed; the other was sent away, symbolizing the removal of sin). Again, these animals had to be without blemish, just as all the others. The person offering the sacrifice was to place their hand on the head of the animal. The action of placing their hand was symbolic: it was a way of showing that the person's sin was being "transferred" to the animal so that the animal could take the person's place and receive the punishment for sin instead. "Without blemish" meant that it couldn't be sickly or diseased or crippled in any way. It had to be as close to perfect as was possible in a sin-cursed world because anything less than perfect had to die for its own imperfections. 

Because these sacrifices could never be truly perfect, they had to be repeated, but all of this was pointing to the time when Jesus would come as the final sacrifice made for the sins of the world.

.

.

3. Jesus as the final sacrifice. If you know anything about the Christian faith, you know that this is at the heart of everything we believe. Without Jesus, there is no gospel. So here's why that matters to this discussion: 

"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by the means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Hebrews 9:11-14, emphasis mine). 

This passage in Hebrews (as well as verses preceding and following) are all about how Christ made atonement for us with His death, and how His voluntary sacrifice of Himself is superior to the OT sacrifices. 

So allow me to direct your attention to the bolded phrase above: “offered himself without blemish”. If this sounds familiar, it should, since I talked extensively about this in the point above. “Without blemish” in Leviticus meant to be not crippled or disfigured or ill in any way. If this same phrase is also applied to Christ, then the same must be true. If the OT sacrifices were required to be so, why would the same not apply to the Final Sacrifice that ended the need for sacrifices to be made? It wouldn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense. Not when the OT sacrifices were pointing towards Jesus; not when we have a God Who created order and purpose. Jesus had to be perfect to take our places -- and that includes being free of deformities that are a result of a sin-cursed world.

.

.

4. Isaiah 53, misinterpreted at best. This was one of Mr Abernethy’s main points, and it’s one he got disastrously wrong by reading what he wanted into Scripture (eisegesis) rather than letting Scripture say what it says (exegesis). See, the thing about interpreting prophecy is that you have to be careful how you do it, and, just like all Scripture, make sure it’s within the proper context. 

In the case of this chapter of Isaiah, the wider context is that it’s a prediction of Jesus’ suffering on earth and His death. One of the verses he tries to pass off about Jesus being ugly or deformed is the second part of verse 3: “and as one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” The problem is, this verse and one directly after it are not about his physical appearance at all. They are about emotions and grief: “He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one whom men hide their faces, he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteem him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted” (vs. 3-4, emphasis mine). This is about Him bearing our burdens and our rejection of Him anyway. This is a parallel that continues as the chapter moves forward. 

There is only one physical description in this passage that is not related to His death, and it’s the second part of verse 2: “he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.” And this is the only point that Mr Abernethy got correct: Jesus wasn’t the Hollywood definition of drop-dead gorgeous. He looked like your average Joe. In order to not be conventionally beautiful/handsome, that does not dictate that a person must be deformed or “ugly” in any way. The only thing this verse means is that he didn’t stand out from the crowd with His looks. He didn’t look the way they thought their Savior should. That’s it. That’s all it means.

.

.

5. Tradition isn't truth (no matter how much anyone wants it to be). I have to admit, adding in a section about a so-called “tradition” that’s nigh on impossible to find anything about was brilliant. The average person wouldn’t even bother looking in the first place, and most people who would look, would give up after five or ten minutes of searching. I spent an hour and found exactly nothing on this “tradition” of Jesus being a leper. So you just... have to take Abernethy’s word for it. 

Aside from not being able to find anything on it myself, the argument he uses is faulty anyway. Because tradition doesn’t equal truth, in the first place, especially a tradition that didn’t pop up until the 16th century. There’s no basis for something that apparently wasn’t known until 1400 years after His death. 

Aside from that, he calls on Jerome’s Latin translation of Isaiah 53:4 that translates a phrase as “he was like a leper.” First of all, “like a leper” does not mean He actually was a leper. C’mon, man. Any fifth grader in America could tell you that similes are used for comparisons and aren’t literal. 

Second of all, if you’d like to make a point, it’s a much better idea to go back to the Hebrew manuscripts rather than to any one translation. Now, I don’t know Hebrew myself, but I do have access to a little thing called the Internet, where you can find a plethora of commentaries from people who do know Hebrew. For this particular problem, I went to Albert Barne’s Notes on the Whole Bible. I’m not going to put his whole notes here (because there’s a lot), but if you’d like to read all of his notes, you can search the verse on studylight.org and use the ‘jump to’ feature under the verse to find him, but the bottom line of his notes on it are this: Jesus wasn’t literally being rightfully punished like the Jews would incorrectly think; leprosy was used here as an example because it was seen as a divine punishment for sin. It has nothing to do with literal leprosy at all. 

And to top off this cake of incorrectness... well, has he even read the New Testament? If Jesus had had leprosy, He: a. wouldn’t have been allowed in temples or synagogues, b. wouldn’t have been allowed in towns period, and c. wouldn’t have been nailed to a cross because no one would have risked touching Him in order to do so. Abernethy shouldn’t have even brought this up in his argument, it’s so far off base, and no artist in the 16th century should have painted a painting of a leprous Jesus nailed to the cross because, quite simply, it never would have happened.

.

.

6. Jesus relates to us -- but not in the ways Mr Abernethy says. While he never cites any Scripture on this, I’m pretty sure I know where this idea came from. In his article, he states that in order for Jesus to have related to the disabled, He had to be disabled Himself. Since He relates to us, then He must have been disabled. 

First of all, the logical fallacy of this statement is this: if He must be disabled to relate to the disabled, then can the abled still relate to Him? The answer to that, of course, would be no, because if He wasn’t abled then He can’t relate to the abled in the same way that Abernethy asserts that He can’t relate to the disabled without being disabled. It’s one of those things where you can’t have it both ways. Another example of how this logic falls short is pregnancy. Can Jesus not relate to pregnant people because He Himself was never in such a state? And the rabbit hole just gets deeper from there: Can He relate specifically to the blind when He was never blind? How about the deaf or hard of hearing? Or people missing limbs, either from birth or through amputation? All disabilities are different, and experiencing one doesn’t mean you understand them all, so by Abernethy’s logic, Jesus had to experience all of them. Do you see how ridiculous Abernethy’s logic here is yet? 

Second of all, Abernethy is, once again, taking Scripture entirely out of context -- if, indeed, he got this idea from Scripture at all. Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” The problem with trying to use this verse as proof is, obviously, that it’s talking about temptations (Matthew 4:1-11), not lived experiences. If he was, again, referencing Isaiah 53 -- well, that doesn’t work either, because, again, that is in reference to His death and the sins He bore for us on the cross. The fact of the matter is, there are no Scriptures to back up the idea that He had to personally experience everything we do in order for Him to understand our pain and suffering. 

.

.

The source of this heresy is the same as many heresies, actually: People want to make Jesus into something He's not. I listened to a podcast recently where the host was talking about a couple of heretics, and while I don't remember the heretic's name, he said that to him, Jesus was Latinx because he himself is Latinx. Except that, ya know, Jesus was a Middle-Eastern Jew. It's the same fallacy to say that Jesus was disabled. Everyone wants Jesus -- and God, for that matter -- to be something He's not, rather than for Him to be what Scripture tells us He is, but you can't force God into the box you've carved for Him. He is who He is, no matter how much you want Him to be something different.

There's no getting around it: to make Him out to be anything other than what Scripture tells us He is -- especially when it contradicts Scripture, is heresy.

[paula-of-christ]

@toothy-merpagan Okay I am making this a separate post because this is going to be a long exegesis and that post was already getting pretty long. I’ll try and have as many links as I can to further readings so that I’m not bogging this down too much. I will also try to keep it not-too academic, so that it is as easily understandable as possible.

I want to start with first this idea that Christians get from Judaism, and did not really exist in paganism, at least not in Norse paganism (there is some “proof” that around the time of Socrates this idea was applied to the Greco-Roman gods but it depends on how you read it). There are 5 main ideas that Christians inherited from Judaism but I am just going to talk about this one because it’s the only relevant one, and that would be the idea of ethical monotheism. Pretty simple concept, but that’s why there is such a rift between paganism and the Abrahamic religions, and frankly with Taoism as well. We belief that God is the ultimate source of morality. There is no one ultimate source of morality in paganism. Socrates makes this argument in the Euthyphro, asking this priest of Zeus what IS the good. They do not come to a conclusion because the only thing Euthyphro can say is that the good is which the gods love, but all of the gods love different things.

With that in mind, I will not challenge you about your gods not being totally moral, though they have shown through their theology to be unrepentant in terms of wanting bloodshed and war and the culture from which those beliefs came from, that isn’t totally the point of this post. I do highly encourage you to read purely academic things about Nordic paganism and how it was tied into their culture because I think it will give you a better idea of what those gods actually stand for.

Your first link did not include verse 15, which states that it is talking about any city at a considerable (close) distance, but is not part of the nation of Israel. This is interpreted, from its Jewish roots (Deuteronomy is apart of the Torah, or “the Jewish Bible”), as being made so because of cities near Jerusalem and the rest of Israel that were influencing Jewish practices to the demonic. Like the Canaanites whom were practicing atrocities such as child sacrifice. It also starts that chapter (20) with saying ONLY do these things if and only if you offer surrender first and they do not accept.

The second link to that of the Midianites, which is a continuation from chapter 25, which starts off be describing how the Israelites were prostituting themselves with the women of Moab and Midian. As well, went to their sacrifices for pagan gods and ate of the sacrifices, kind of exactly the opposite of what God has been telling them to do throughout Exodus. This “genocide” also starts off with God ordering the death of the leaders that allowed these things to happen.

I understand how from a “well that isn’t very loving” perspective that sounds unmerciful and yes, genocidal, but you also have to remember, you’re reading this in 2021. You’re not reading this when these things were happening. Human morals are changing, evolving. Christians still profess this, that those who do not repent and turn away from their sin will suffer like that. The Hebrew Bible is the constant telling and retelling of God commanding His people a certain way and then when they don’t listen, they get punished. Because consequences are a thing, they are very real. There is also this theologian that talks about the genocides in the OT in general but I don’t really like any of his proposed ideas in the article so I’ll let you peruse it at your own leisure.

Gonna be real I hate the NIV translation because it loses its tone, I am very familiar with that chapter though and it ends with, the only time in any of his letters where he isn’t speaking authoritatively, “judge for yourselves if what I have said is true.” He is drawing from Jewish practices at the time and Jewish customs, including when he talks about earlier in the letter about covering ones hair or not covering ones hair during prayer.

It is also debated whether Paul actually said that specific verse, since it is saying the opposite of what chapter 11 says, in which he talks about how women pray and prophesy in the name of the Lord, indicating that women DID and WERE allowed to speak during church services. This is found on the note at the beginning of verse 34 of my NABRE bible on YouVersion bible app. It usually has the same footnotes as my paper copy NABRE study bible by Oxford. It is also cross-referenced with the first letter to Timothy which is largely regarded as the “Letter to the Priesthood,” indicating that the interpretation was never “women can never speak” but that they could not be giving homilies or preaching. They may read scripture and be active in praying, as they should be.

And your last link is that similar to what I said above, that yes, those who do not follow the Lord, even when they know what the Lord wants of them, shall die. That was the whole thing from the beginning when He created humans. But there is still a standard there. It is not every man for himself, you cannot kill someone because you want something he has. It is a condemnation of sin that results in death. And if you didn’t read the link I had above because lets be real, this is long and so was that link, one of the arguments made is that these are not killings that actually happened.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for what the Norse did, actually physically do, because their gods commanded it. The Israelite culture was not founded and based around war and conquering, however the Viking culture was.

I am sorry that people abused you and used these quotes and false reasonings to justify it. No one deserves that and if you would like to know more about theology feel free to reach out to me either dm or an ask and I’ll try to answer to the best of my ability.

[academicatheism]

Arguments From Vagueness Against the So-Called God of Monotheism

Let’s start with well-known, often disputed verses:

For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. Deuteronomy 10:17

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment. Psalms 82:1

There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours.Psalms 86:8

And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done. Daniel 11:36

Recently, I brought up the fact that modern Christians are polytheists. On the one hand, they believe in the God of the Bible and on the other, the so-called god of philosophers or as they would put it, the god of monotheism. A commenter on my post over on Wordpress brought up the fact that the early Jews were polytheists. He provided a number of verses like the ones above. I responded to him and stated that Christians have a go-to copout. They’ll argue that this is a merely a recognition that people at the time worshipped other gods, gods that were mere idols. That, however, demonstrates that they are either ignorant of historical context or they know of the context and yet ignore it. We can discuss the polytheistic origins of Judaism further, but that’s not my purpose here. 

My purpose here is to debase the notion of a god of (mono)theism, to disrupt that convenient narrative. A Christian on Facebook recently offered an ontological argument he confused with Godel’s Ontological Argument. That wasn’t the argument he offered. He offered another ontological argument in where ‘God’ could be replaced with ‘Allah’ or ‘Ahura Mazda’ and the result wouldn’t change. Two other people then responded and said that the refutation fails because the argument sets out to prove the god of monotheism. 

The god of (mono)theism, as William Lane Craig posits, is timeless, personal, omniscient, and so on. I’ll set exegesis aside because there are ways to prove otherwise given passages in the Bible (e.g. why did god ask Adam questions in Genesis 3 if he’s omniscient?). What I want to offer instead is a new argument against the notion of a so-called god of (mono)theism. We know from mathematics that there are different infinities. Since infinity is already a large value, if we can even call it such, there’s no way for the human mind to apprehend one infinity or another, let alone distinguish them. So given that line of thinking, there’s an element of vagueness we can introduce to debase the notion of a god of (mono)theism.

Take, for instance, timelessness. A Christian will posit that their god has no beginning; he’s eternal and exists outside of time. All well and good. Let’s say there’s another being who had a beginning outside of the universe billions of years ago, e.g., Satan. What disqualifies this being from being timeless as well, especially given that we can’t ascertain the beginning of this being’s existence? In other words, if god is present at point 0 and then Satan at point 0.00000005, what difference is there? There are some beginnings that result in a virtual eternity and so, just like there are different infinities, there are different eternities, different versions of timelessness.

The same goes for omniscience. What if there’s a being that knows all things except one thing; let’s suppose this being doesn’t know how to play billiards. What is the difference between an omniscient being who knows all things and another being who knows all things save the required know-how to play billiards? Again, as there are different infinities, there are different levels of omniscience and we simply wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a being who knows everything and one who knows everything except for how to play billiards.

Omnipotence, omnipresence, the capacity to be personal, and so on, all fall victim to vagueness, and as such, the same defeater that exists for Godel’s Ontological Argument, namely that parallel arguments work just as well (see Oppy 1996), also exists for the notion of the so-called god of monotheism. There is no such entity. It is logically possible that, given vagueness, there are millions of beings that fit the description. However, one should not draw ontological conclusions on the basis of logical considerations. Just because there could be a million such beings doesn’t mean they actually exist; likewise, just because one such being is logically possible doesn’t mean it actually exists. The god that apologetic arguments allude to is a product of Christian obfuscation.

Given that Christians are overly fond of deductive arguments, I will do my best to formulate an Argument From Vagueness, which isn’t necessarily an argument on its own. Let’s consider Plantinga’s Victorious Ontological Argument:

A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.

Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.

Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Now, consider a parallel Argument from Vagueness. D1 is crucial to the argument.

D1: A being with maximal excellence* has omnipotence* (which is to be so close to all-powerful that its lone incapacity is negligible; it once failed to push a universe to the left), omniscience* (which is to be virtually all-knowing; it doesn’t know how to play billiards), and perfectly good* (which is to be virtually morally perfect, but it once told a white lie). Maximal greatness* is to have maximal excellence* across all possible worlds.

A being has maximal excellence* in a given possible world W iff it is omnipotent*, omniscient*, and wholly good* in W.

A being has maximal greatness* if it has maximal excellence* in every possible world.

It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness*.

Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient*, omnipotent*, and perfectly good* being exists.

Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient*, omnipotent* and perfectly good* being exists.

Once this counter-argument is offered, what a Christian has left is the bare assertion that a being with maximal excellence* isn’t truly god because it has negligible limitations. The question remains: how do we know that the purported attributes of god are true? It is, as it will always be, a matter of faith. There is no way to ascertain that god is eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient. We can ask whether he is perfectly moral, but that’s a separate issue entirely. The thrust that Arguments From Vagueness drive is that there’s no justification for speaking of any infinity with such certainty. There may be an infinity so near to the one a theist reveres that the differences are negligible. That’s precisely what these arguments are designed for. 

[dpeace85]

The Gospel

On reading the word:

A lot of people seem really stressed out these days. I’d say politics is the main source of it. But the pandemic is running a tight second. I can’t help but notice the helplessness I see in the people around me. It just seems like everyone is lost. Not just mentally or emotionally, but spiritually. And that’s what concerns me most. I read my Bible and listen to what self-professing Christians around me say, and what I hear is very different from what I read. I’m no scholar, but the scriptures just don’t seem, to me, to be hard to understand. I believe the problem is most people read the Bible the wrong way. Yes, there is a “right” and “wrong” way to read. That’s true of any text. If I’m browsing the isles of the local bookstore and come across a title I’ve never heard of or seen, and decide to buy it, I’m going to read that book much differently than I would the New York Times bestseller.  The difference is the method of interpretation. The terms used for this are “exegesis” and “eisegesis”.

Approaching a text exegetically simply means reading the words and interpreting what is being said. This is quite easy to do if you’re unfamiliar with a book. In fact, exegetical is the only possible approach to an unfamiliar text. You have no preconceived notion or ideas about what you’re about to read. You simply open to page one and begin reading. By the end of the book, you’re likely to have a clear idea of what the writer wanted you to know. You’re not reading the book, while simultaneously searching for a “spoiler” your heard prior to buying it. There’s no confusion as to what you read, and what you thought the outcome of the story was supposed to be.

Eisegesis is just the opposite. The NYT bestseller is the one everyone is talking about. It’s been pre-released to the author’s biggest fans. It’s been talked about on all the morning shows, and it's the one people can’t wait to get their hands on. You already know what the story is about. You just don’t know how it ends. Or maybe it’s the classic. Most everyone has read it. You know the story, and how it ends. You’ve heard the highlights, and all the real-world implications of the text. So, when you finally get your hands on it, you start searching at page one for all the things you’ve heard. As you read, your mind constantly wanders back to those things, and certain parts of the book are a little confusing, because the interpretation “they” gave wasn’t exactly the way the text offers it. So, you just skim over those parts and get back to the stuff you know is there. This approach robs you of the full enjoyment of the book. It’s also a waste of time on behalf of the author. They wrote the book with the intent of all readers enjoying the full essence of the story.

Sadly, the Bible is almost always approached eisegetically. In all fairness though, it’s been around a while. Since the scriptures were first written, they have been passed through the generations almost exclusively by spoken word. In the early 1600s, King James I of England changed history for us all. Until then there was no English translation of the scriptures. The king believed people should be able to read them for themselves, instead of relying on someone else to do so. Since then, the Bible has been translated and printed in virtually every language on Earth. And because of this, it’s nearly impossible to pick up a Bible, open to Genesis 1:1, and begin reading without any preconceptions of the text. With that said, however, how many Christians try? And therein lies the problem with the modern Gospel – which is no Gospel at all.

I’m ashamed to admit I’ve received most of my Biblical education sitting in a church pew on Sundays, listening to a guy hiding behind a pulpit. Don’t get me wrong. I know there are no perfect people, and I’ve had some God-ordained leadership over the years. But I’ve also come to realize, in my adult faith, that several of my pastors and teachers over the years were – and some still are – sorely misguided. My entire Christian education can be summed up very simply: “Do your part, and let God do the rest.” What a waste of the Gospel. There’s infinitely more to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than just “let go and let God.” Put away the Bible studies. Put away the commentaries. Turn off the podcasts.

Read God’s word.

 

On God:

You must understand who God is. God doesn’t need you. God never needed you. God will never need you. You are because God wills you to be. Between the words “are” and “because” you can add anything your heart desires, but it will never be the result of anything you’ve done. When “the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Gen. 1:2) He knew that on this day, at this very moment, you would be reading these words. Not only did He know, He willed it. At this very moment, God knows exactly how many milliliters of blood are flowing through your heart with every beat. He also knows, at this very moment, how many milliliters of blood are flowing through every beating heart on Earth. Not only does He know, He is aware of every single one. He doesn’t have to think about it. He doesn’t focus on one thing, while something else slips by. He is deeply and intimately aware, at this very moment, of the number of times a bird in the Amazon must flap its wings to reach its next drink of water. Not only is he aware, but He willed it before the creation of the world. One might say God could just snap his finger and make everything disappear, but there’s no finger snap needed! God willed your life into existence before the creation of the world. He knew the exact moment of your birth. He knows the exact moment and means of your death. A person who is conspiring to kill you, and even takes action to do so, has no control of whether you live or die. No accidental death is truly accidental. No chronic disease was ever truly undiscovered or unexpected. God’s will is sovereign over all things and all people. Understanding this should cause us to fear God, because “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7).

God is not your buddy. There’s a verse in an old song I heard many times growing up that says, “I am a friend of God, He calls me friend.” It’s a fast-paced, clap-along, feel-good song. And the message of the song is based on John 15:15 where Jesus tells the disciples, “I no longer call you servants... I have called you friends.” But instead of an eisegetical approach to this passage, start at verse 12 and just read it. Jesus says, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know is master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my father I have made known to you.” Jesus starts by telling them to love like He loves. He then tells them the greatest example love is to die for your friends. He later dies for His friends. He also tells them His Father’s “business” which includes His death, and their future trials and persecution. In this passage, He’s telling them they must lay down their lives for Him, so that they can be called His friends. I’ve never had a buddy tell me he is going to die for me, and I must also return the favor. I can only conclude that my skewed definition of “friend” is a result of my modern Christian education. I know now that I must be called a friend of God if I want to spend eternity with him. I must be willing to die to gain eternity.

The part about dying doesn’t really concern me that much, though. I'll talk more about that later. The part I focus on is the “business” that He has made known to us. The Bible is our “master’s business.” It’s all written down and, thanks to King James I, we all can read it. It’s not a secret! Yet some Christians live every waking moment worrying about what’s going to happen next. Whether it be at work, at home, in politics, or in health, they worry. Why!? He’s already told you the end of the story! John wrote an entire book about it (Revelations). Prophets talked about if for centuries. Jesus talked about it often. We know God’s will. This should strike a deep fear in your heart! Not a fear of the future, but a fear that when God’s will comes to pass, you will be called an enemy of God, instead of a friend.

Pray that God will give you understanding of who He is.

 

On death:

If I understand I must lay down my life for God, to be called His friend, I must accept the fact that I am going to die. I must live with an awareness that this life will end. I see Christians every day that are consumed by fear of death, and it confuses me. I must admit I haven’t read my Bible cover to cover yet, but I’ve read many scriptures that tell me I’d much rather be dead than alive. It’s easy to sit at a keyboard and type such bold statements, but it’s very difficult to live them day to day. I know that if one of my children were to die, I’d be devastated – there are a million other words I could use there, but it’s safe to say none could truly describe the pain I’d feel. But at the same time, I can say with confidence in my faith, I know God knows the exact moment each of my children will leave this world. No matter how violent or unexpected that moment may be, He knew it would happen before he created the world. He willed it to happen that way. This brings me to a question I got the answer to when I started reading the Bible: Does life matter?

The murder of Abel in Genesis 4:8 is the first recorded death in history. It was sudden and violent. Having children of my own, I can assure you Adam and Eve took this pretty hard. I’m sure there were many tears and sleepless nights. Their lives were forever changed that day. Since that time in ancient history, however, not one single person has lost a minute’s sleep over Abel’s death. The story lives on thousands of years later but focuses more on Cain’s anger than the son Adam and Eve lost that day. There are six-year-olds in Children’s Church that can tell the story, from Abel’s burnt offerings to Cain’s punishment; all with a prideful smile on their face. Abel was beaten to death with a rock, and now his murder is featured in children’s story Bibles.

Then we move on the flood in Genesis 7. God himself killed everyone on Earth except for Noah and his family. And that’s pretty much all that’s said about all the people that died. Somewhere that day, some guy was sitting with his wife and kids at the dinner table, and it started raining. At some point over the next few days, he and his wife were treading water, desperately trying to keep their children’s heads above the surface. They all eventually sank slowly below the surface of the water and drowned. That happened to families all around the world, but the scriptures make no mention of it. The scriptures focus on Noah’s obedience to God, rather than the massive loss of life.

In Exodus 12 God kills the firstborn child of every Egyptian. Thousands of people – men, women, and children – all die at the same exact moment. Weeks before, a woman walks her child through the market, holding his hand so he wouldn’t get away from her and get himself hurt. The woman has never heard of Moses; has no knowledge of the struggle between Pharaoh and the Israelites. Her time is consumed by her toddler son. But soon, all the animals die. Locusts destroy the crops. The river that gives life-sustaining water to her child turns to blood. Through all of this, however, she manages to keep him alive and healthy. She’ll do whatever is necessary to keep her son safe. But one morning she awakens to find her son’s lifeless, cold body. He was just one of thousands. Exodus 12:30 says, “... there was a loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.” Thousands dead in one night, and all the Bible offers us is a “loud wailing.”

These events are some of the earliest events in history. We can tell these stories, along with many other stories in our more recent history and feel virtually no emotion. But the thought of losing someone close to us makes us sick to our stomach. The fear of dying leads us to extraordinary means of self-preservation. The current pandemic (COVID-19) is a perfect example. Over the course of history there have been numerous plagues and outbreaks of diseases that have claimed the lives of millions. However, those are not real to us because we weren’t there. We weren’t there when the first murder was committed. We weren’t there when everyone drowned. We weren’t there when the death angel came. We weren’t in the concentration camps. We weren’t in the Twin Towers. But we are in the pandemic. We have lost loved ones to COVID-19. This one is real to us. We isolate ourselves. We isolate others. We’re willing to help, if we can do it from a distance. The virus is deadly. Meanwhile, in countries like India, Peru, and Ethiopia, children dig through piles of rotting garbage for food, and drink contaminated water. Their parents have died from diseases we as Americans are vaccinated for as newborns.

At some point after you die, no one is going to remember you. So, the answer to my question is obviously, “No, life doesn’t matter.” Yet we fight so hard to keep it. It’s an end for us. So many people in the Bible embraced death. They rejoiced in it. They ran to it with open arms. Paul lived a miserable life after God changed him. He spent the rest of his days on the run, in prison, being beaten, starved, and homeless, but genuinely rejoiced in his sufferings. Paul wasn’t always under persecution. There were days when he was just in a bad situation. He spent days on a ship during a storm. He and the others on the ship were close to death on more than one occasion, but he never lost faith or doubted it was God’s will that he was in the storm. If he had died during the storm, it would have still been for the glory of God. He was a friend of God.

John 12:25 says, “Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” There are a lot of Christians out there who seem to really, really love their life.

 

On politics:

Since the beginning of time the vast majority humans have lived under some variation of a Monarchy. A king rules and the people obey. There is no such thing as a “God-given right to be free.” In the Old-Testament, God led many nations into battle. He led them to fight for His will and purposes. But for most of the Israelites’ - God’s chosen people – history, they were slaves. As Americans it’s hard for us to imagine any other way of life than what we’ve always known. We’ve reached a point in our nation where Christians feel they have a right to complain when the waitress wasn’t paying attention and got the order wrong. We think it’s necessary to cancel church services because the power is out. And we wouldn’t dare live without our guns. God has blessed America because of how good we’ve been as Christians, right? He gave us our right to be free, because we have honored him, right?

In Daniel 2, Daniel is interpreting a dream for King Nebuchadnezzar. The dream is about a statue made of various metals. Each section, from the head to the feet, each made of a different metal, represents a different kingdom in history. The last section of the statue is the legs and feet. The legs are made of iron, and the feet of iron and clay. Daniel tells the king this represents a kingdom in the last days. He describes the kingdom as “strong as iron” (v.40) and says, “it will crush and break all others” (v.40). Then he says the feet of iron and clay represent a divided kingdom, “partly strong and partly brittle” (v.42). He goes on to say its people will not remain “united” (v.43). During the time of this kingdom, Jesus will return, destroy all earthly kingdoms, and rule for eternity. This last kingdom Daniel refers to is the United States. The US has become the most powerful nation in history. Its power has enabled it to render aid to, protect, and even destroy other world governments. But the US is more divided now than ever. Our nation is weaker than it has ever been. We are no longer pure iron but have been mixed with an equal amount of clay. God’s moral standards still have a stronghold in our nation but are slowly diminishing by the day. So, if I believe Daniel is prophesying about the US, I must also believe our great blessings have nothing to do with what we have done and has everything to do with God’s will for His people. There is nothing we as Christians can do to turn our nation back to God. Biblical prophecy tells us time and again that’s just not going to happen. Our nation will remain divided until Jesus returns and destroys all nations... including ours.

So why are so many Christians so passionate about politics? The outcome of an election has no bearing on the moral declination of our country. It really doesn’t matter who the president is, or who our government leaders are. We as Christians have been called to do God’s will. Should you vote? If you want to, sure. Are we called by God to vote? Absolutely not.

In Matthew 8, several disciples are pledging their allegiance to Jesus. One of the disciples tells Jesus he will follow Him, but his father had just died. He says to Jesus, “Lord, first let me go bury my father” (v. 21). Jesus replied, “Follow me and let the dead bury their own dead” (v.22). This man was grieving. His father had not even been dead long enough to be buried. Jesus is telling him the work of the Father is more important than burying dead people. He also implies the man’s family is also dead even before they have died. He was referring to their souls.

What Jesus is teaching us in this passage is that we should not concern ourselves with worldly traditions. Let the world do worldly stuff. We need to be focused on eternity. Our future is not here on Earth. Our future is with God our Father.

 

On freedom:

So why am I writing all this? I just feel like a lot of my brothers and sisters in Christ are hurting when they don’t have to be. If you find yourself in a state of depression, or feel like you keep running in spiritual circles, open your Bible and just read the Word. God makes it very clear that He is in control. Understand you can do nothing to change or influence God’s will. You can’t read the scriptures and conclude you have any control over the world around you. The Bible tells us exactly what is going to happen to us and our nation... and every other nation on Earth. It’s all going to end. Our money, our homes, our stuff, our body, and our lives all have a time limit. We were never called to get a job, start a family, save for retirement, and live the American dream. We are called to repentance. We are called love like Christ loves. We are called to follow Him. Knowing this frees us. We can be free of stress, free of worry, free of depression.

But how do we gain this freedom? The generic answer would be, “Give your sin to God", or “Let go of your sin.” But Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). What slave has ever been able to just “let go" of their master? How can you give something away if you belong to it? You can’t. The idea that you have to take action to gain freedom in Christ is sinful. Jesus came to set us free, because we are slaves to sin. In order to be freed from sin, we must pray for God to release us. Only He can break those chains. This is the truth of the Gospel.

“So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” – John 8:36

Dusty Peace

2/16/21

[penhive]

Sermon on the Mount an Exegesis

Sermon on the Mount a Literary Exegesis

The Sermon on the Mount also known as Beatitudes of Jesus is the most memorable and intrinsic teachings of Jesus Christ.

I in my humble endeavor as a practicing Christian would like to write upon it.

1.           ‘Blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven’.

I am wondering why the term Blessed is connoted with the Spirit. The Spirit created by God was defiled with the Adamite intrusion of Sin. Although, the Spirit divinely ordained it lost its original texture and flavor, Christ redeemed it on the Cross of Calvary. So as Adam’s descendants we have to have a humility and lack of Ego. We have to totally surrender to the Will of God, Christ Jesus.

2.           ‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

The Bible in another passage tells us: ‘what you sow in tears, you will reap in joy’. When we enter the Lord’s presence through prayer, we are undergoing a mourning and thankful process. Comfort suggests of being blessed, not only you but your entire generations. The God that has happened is still happening and will also happen.

3.           ‘Blessed are the Meek, for they will inherit the Earth’.

God tells us to be humble; he also advocates to be at peace and love with those who dislike you. Inheriting the Earth also suggests the provisions of all the material wants that we need. Yes, another verse says: ‘Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you.’ Again, the psalmist proclaims: ‘delight yourself with the Lord, and he will give you the desires of the heart’.

4.           ‘Blessed are those who thirst for hunger and righteousness, for they shall be filled’.

This saying can be referred to the Scripture which says: Jesus said: ‘I am the water of life and whosoever drinks my water will never thirst’ Righteousness implies a perfection of spiritual principles laid down by Christ the Savior. For acquiring it we need to live a wholesome life dependent on Christ. Again, we look at the statement made by Christ to the Samaritan Woman. Jesus said to her, if you drink my water, you will never thirst again.

5.           ‘Blessed are the Merciful, for they will obtain Mercy.’

To obtain Mercy, we must have a kind, compassionate and contrite heart. God bequeaths us his divine mercy and also expects us to be merciful to our fellow beings.

6.           ‘Blessed are the pure in Heart, for they will see God’.

Pure means abstaining from all sin, wickedness and vice. We have many who have said: that Christ manifested in them physically. The word Seeing also refers to seeing things beyond out sight. Seeing implies putting God into all matters of the affairs of the heart.

7.           ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Children of God’

The word Children has a special implication here. When a group of Children approached Jesus, they were shooed away by the Disciples. Then Jesus told his Disciples: ‘let the little children come to me. Whoever wants to enter the Kingdom must be like one of these children. It’s important for us, humans to have child-like heart.

8.           ‘Blessed are those you are persecuted for righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.’

Here we must remember, Jesus had to sacrifice his own body on the cross and he bled to the last drop in remission of our sins. A servant of Jesus does not have a luxurious one but he or she has a rough-it -up life. Being a servant of Christ means that you should not aspire to become a celebrity. Being a devotee of God implies frugality and one must become devoted to the Cross that Christ carried.

[zaracoolstra]

Faith

This is an ongoing project/blog regarding faith; this will be revised at a later time, so there may be grammatical errors or some things may not make sense, I will do my best to make what is below, clear -- maybe not so much to some.

The reason why I have chose Christianity is due to my upbringing and development through my adolescent years. Faith was a challenge in itself (when I say ‘in-itself’ it does not mean I have found Jesus or discovered the causal, cause of faith. I just mean that when challenging it with those I grew up with around my sphere of influence they all left me with more questions than answers -- but they seemed to be completely satisfied with remaining with more questions)  during my years growing up there were many different ways in which faith was tested, defined, constructed, and construed. Faith according to scripture was defined in the book in the bible (Hebrews 11:1): now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. An example of this act of myself challenging a pastor, when I did, I told him according to scripture it does not say ANYWHERE that one must give tithing in order to go to heaven and that the person who was preaching happened to be his father. I suppose he took offense to that because a week or two later he left to America Samoa due to a calling that God had urged him to. Anyways, that was that, but back to faith; that was one example of which aligns to those many more questions than answers. In that specific case, I actually received an answer -- coincidence, I think not.

The key words that I am going to focus on are, “assurance, things hoped for, conviction, and things not seen”

For each one of these categories I will define what they mean in each separate context of scripture and the analysis of outside contexts and thoughts including personal experiences and other mediums.

It is inhuman (meaning NOT human like) not (inhumane like in poor treatment of animals, for one example); as I was saying, it is inhuman to have assurance of ‘things not seen’ at the same time to possess a conviction of things not seen, unless one concocts a imaginative cause for their justification for revenge. Humans cannot have assurance for something if they cannot begin to understand the ‘it’ (it being whatever they want to understand, and in this case “Faith”)

Here is faith: a long LONG time ago when human understanding was not capable of grasping the many facets and concepts were being conceptualized faith was also categorized in the depths of misunderstandings and gaps that science was unable to define. When humans are faced with something completely and utterly unknown, they define it under a concept something that is not seen. They (the religious thinkers) called it FAITH.

A contradistinction, in comparison to our legal system and religious systems, when a court case has never been seen before, there is a Latin word “Prima Facie” meaning “at first sight” similarly, “at first face”. The courts gather all the evidence and establish the preponderance of evidence or “the burden of proof” they establish the evidence before making a determination, in the religious thought methodology (if there is any method to it anymore) if they cannot define it within the confines of religious text(s) they either issue one of two things, perhaps both: “God works in mysterious ways” and “God’s ways are above our ways”. There process is defining words, through the original language: if its OT (Old Testament) they use Hebrew, if NT (New Testament) they use Greek. They pick out key words that are the focal point of the statement or verse, compare those words through cross-referencing similar passages and define those words within the original language, take some cultural context, read the whole chapter to achieve that context, then begin to map the historical and geopolitical issues and conflicts of the time to attempt at extracting or what they call “exegesis”.

This exegesis process is nowhere near a critical analysis of the text, typically when someone analyzes a text they use scholarly sources and comparisons within the same or even different perspectives to refine and accurately determine the value if there is any. In religious texts there is NO way to critically analyze any given text other than cross-referencing the principle passage to others within the biblical text, even in theologians go through this same exegetical process but go more in depth to the historical and geopolitical issues happening at the time. Just as the exegetical process remains to be uncritical outside of anything but itself; when taken out and compared to things outside of the principle text they say, “your taking it out of context” -- yes, one can say they are taking it out of ‘its’ context historically, literally, and figuratively. Which begs the question: can religious critical interpretations even be accomplish in the slightest bit? Can then, faith be taken seriously as a precept and cornerstone of one’s religion if one cannot know what they ought to have a conviction in? Prima Facie and based on the preponderance of the burden of proof -- maybe not. Is it impossible? They tell me: “Nothing is impossible for God”. Again I am at more questions than answers.

When we take a look at faith outside of itself:

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science) and when Nietzsche states that faith is the willingness or “will to ignorance” (WP) they do not want to know what is true, that it takes no reason whatsoever to deny the truth and replace it with a ultimatum of truth that surpasses any and all reason and or logic and willingly ignore it. This ultimately leaves Nietzsche with the conclusion that because Faith is not wanting to know what is true that one who actively engages in the ‘faith’ process essentially believes in nothing, they are considered an active nihilist. We can then, ‘condition’ ourselves to choose unconsciously one religion over another, believe in these concepts like faith. That is where the danger lies in hibernation; perhaps Pascal gave up and determined it was better to believe, than not to believe creating a derivation of what we know as “faith”.

[dalyunministry]

Let's pray...

FATHER IN THE NAME OF JESUS, ITS ALL BY THY MERCIES , LOVE ,GRACE AND ABOVE ALL THE PRECIOUS GIFT OF LIFE THAT WE ARE KICKING,I SET MYSELF ASIDE AND I ASKED YOU TO SPEAK THROUGH ME TONIGHT... I PRAY ,YOU REVEAL YOURSELF UNTO US AND OPEN OUR EYE TO THE SCRIPTURES IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME. AMEN

Tonight, I will be sharing with Us one significant realities about the Kingdom!!Since the beginning of creation, JESUS is and was and is God and that brought us to the our message title :

Theme: CHRIST IN YOU

Kindly stay with me for the next 40-45min and God will be a massive blessing unto You tonight. And our theme scripture will be taken from Colossians 1:25-27

Colossians 1:25-27 KJV:Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: And by the bless presence of the Holy Spirit, He is leading Us into the exegesis of this particular verses.....kindly take a very careful look at the verses again....

And God is gonna reveal unto Us the intent into the mysteries embedded in these verse.

Now, Paul the Apostle of JESUS CHRIST was speaking here,a man called and ordained by God and God endowing him with "Wisdom in the mysteries of the Kingdom" was talking to the Colossians Church's. ...by revealing unto them the vast differences between Messianic dispensation and that of the old....by telling Us that "there is something called mysteries which are revealed in the NOW....!

So the bible says, when Adam and Eve sinned against God....the connection between Man and God was seized by Sin. And this drew the gap between God and Man...

Now watch this...

...since the beginning of Creation when the Heavens and the earth were the premiere creatures of God, in other words "the first creation of God... couldn't tell us the magnificent of God by itself until the existence of man.

Now....listen,

"when Adam and Eve were created,,,,the Loved of God was weighed above all things towards Man." That is to say ,Man became a unique and significant entity or to elaborate a little an embodiment into the deep love of God "!

In other words ,Gods Love was measured towards his creation. And it doesn't mean He loves Mankind than animal but ....MANKIND was ascribed to be in the likeness and the image of God.

We are Talking about CHRIST IN YOU. Now, watch this....

When JESUS was born into the world....So many many things happened during His Childhood into Adulthood. And we told through biblical theologian and scholars that His real ministry started at age 30....

In a seconds, I want to open our eye to one creeping truth which has blinded people to its acceptance is JESUS IS GOD ALMIGHTY....

And this was the the whole mystery hidden from time immemorial even until NOW but has been revealed unto His Sons born of the Holy Spirit.

Now,JESUS was the Word made flesh according to John 1:14....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.

...we beheld his glory....in other words we saw the glory of God in JESUS...What comes to your mind when we say Christ In You???

Some people finds it difficult to accept this truth ...how can Christ be in Me....okay, its fine!

When we say CHRIST IN YOU doesn't mean Christ as a Being dwells in You but CHRIST IN THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT dwells inside of YOU

This is gonna open our eye to the teachings tonight. Now, the bible speaks about the Trinity which is God the FATHER ,God the SON and GOD the Holy Spirit.

And these Three are NOT THREE but are ONE ENTITY....That's means "God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is in GOD THE FATHER "....That is to say They are Inseparable entity.

Now, take a look at yourself for a moment

Do you see your soul separated from your body Or your spirit from the body .....

Absolutely NO. That means,when the soul leaves the body, you seize to exist as a human either you've been collapsed or died

Which means GOD who is the supreme of all the things under the face of the universe ....he has absolute dominion even with His body.

Now...we are saying CHRIST IN YOU...Understanding this truth you'll accept the person of JESUS as GOD ALMIGHTY and the same JESUS is manifested in the HOLY SPIRIT WHICH DWELLS IN US. In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit came upon certain people to empower them for service, but then He would leave again.

....so that was the norm of the day until the existence of JESUS in the human flesh which theologian's told Us that "He was an absolute 100℅ Man and absolute 100℅ GOD.

But in the Messianic dispensation,we had different experience, as the Spirit indwells us permanently. The permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit given to New Testament believers was a MYSTERY which Paul was saying in Colossians 1:25-27".

..verse 27: CHRIST IN YOU....

Now,...in John 14:16-17...JESUS said And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Verse 17, Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you

Verse 17 says "The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive...that means "you cannot receive the deep things of God with your natural intelligence and wisdom....absolutely NO!!??

If that was the case,the wouldn't be the existence of this scripture Jesus spoke unto Us about....

And its continue to say "the world seeth him not because they doesn't know HIM....*hear me people of God until you are BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT through baptism you'll remain natural till the second coming of CHRIST...

Because, you'll spend all your judicious time to grasp facts ,philosophy and loading yourself with theology but will amount to Not....

Its doesn't mean having all these is NOT RELEVANT oo,it is relevant but without the HOLY SPIRIT its irrelevant because you cannot know the deep things of God with your natural intelligence. The mystery hidden from time immemorial was JESUS becoming Man, to die and ascend into Heaven and coming unto Us again in the person of the Holy Spirit and He is to come again in the Person where which he left Us.

Colossians 1:27 puts it this way: “The secret is simply this: Christ in you! Yes, Christ in you bringing with him the hope of all glorious things to come.”

Hallelujah, because of time,I will humbly end here for today. And May God bless Us all.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Let's pray: FATHER WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR REVEALING UNTO US A GLIMPSE OF THE TRUTH IN YOUR WORD,I PRAY YOU REVEAL YOURSELF UNTO US ALL IN JESUS NAME WE PRAY.....AMEN.

Let us pray together

Dear Lord,

Grant me a good night's sleep tonight, God, so that I can awake refreshed and ready to begin another day loving you. Thank you again for blessings so undeserved and too numerous to count. I love being your child, and I long for the word "faithful" to describe my service to you, each day of every year. When I awake in the morning, may it be with a joyful smile, not a grumpy spirit. May your protection and your presence bathe this place with peace and safety against the enemy. Good night, Lord. In Jesus's name, Amen.

[onbeingbeloved]

i have a hard time being both liberal and christian and am just generally confused on what to do/say/believe (especially when it comes to lgbt+ stuff). advice? thoughts? how do you do it? what does the Bible say?

first and foremost, your questions are valid and thank you for sharing this with me. it can be a difficult space to navigate and i am not the most eloquent person so bear with me as i try and answer this, i’ll leave some resources for you at the end of this to check out. firstly, my biggest piece of advice is to pray. in James 5:13, it says “is anyone among you suffering? let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? let him sing praise”. God is not fragile or delicate, He is so loving and He wants us to come to Him with our questions and our queries, He isn’t offended by the asking.

there’s a principle in judaism called dorosh dorash or the ‘great seeking’. it’s the idea that a journey of faith is about the questions, you cannot build a firm foundation of faith unless you dig deep into the word and navigate those tricky passages. God does not mind the questions, He wants us to have a firm foundation of faith and so ask Him! i’d say keep coming back, keep on coming. there’s a lyric i love that says “oh as you run, what hindered Love will only become part of the story” so these periods of questions and queries are part of your journey of faith.

the one thing i would say i know for definite is God loves you. He loves and affirms and delights in you. in Zephaniah 3:17 it says “the Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness; He will quiet you by His love; He will exult over you with loud singing.” He loves you so deeply that He sent Jesus to die on the cross for you. and He’d do it again, every time, no matter who you are and what you’ve done.

that being said, the traditional biblical exegesis of the passages condemning homosexuality, aka the clobber passages, i would argue is incorrect. i study theology at university and from my degree level study i have come to understand that the practice being condemned in the New Testament is a practice called pederasty, which is when much older men would have young boys as basically sex slaves. this practice was incredibly common and traditional in Greek society, so much so that when a Greek man married, his wife had her head shaved and was dressed in boys clothing to make the transition to sex with women easier. and so this practice, understandably was seen by Paul and massively condemned because it showed a highly unbalanced and inappropriate power dynamic between young, vulnerable boys and older men. i would argue, as would many many theologians (look up the writings of william loader on this) that this has been conflated as a condemnation of homosexuality which i believe is incorrect and dangerous. in the same way, the passage in leviticus that condemns men having sex with other men is specific in its language, it talks about men lying with men ‘as with women’. this again, from my studies is discussing sexual power dynamics. in order for a man to have sex with another man, one of the men has to subvert himself to a submissive position which in a patriarchal view of sex is wholly unacceptable. there is a jewish story about the first wife of Adam, called Lilith. the story goes that Lilith wanted to be sexually dominant, aka she wanted to be on top, and this was seen as terrible and perverse so she was cast out and made the mother of demons and was replaced by Eve, who was more sexually submissive. this demonstrates the view of the gender roles in heterosexual sex and how a subversion of these tropes is just not seen as acceptable. and so i would argue that in light of this understanding, that verse in leviticus doesn’t hold much weight as a condemnation of homosexuality as my (and i would hope most people’s) view on sex does not subscribe to those patriarchal gender roles.

i don’t believe homosexuality is a sin. i don’t believe God hates lgbtqia++ people. i don’t believe He views them as broken or deviant or abhorrent or any of the other words other christians have used as a condemnation of queer people. also i would like to say, i might be wrong (i really don’t think i am, from all of my academic and personal study) but i might be. there’s a verse in matthew that i really love. it’s matthew 7:16-17 and it reads “you will recognize them by their fruits. are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? so, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.” the things we teach have so much weight and i think in cases where there is confusion or questions i like to look at the fruit of those teachings. suicide rates of young lgbt people is astronomically high with regards to heterosexual/cis young people, based on a lot of christian teaching. not just the blatantly homophobic stuff but the ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ stuff. this is not bearing good fruit.

my response in any space of confusion or query is love. in 1 peter 4:8 it says “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” love is all we have and when we love, we become more like the One who loved us first, the One who holds us in His arms and calls us (ALL of us) His precious, beloved, forgiven children. sorry this is so long, this topic is really near and dear to my heart and i’ve been where you are and it’s tricky. keep praying, keep seeking, keep coming home and keep loving. God bless you anon, feel free to message me off anon if you have any more questions. also check out @queerlychristian , they have loads of great resources to help you navigate this space. love always, Daisy x

[kabane52]

Tradition and Modern Biblical Theology

How do you strike a balance between accepting the early church teachings and accepting modern scholarship like Michael Heisen's The Unseen Realm? Eastern Orthodox apologists like to say that no modern scholarship is better than what the early church fathers had, but is that necessarily true? If the church fathers were wrong about the Nephilim, what else could they have been wrong about?

I answered this question a few weeks back. Unfortunately, my answer became a bit of a tirade, one that was not loving. Here, I will provide my answers more directly.

1. You mention "Early Church Fathers", but I wish to emphasize that the date of their writing is not what is important in Orthodoxy. The Church has continued to produce Fathers up to the present day, some of the most recent being theologians like Fr. Georges Florovsky and Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, men who combined intellectual rigor, academic excellence, and intense personal sanctity. We count the Fathers of the Church as authorities because in them, the Holy Spirit has supremely sanctified the reason because of the Incarnation of the Divine Reason, Jesus Christ. The fact that the Church has continued to produce Fathers is relevant to your question, because it shows that the theology of the Church is not stagnant. It develops. Theological development is not identical as theological evolution, in that development does not contradict what comes before, but deepens it and draws out its previously unstated implications. Fr. Dumitru Staniloe states this in the first volume of his majestic "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology." The Church will, through the Holy Spirit, continue to deepen its understanding of the revelation given to it.

I have suggested elsewhere that Scripture corresponds to the Son whereas Tradition corresponds to the Holy Spirit. As the Son is the Logos, God has expressed Himself as far as language can express Himself in the words of Holy Scripture. But this is not the end. The Father loves the Son through the Holy Spirit, and the Son reciprocates that love through the same Spirit. The Spirit, therefore, is the means of intra-Trinitarian "conversation." Likewise, God has given us His written word in Scripture- St. Maximus calls it a verbal incarnation of the Divine Logos. He also gives us the Spirit- and the Church soaks itself in Scripture and draws out its amazing depths through the Spirit- the task of theology is consecrated to God. It is a critical part of our thanksgiving to God. Lest you think this is Protestant, consider what St. Justin Popovich said concerning the Scriptures in the 20th century:

The Bible is in a sense a biography of God in this world. In it the Indescribable One has in a sense described Himself.

The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament are a biog­raphy of the incarnate God in this world. In them it is related how God, in order to reveal Himself to men, sent God the Logos, who took on flesh and became man--and as a man told men everything that God is, everything that God wants from this world and the people in it.

God the Logos revealed God's plan for the world and God's love for the world. God the Word spoke to men about God with the help of words, insofar as human words can con­tain the uncontainable God.

All that is necessary for this world and the people in it--the Lord has stated in the Bible. In it He has given the answers to all questions. There is no question which can torment the human soul, and not find its answer, either directly or in­directly in the Bible.

Men cannot devise more questions than there are answers in the Bible. If you fail to find the answer to any of your questions in the Bible, it means that you have either posed a sense-less question or did not know how to read the Bible and did not finish reading the answer in it.

St. Vincent of Lerins states explicitly that Christian theology develops, and that it would be a terrible thing if it did not. Hence, I hold that the tradition of the Church is wholly inspired by the Spirit and is authoritative for the Church, but I hold that the role of tradition is to express perfectly the teaching of the Scriptures, and continue to express it more deeply throughout all time. This is not sola scriptura because I hold that Holy Tradition is equally inspired and authoritative as Scripture. But this does not entail that Tradition and Scripture are the same thing or that they are the same kind of revelation. They are both revelation, but of different sorts, and they stand in a particular relationship to one another.

2. Because of this, I regard it as absolutely necessary that one's interpretation of Scripture accord exactly with Patristic, Conciliar, Orthodox theology. But there is a common misconception here, as if the Church had an "official, traditional" interpretation of each verse of Scripture, and that instead of learning to read and study Scripture oneself, one merely restates what the official interpretation is. But this is not the case. Rather, the tradition of the Church is its theological system. The Church holds a particular doctrine of the Trinity, incarnation, man, and so on. It follows from that, if one accepts Orthodoxy, that Scripture teaches those very same doctrines. But that leaves plenty of room for diversity in understanding how Scripture teaches these doctrines. And indeed, the Fathers themselves exhibited such diversity. I don't wish to overstate this, as if there are no regular patterns of exegesis and interpretation. But interpretation of Scripture is not stagnant. Furthermore, we must not only study the Patristic commentary on Scripture, but understand and imitate the way in which they studied Scripture. We may well accept the Patristic teaching that the crossing of the Red Sea was a type of Baptism- but we are not meant to accept that and move on. Rather, we study the Fathers and learn how to read typologically and symbolically. Give a man Patristic exegesis, and he's got theology for a day. Teach a man how to do Patristic exegesis, and he's got theology forever. Finally, as stated above, biblical exegesis is not meant to simply reaffirm tradition, but to deepen it and extend its insights.

3. Concerning the Nephilim in particular, earlier Fathers generally held that they were the literal offspring of angels and humans, while later Fathers generally held that they were the offspring of the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain. My own view on the Nephilim is meant to synthesize these two views, in a couple of ways. First, I accept the theological concern of the Fathers for the implication of stating that angels produced literal offspring. Thus, I look at ways that offspring has already been described symbolically in Genesis 1-5 (i.e. Eve is said to have "gotten a man with the Lord") and read Genesis 6:1-4 in that light. It was a ritual consecration to fallen angels, not literal copulation. Thus, the reason many of the Fathers held the Sethite interpretation is respected and integrated into a modified angelic interpretation. Second, paying attention to textual clues in Genesis 6:1-4, its surrounding context, and its typological correspondents, I hold that there was indeed a union of Sethite and Cainite culture that was wicked. I believe the Sethites gave their daughters to fallen angels in order to produce "mighty men", conquerors whou would defeate the military might of the Cainite empire, as described at the end of Genesis 4.

4. Finally, with regard to the place of modern scholarship. I firmly believe that those Orthodox Christians interested in biblical theology will benefit a good deal from reading a variety of scholars, including non-Orthodox scholars. Such an Orthodox Christian should not do so immediately after conversion or during a catechumentate- he must have time to adjust and assimilate Orthodox teaching. But if one can be discerning, one will find beautiful and amazing insights. My appreciation for Orthodox theology has been richly enlivened by studying the exegetical works of James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Michael Gorman, and N.T. Wright, among others. The Church will continue to study Scripture and deepen its tradition through biblical exegesis. But it is necessary that this all be done in fidelity to the theological system of the Orthodox Church and in light of the methods of Patristic exegesis. I have found Orthodoxy amazingly confirmed because of the precise and unexpected ways in which Orthodox teaching will present itself in Scripture when Scripture is studied on its own terms. It demonstrates, to my mind, that the same Spirit underlies both the Bible and the tradition of the Church.

[ah17hh]

Sources for Satanists discussing scripture? via /r/satanism

Sources for Satanists discussing scripture?

I'm looking for instances of Satanists talking explicitly about Bible verses, old testament or new. Seems like it doesn't happen too much, maybe because of the whole thing about the devil quoting scripture. But Satanist interpretation, with its tendency toward a theology of revolution and liberation, is valuable, and I'm having trouble finding much in the way of good examples. Any help out there? Links, MLA citations, your own exegesis of a verse, whatever's clever. Thanks a lot!

Submitted June 26, 2020 at 07:01PM by galacticist via reddit https://ift.tt/3dAkJ7d

[medievalphil]

The use of force in public for medieval political thinkers (XI)

Medieval Christian political ideas were rational reflections on Christian authoritative texts. The idea is to reflect of the teachings of sources such as the Bible of the writings of the Fathers of the Church to elucidate how to best proceed in light of current events. They engaged in exegesis, hermeneutics, rationalization of these texts.

According to the Bible, you are expected to love your enemies, there’s a sort of pacifism, it’s the antithesis of Hammurabi’s an eye for an eye. One can never inflict violence in public:

But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other…Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you (Matthew 5:39-44)

Yet a number of thinkers had writings on warfare and combat; to some of them, the following quote read as more of a personal preference towards pacifism as opposed to a way of conduct in the context of a large community. This verse posed a great challenge for medieval thinkers. If we read this verse alongside John 18:36 (Christ’s Kingdom) and Matthew 22:21, perhaps, and according to thinkers such as Augustine and others, Matthew 5:39-44 should only be taken literally in isolation, that is, when applied to individual deeds, and read in the context of other verses when applied to communal efforts against heresy and dominion.

Christ’s Kingdom - Christ as king: My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). You should turn the other cheek and not engage with violence because ultimately it doesn’t matter as what one aspires is not of this world. It does not matter not to have the perfect Christian community on earth as Christ’s kingdom can never be realised on earth. This is reinforced in Matthew 22:21: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s (Matthew 22:21). That is to say, obey your ruler, pay homage to God.

A similar account is offered in Augustine’s interpretation and theory of warfare: First of all, is God of Old Testament same as God of New? If they are the same God, why is the message directly opposed? God in OT is combative; the other is pacifist. In the Old Testament, warfare is permitted, killing of civilians, executions, enslavement. How to reconcile warfare in OT with pacifism in NT? Examples of the OT:

“Now go, attack the Amalekities and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (Samuel 15:3)

 “You shall not leave a single soul alive”

“You must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them”

“You shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle”

Augustine’s response: “These precepts pertain rather to the inward disposition of the heart than to the actions which are done in the sight of men, requiring us, in the inmost heart, to cherish patience along with benevolence, but in outward action to do what seems most likely to benefit those whose good we ought to seek.” The God of the OT is not exhorting us to uphold violence, but cautions us against it, by representing the inner worst instincts of human beings.

[500wordtheology]

What is Solid Theology?

     I recently had someone respond to a comment I made about the importance of churches that teach solid theology. Their question was flat out “what is solid theology?”

    Whether this question is asked earnestly looking for the answer or as some sort of argument-starter, such an idea should be well defined, so I’m taking this post to begin that process. (I doubt I will finish in 500 words, but here will be our start.) When I speak of “solid theology,” this is what I mean:

     1. Solid theology begins and ends with Truth.

    There are, unfortunately, a number of churches (including some very large and popular ones) that do not base the foundation of their teaching on seeking objective truth. They are not after truth, but rather what they want to hear. Solid theology abandons personal wants for truth.

     2. Solid theology includes dedicated and serious exegesis

    Exegesis is “the critical exposition of text (usually Biblical) to determine its intended meaning.” Namely, putting in the work to be sure any given passage is actually understood and not misinterpreted. It may be easier to understand exegesis from its opposite. The opposite of exegesis is pulling one or two verses out of context and running with interpretations that only make sense if verses are pulled out from the whole. This is sometimes referred to as “bumper sticker theology” or “refrigerator magnet theology.”

     3. Solid theology is complete theology

    In the same way exegesis provides a comprehensive understanding of the points being made by the Bible, solid Christian theology requires a full study (including exegesis) of the ENTIRE Bible. There are, as most are aware, teachers and preachers who ignore large swaths of Scripture because it is either challenging to them or says things that don’t suit their personal feelings of “how it should work.” The Prosperity Gospel category is one such example, which teaches unbiblical things like “if you get sick it is because you didn’t have enough faith” or “God wants you to have financial riches.” This is unChristian and not in line with what the Bible teaches at all.

     4. Solid theology invites questions and exploration

    You will never find a solid theologian remark things like “you shouldn’t ask that” or “just have blind faith.” That is not Christianity. Christianity invites each and every practitioner to “seek and find.” It is not a blind faith, but one based on truth and reason. It is wise to note that questions may be answered with difficult responses we don’t like, or even a perfectly honest “I don’t know” by a church leader, but never foolishness like “don’t ask.” God invites us to ask away, and also to not be surprised if we encounter extremely life-changing answers when we do.

     5. Solid theology leads to action

    If Christianity-in-full is being taught, those teachings lead to “feet on the ground.” One cannot claim to follow Christ if one does not act out loving their neighbor (and their enemies), helping the poor and widowed, and being a servant to their fellow man. As Paul puts clearly “If I speak with the tongues of angels, but do not love, I am only a clanging cymbal.” (Ref.)

    Our 500 words are up, but hopefully that gets the conversation started. Solid theology is vital for both Christians and non-Christians alike. If we are to believe something, we should know what it is and why we believe it. And if we are to reject something, we should know the totality - not just a portion - of what we are rejecting and why. In both cases, solid theology is the answer.