Category Archives: Daily Office readings

Background and color commentary on highlighted readings from the Daily Office Lectionary

On Luke and the “rich young man”

The ‘Sacrifice of Isaac,’ where God finally said “Stop! Let’s change some ‘traditional values…’”

* * * *

Thursday, October 18, is the Feast Day for St. Luke. (Shown at left.)

Luke wrote the third-of-four Gospels, along with the book Acts of the Apostles. (What is called “the fifth book of the New Testament.”)

I’ll be writing more on Luke the Evangelist below, and in doing so I’ll be citing St. Luke – 2015. But first I want to note a revelation I had during last Sunday’s sermon. It was about last Sunday’s Gospel, Mark 10:17-31. (From the readings for Twenty First Sunday after Pentecost.) It told the story of Jesus and the rich young man.

Matthew wrote that the rich young man first asked Jesus how to get “eternal life.” (How to “get to heaven.”) Then – after the young man told Jesus he already observed all the commandments – Jesus said: “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.” Luke’s Gospel added that when he heard this, the rich young man “became very sad, because he was very wealthy.” That’s when Jesus said it would be “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

But in last Sunday’s sermon, our visiting priest asked us to imagine something different. Like what would have happened if the young man had agreed to do what Jesus said?

That is, suppose the rich young man had actually starting selling all his possessions and giving the profits to the poor. The priest theorized that Jesus probably would have said this: “Stop! I was only trying to make a point! Let’s work something out so you can keep your goods and possessions and put them to good use in the service of the Lord…”

That’s when it hit me. The priest’s theory wasn’t all that crazy. There was legal precedent for his position. It struck me that it could have been very much like what God did when he asked Abraham to sacrifice his own son. And when Abraham indicated his willingness to follow God’s orders. On that note, see Abraham and Isaac – Where God CHANGED some “traditional values and attitudes.”

That post noted that the Abraham-Isaac story bothers a lot of people, because it seems to show God ordering a father to kill his own son. “And that’s the view you would take if you took the lesson literally.” But at the time Abraham lived, child sacrifice was pretty routine. In fact, you could call it a prevailing “traditional value.”

Which means the Abraham-Isaac story is not one of God being cruel. Instead:

“[I]n that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.” [Rabbi Joseph Herman Hertz (1872 -1946)] interpreted the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent… So to a reasonable Semite at the time … a father offering his son as a “sacrifice to the gods” was so common that the Akedah proved the noteworthy exception.

A note: Akedah is Hebrew short-hand for the Abraham-Isaac story, and translates “The Binding.”

So anyway, the main point of the Abraham-Isaac story is that God never intended that Abraham actually kill Isaac. In the same way, the point of the “Jesus and the rich young man” story could be that Jesus never wanted the rich young man to give up all his possessions. What he wanted was the rich young man’s willingness to do so. But mostly He wanted the rich young man to use and develop his talents, so he could put them to the “service of the Lord.”

* * * *

Which brings us back to Luke the Evangelist. And speaking of developing your talents: The noted Catholic writer Garry Wills – in his book What the Gospels Meant – noted that Luke wrote the longest of the four Gospels. He added that Acts of the Apostles is almost as long, and that these two of Luke’s books together “thus make up a quarter of the New Testament.” (And they’re longer than all 13 of Paul’s letters.) He said Luke is rightly considered the most humane of the Gospel writers, and quoted Dante as saying Luke was a “describer of Christ’s kindness.”

Thus Luke’s Gospel was arguably “the most beautiful book that ever was.”

But – again speaking of developing your talents – Luke wasn’t just a great writer. He was also – according to tradition – an artist. Beyond that, he was said to be the first icon painter, and to have painted pictures of the Virgin Mary and Child, as shown in the image below.

Which means Luke’s version of the Jesus story is one we should pay special attention to. And especially to being “humane” and active practitioners of “Christ’s kindness.”

So as noted in Luke 8:8 and Luke 14:35, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

* * * *

“Saint Luke painting the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child…”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Binding of Isaac – Wikipedia. The full caption reads: “’The Sacrifice of Isaac’ by Caravaggio, in the Baroque tenebrist manner.” As to the wording of the caption, see “Or words to that effect” – Wiktionary, and also “Or Words to that Effect” – Adoremus Bulletin, quoting the character Richard Rich in the plan “A Man for All Seasons.”

Re: Abraham – Wikipedia. The caption to the image to the right of the paragraph starting “That’s when it hit me” is captioned: “Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac. From a 14th-century missal.”

As to the “Hertz” reference, “Rabbi Joseph Herman Hertz, CH (September 25, 1872 – January 14, 1946) was a Jewish Hungarian-born rabbi and Bible scholar. He is most notable for holding the position of Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom from 1913 until his death in 1946, in a period encompassing both world wars and the Holocaust.” Another note, “CH” stands for “Order of the Companions of Honour,” an order of the “Commonwealth realms … as a reward for outstanding achievements and is ‘conferred upon a limited number of persons for whom this special distinction seems to be the most appropriate form of recognition.'”

Re: “He wanted the rich young man to use and develop his talents.” The full blog-post cite – from December 2015 – is Develop your talents with Bible study.

The lower image is courtesy of File: Maarten van Heemskerck – St Luke Painting the Virgin, and/or “Wikimedia.” See also Maarten van Heemskerck – Wikipedia, which noted that the artist (1498-1574) was a “Dutch portrait and religious painter, who spent most of his career in Haarlem,” and did the painting above in or about 1532.

Did Jesus interpret Scripture “liberally?”

Leave a reply

In the parable of the “Prodigal Son,” Jesus rejected conservatism in favor of grace…

* * * *

I originally called this post “Jesus was a liberal.” But after further review I narrowed the scope, something appeal-courts often do. That made the question far less broad and so easier to answer. Thus the limited question: “Did Jesus interpret Scripture ‘liberally?‘” Or as one legal site said, “What is called a liberal construction is ordinarily one which makes a statute apply to more things or in more situations than would be the case under strict construction.”

And that’s just what Jesus did. (And His disciples.) For starters, there’s Mark 2:27 where Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” That is, under the old law – the “conservative law” – of Exodus 23:12, any work on the Sabbath was forbidden:

For six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you must cease, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant may be refreshed, as well as the foreign resident.

(See also Deuteronomy 5:12, and 5:14.) But to Jesus, circumstances had changed since Moses made that rule. (Right after he brought the Israelites out of captivity.) Which meant the “old law” needed updating. (Mostly because Conservatives had elevated form over substance, as they are wont to do.) So Jesus went back to the original words of the rule to fully implement its true intent.

So again, “What is called a liberal construction is ordinarily one which makes a statute apply to more things or in more situations than would be the case under strict construction.”

Which seems to be just what Jesus had in mind: Make the Gospel apply to more people.

Then too – as if that isn’t enough to give a Southern Baptist apoplexy – many if not most of His disciples also interpreted Scripture “liberally.” (Thus making the “Good News” apply to more things and in more situations – and to more people – than could be the case under strict construction.)

Which brings up the fact that last June 29 was the Feast Day for both Saints Peter and Paul. The Daily Office Readings for that day – Friday, June 29 – included Acts 11:1-18. That’s one place where the Apostle Peter “went all Liberal.” He did that in response to the Conservatives among early Christians who criticized him. See Acts 11:1: “Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God.”

Which didn’t suit them at all. See Acts 11:2: “So when Peter” – at left – “went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers” – that is, the Conservatives – “criticized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?’ But as it turned out. those Conservatives had open minds. That is, after Peter explained his “vision,” they actually changed their minds. (Something today’s Conservatives rarely do.) See Acts 11:18: “When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.'”

That is, under the Old Law – the Conservative, “Jeff Sessions” law – the Path of Life was limited to Jews, and only to Jews. That’s pretty much what Jesus said – at first – in Matthew 15:27. That’s where Jesus set out the Conservative view that “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (With the children being the Jews – and only the Jews – while the “dogs” are uncircumcised Gentiles.) Yet Jesus – with His open mind – got “persuaded” to change His mind.

And – by the way – that turnabout came through a woman who was a bit smarmy:

With a woman’s ready wit, quickened by urgency and affection, she seizes the opportunity, and turns Christ’s own words against himself. Thou sayest truth, she means; the Jews are the children; we are the dogs; and as dogs we claim our portion.

(From the Pulpit Commentary for verse 27.) Then there was the case of Jesus healing the bleeding woman. But His having anything to do with such an impure woman was contrary to the conservative “old” law of Leviticus 15:25-27:

“If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness.”

(See also Leviticus 15:19-23, regarding a woman’s regular monthly “Curse…”)

And finally there was the case of the Apostle Philip “liberally” dealing with an untouchable eunuch. See On Saint Philip, Saint James, and “privy members.” That is, as a eunuch the Ethiopian eunuch was untouchable under the Old Law, the Conservative Law.

That’s because of Deuteronomy 23:1, and the New Living Translation is pretty specific: “If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.” The King James Bible – the one that God uses – put the matter more delicately: “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.” Yet Philip too turned “all Liberal,” and in doing so followed in the footsteps of Jesus. That is, he interpreted the “Good News” so that it would apply to more things, more situations, and more people than was possible under “strict construction.”

(For more on whether Jesus was a “liberal,” see On Jesus: Liberal or Fundamentalist?)

Of course some conservatives – Biblical or otherwise – may disagree, which is of course their right. But personally I’d like the Good News to apply to more people. For one big thing, there’s Matthew 7:2: “The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.” For myself, when my time comes I want whoever – Jesus, St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, whoever – to “turn all liberal” when He or they are reviewing my life.

Then too, the definition of conservatism includes a disposition “to preserve what is established,” and/or a “tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.” So all I can say is, “Thank God Jesus wasn’t a conservative!” I’m glad He made some changes.

The bottom line? All I can do is give you “just the facts.” You decide for yourself…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of The Return of the Prodigal Son (Rembrandt) – Wikipedia:

It is among the Dutch master’s final works, likely completed within two years of his death in 1669. Depicting the moment of the prodigal son‘s return to his father … it is a renowned work described by art historian Kenneth Clark as “a picture which those who have seen the original in St. Petersburg may be forgiven for claiming as the greatest picture ever painted.”

See also Parable of the Prodigal Son – Wikipedia, which indicated that the older son – who stayed behind with his father – represented more “conservative” values. That is, the older son “seems to think in terms of ‘law, merit, and reward,’ rather than ‘love and graciousness.’ He may represent the Pharisees who were criticizing Jesus.” See also “There’s no such thing as a ‘conservative Christian.”

The initial first paragraph: “It seems that if you want to start an argument these days, you could say something outrageous like ‘Jesus Was A Liberal.’ So here goes! For starters, if you Google ‘jesus was a liberal’ you’ll get about 100,000 results. (Which actually isn’t that many…)” Also, the full title of the “Jesus-liberal” link is Jesus Was A Liberal: 20 Quotes GOP Christians Will Hate. For an opposing view, see Was Jesus a Liberal? The Myth Debunked! » Louder With Crowder. Or for a more balanced view, see Is Jesus a Liberal or a Conservative? | Meet The Need Blog.

Re: The Sabbath. See United Church of God – “The Sabbath Was Made for Man,” etc.

Re: Peter and Paul. See also On Peter, Paul – and other “relics.”

Re: Turning “Christ’s own words against himself.” See also On arguing with God.

The “bleeding woman” image is courtesy of Veronese. Christ Healing a Woman with an Issue of Blood.

BTW: The complete Daily Office Readings for St. Peter & St. Paul are: AM Psalm 66; Ezekiel 2:1-7; Acts 11:1-18; PM Psalm 97, 138; Isaiah 49:1-6; Galatians 2:1-9.

The lower image is courtesy of Just The Facts Ma’am – Image Results. But see also Joe Friday – Wikipedia, which noted that Detective Friday never actually used the phrase: “A common misattributed catchphrase to Friday is ‘Just the facts, ma’am.’ In fact, Friday never actually said this in an episode, but it was featured in Stan Freberg‘s works parodying ‘Dragnet.’” See also FACT CHECK: Dragnet ‘Just the Facts’ – snopes.com.

On Mary Magdalene, and “conserving talents…”

Leave a reply

“The Risen Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalene” – the female “Apostle to the Apostles…”

* * * *

mm-he-qi Last Sunday – July 22 – was the feast day for Mary Magdalene. That’s in the Daily Office lectionary, For the Sunday lectionary, her day was Monday, July 23. (“Transferred” from Sunday.) I wrote of her in Mary Magdalene, “Apostle to the Apostles.”

Mary of Magdala is perhaps the most maligned and misunderstood figure in early Christianity… Since the fourth century, she has been portrayed as a prostitute and public sinner… Paintings, some little more than pious pornography, reinforce the mistaken belief that sexuality, especially female sexuality, is shameful, sinful, and worthy of repentance. [“Good heavens!”] Yet the actual biblical account of Mary of Magdala paints a far different portrait than that of the bare-breasted reformed harlot of Renaissance art.

But in this post there’s no pious pornography. Nor is there an image of a “bare-breasted reformed harlot.” Just a modern view of her at upper right, and a comment that for all the insults, she was there – to see the risen Jesus – when the male apostles were hiding away:

The one indisputable fact seems to be that Mary Magdalene … was both the first person to see the empty tomb of Jesus, and one of the first – if not the first – to see the risen Jesus. (Which may have accounted for jealous males trying to sully her reputation.)

Which brings up the matter of “so-called conservative Christians,” and the Daily Office readings for last Tuesday, July 17. Those readings included Matthew 25:14-30, and the Parable of the talents, illustrated at left. As Wikipedia summarized, “To the single unfaithful servant, who ‘played it safe,’ a negative compensation is given.”

But that’s just what “conservative” Christians do, play it safe.

Which is why I say “There’s no such thing as a ‘conservative Christian.'” Only modern-day Pharisees who plagued Jesus in His time, and continue to do so “even to this day.”

Also note the element of risk in the actions of both the man with five talents and the one with two. But the man with one talent – the “conservative” man – took no risk at all. Not even to invest that one talent with a banker, so that “on my return I would have received what was my own with interest.” For which Jesus duly chastised him, in the words of the “master:”

You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed?Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

Thus the “wicked, lazy servant” is the functional equivalent of today’s “conservative Christian,” who feels his job in life is simply to “avoid sin.” To take none of the chances necessary for human development, and simply present to God the same “carbon-copy Christian” he started out as. That was one message in the December 2015 post, Develop your talents!

Put another way, if you read and study the Bible in the NOT-conservative way, you do run the risk of falling flat on your face. But rest assured that “Jesus” – metaphorically or otherwise – is there to help you get back on your feet. Put a third way – and especially in the realm of spiritual growth – “The only thing worse than failing is not trying at all.”

But again, that’s just what “conservative” Christians do. They comfort themselves with Biblical sound bites, not deep and open-minded study. (Per Luke 24:45.) They never run the risk of falling flat on their faces, because their only goal is to “stay pure.” And they don’t develop spiritually. Thus the true message of the Parable of the talents:

“Don’t get TOO conservative!“

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Rembrandt – The Risen Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalen. See also On Easter Season – AND BEYOND. The full caption: “The Risen Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalen, by Rembrandt (1638).” And speaking of “racy,” the artist Titian did two versions of Mary crying. For the “racier” – 1533 – version see Penitent Magdalene (Titian, 1533) – Wikipedia.

The Penitent Magdalene is a 1565 oil painting by Titian of saint Mary Magdalene, now in the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg. Unlike his 1533 version of the same subject, Titian has covered Mary’s nudity and introduced a vase, an open book and a skull as a memento mori. Its coloring is more mature than the earlier work, using colors harmoni[z]ing with character. In the background the sky is bathed in the rays of the setting sun, with a dark rock contrasting with the brightly lit figure of Mary.

For more on this “Mary,” see On Mary of Magdala and James the Greater, Saints, and also MARY MAGDALENE, Bible Woman: first witness to Resurrection, and What Did Mary Magdalene look like?

The full Bible readings for Tuesday, July 17, were: “AM Psalm 26, 28; PM Psalm 36, 39
Joshua 2:15-24; Romans 11:13-24; Matthew 25:14-30,” according to Lectionary – Satucket.

“Even to this day.” The reference is to 2d Corinthians 3:15: “Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.” Thus it is with today’s so-called conservative Christians.

A side note: A future blog-post will deal with the issue of Ensoulment.

The lower image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article, Parable of the talents.

“Hey Jeff, here’s your millstone!” (And Sarah too…)

Leave a reply

Image may contain: one or more people

Matthew 18:6, on Jesus and His heavy millstone for those who “offend these little ones…”

* * * *

Welcome to “read the Bible – expand your mind:”

This blog has four main themes. The first is that God will accept anyone. (See John 6:37.) The second is that God wants us to live lives of abundance. (See John 10:10.) The third is that God wants us to do even greater miracles than Jesus did. (See John 14:12.)

The fourth – and most overlooked – is the need to read the Bible with an open mind. See Luke 24:45: “Then He” – Jesus – “opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.”

And this thought ties them together:

The only way to live abundantly and do greater miracles than Jesus is – as noted – to read the Bible with an open mind. For more, see the notes or – to expand your mind – see the Intro.

In the meantime:

The Gospel reading for Monday, June 18, included Matthew 17:20. That’s where jesus said this:

Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed [as seen at left], you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

I wanted to connect that verse to John 14:12, noted above. That’s where Jesus said He expected His disciples to perform greater miracles than He did. (And how no Christian can hope to do that by reading the Bible in a cramped, “strict” or literal way.)

But first a word about the Trump Administration’s “Koncentration Kamps for Kiddies.”

For starters, officials including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders cited the Bible to support such separation camps. Specifically, Romans 13, vis-a-vis Submission to Governing Authorities. But that in turn sparked a backlash. See for example The Bible verse Jeff Sessions used to defend immigration crackdown once also defended slavery. And, more recently, A Brief History of People Using Romans 13 to Justify White Supremacy, and The Real Story Behind the Nazi Establishment’s Use of ‘Romans 13.’

(And by the way, the Conservatives now in power seem to have forgotten all about Romans 13 when Barack Obama was president. And they were “failing to obey” him.)

Meanwhile, Monday on Facebook I cited some other quotes from the Bible. They included Luke 18:16 and Matthew 18:6. (And – in a potential “Sign from God” – it turned out that Matthew 18:6 was part of the Gospel reading for Wednesday, June 20.)

In Luke 18:16, Jesus said, ”Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” More to the point, Matthew 18 starts with this:

[T]he disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Which just goes to show that Jesus – unlike too many officials in the current Administration – had a special place in His heart for innocent, unspoiled children.

But wait, there’s more! Jesus went on to give an even more specific warning. (Like maybe for some who purport to follow Him, but who are in fact “slow learners?”)

For example, in Matthew 18:5 Jesus said, “And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.” Which seems pretty clear. But just in case there are some really slow learners out there, Jesus went on to add this proviso, in Matthew 18:6:

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

And by the way, that’s from the King James Bible. (You know, the one God uses?)

Further – since we’re dealing with slow learners here – let’s point out that since most of the children now in “tent cities” in the Southwest come from Mexico, they are almost all both Christian and Catholic. (See Religious Beliefs In Mexico – WorldAtlas.com: “More than 90% of Mexicans identify as Christians, and more than 90% of those Christians are Roman Catholic.”)

Therefore, we can safely deduce that the overwhelming majority of those children now being separated from their parents qualify under Jesus’ “little ones who believe in me” proviso.

So, in the manner of Bill Engvall and his “Here’s Your Sign” comedy routine: To Jeff, Sarah (and others in the Administration), “Here’s your millstone!”

* * * *

Meanwhile, back to Matthew 17:20. (And moving mountains with faith the size of a mustard seed.) Thanks to such “flaming liberals” as Franklin Graham, Laura Bush, and Orrin Hatch – along with 12 other Republican Senators – Donald Trump just signed an executive order ending family separations. In other words, enough people from both parties got together and got Donald Trump to change his mind, and maybe even to see the light!

Talk about moving mountains…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Millstone – Image Results.

The “mustard” image is courtesy of Parable of the Mustard Seed – Wikipedia.

The complete Daily Office Readings for Monday, June 18, are: AM Psalm 78:1-39; PM Psalm 78:40-72, Numbers 11:1-23; Romans 1:16-25; and Matthew 17:22-27. The full Readings for Wednesday, June 20, are: AM Psalm 119:97-120; PM Psalm 81, 82 ; Numbers 11:24-33 (34-35); Romans 1:28-2:11; and Matthew 18:1-9.

Re: “Romans 13, vis-a-vis Submission to Governing Authorities.” Jeff and Sarah also apparently failed to recognize that in America, “We the People” are the governing authority, not some temporary office-holder. See also Preamble to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia.

The “Luke 18:16” image is courtesy of Luke 18 16 – Image Results

Re: Donald Trump’s executive order ending family separations. See also Trump caves, signs executive order, and Trump’s immigration reversal creates its own chaos (CNN).

The lower image is courtesy of Jake Blues Sees Light – Image Results.

* * * *

As noted in the opening blurb, this blog has four main themes. The first is that God will accept anyone. (John 6:37, with the added, “Anyone who comes to Him.”) The second is that God wants us to live abundantly. (John 10:10.) The third is that we should do greater miracles than Jesus. (John 14:12). A fourth theme: The only way to do all that is read the Bible with an open mind:

…closed-mindedness, or an unwillingness to consider new ideas, can result from the brain’s natural dislike for ambiguity. According to this view, the brain has a “search and destroy” relationship with ambiguity and evidence contradictory to people’s current beliefs tends to make them uncomfortable… Research confirms that belief-discrepant-closed-minded persons have less tolerance for cognitive inconsistency…

So in plain words, this blog takes issue with boot-camp Christians. They’re the Biblical literalists who never go “beyond the fundamentals.” But the Bible can offer so much more than their narrow reading can offer… (Unless you want to stay a Bible buck private all your life…)

Now, about “Boot-camp Christians.” See for example, Conservative Christian – “Career buck private?” The gist of that post is that starting the Bible is like Army Basic Training. You begin by “learning the fundamentals.” But after boot camp, you move on to Advanced Individual Training.”

Also, and as noted in “Buck private,” I’d previously said the theme of this blog was that if you really want to be all that you can be, you need to go on and explore the “mystical side of Bible reading.*”

In other words, exploring the mystical side of the Bible helps you “be all that you can be.” See Slogans of the U.S. Army – Wikipedia, re: the recruiting slogan from 1980 to 2001. The related image at left is courtesy of: “toywonders.com/productcart/pc/catalog/aw30.jpg.”

* Re: “mystical.” As originally used, mysticism “referred to the Biblical liturgical, spiritual, and contemplative dimensions of early and medieval Christianity.” See Mysticism – Wikipedia, and the post On originalism. (“That’s what the Bible was originally about!”)

For an explanation of the Daily Office – where “Dorscribe” came from – see What’s a DOR?

The “stick figure” parable…

Leave a reply

This is the faith of a boot-camp Christian. (Who never goes “beyond the Fundamentals…”)

* * * *

The “stick” drawing above is a kind of parable. That’s the kind of story that Jesus used to tell:

Jesus’s parables are seemingly simple and memorable stories, often with imagery, and all convey messages. Scholars have commented that although these parables seem simple, the messages they convey are deep, and central to the teachings of Jesus.

In doing so, Jesus followed Psalm 78:2: “I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things…” (See also Matthew 13:35: “So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: ‘I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.'”)

And incidentally Psalm 78:2 was one of the Daily Office Readings for May 8, 2018.

So here’s the point: If you stay a boot-camp Christian – if you never go “beyond the Fundamentals” – your life and your faith will look like the stick-figure drawing at the top of the page. But, if you read the Bible with an open mind – if you follow Luke 24:45 – your life and your faith will more closely resemble the much more in-depth oil painting at the bottom of the page. Full of depth, full of life, and much more pleasing. So much more pleasing in fact that other people around you may want to imitate what you’ve done, and follow your path.

Which is – after all – the whole point of evangelism. Making the Faith attractive, not driving potential converts away “in droves.” (See Perverting “Fundamental” – ism.)

Or as the old idiom says: A picture is worth a thousand words.

* * * *

Now about that idea that you need to read the Bible with an open mind: The Pulpit Commentary for Psalm 78:2 said the “facts of Israelitish history are the ‘parable,’ the inner meaning of which it is for the intelligent to grasp.” (Emphasis added.) See also Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Psalm 78:1-8: “These are called dark and deep sayings, because they are carefully to be looked into.” (Emphasis added.)

The latter added: “Hypocrisy is the high road to apostacy” (sic). (“Apostasy” is the “abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person,” but that’s all a whole ‘nuther story altogether.)

Anyway, there are problems interpreting “the law of the Bible.” And that’s especially when that “law” comes in the form of a parable. See On three suitors (a parable):

Jesus taught primarily through parables. When Jesus spoke in such parables, they were “very much an oral method of teaching.” That method of teaching left it up to the listener to decipher the meaning of the parable, to him. Or as Jesus said on several occasions, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” [See Matthew 11:15 and Mark 4:9.]

The commentaries on Matthew 11:15 add that interpreting such a parable requires “more than ordinary powers of thought to comprehend.” And that God asks “no more from us than the right use of the faculties he has given us. People are ignorant, because they will not learn.”

The commentaries to Mark 4:9 indicate that – in reading the Bible with an open and discerning mind – the words of God to Ezekiel (33:32) are fulfilled, “And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice.” Or for that matter, “A very lovely work of art.”

The problem came when these oral-tradition parables were finally written down. (At least 20 years after the fact, as in Mark, “the first gospel.”) In translating the parable from oral to written form, an interpretation had to be added to it. In Hebrew the word for such interpretation is mashal, or allegory. In the alternative the word is nimshal, in the plural, nimshalim:

The essence of the parabolic method of teaching is that life and the words that tell of life can mean more than one thing. Each hearer is different and therefore to each hearer a particular secret of the kingdom [of God] can be revealed. We are supposed to create nimshalim for ourselves.

Which raises a good question: How do you “literally interpret” a parable?

Or a work of art, for that matter? In turn the question becomes: How do you interpret that parable – or work of art – in such a way to develop your own talents?

One answer is that you can. (“Literally interpret.”) But if you do that, your “faith” will more closely resemble the primitive, undeveloped stick-figure drawing at the top of the page…

You make the call!

* * * *

6 Ways to Create Depth in Your Landscape Painting

This represents the faith of those who read the Bible with an open mind…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of How to Draw a Stick Figure: 7 Steps (with Pictures) – wikiHow.

The image to the right of the paragraph beginning “The ‘stick’ drawing above” is courtesy of Parables of Jesus – Wikipedia. The caption: “The Parable of the Prodigal Son by Guercino.”

Re: Oil painting being like reading the Bible. See Copying a masterpiece … Fine Art Painting:

Studying a master’s work by copying it can have beneficial effects on our own work. It can help us through a tough time, like when we’re not sure where our art is going. It can inspire us to get to that next level! It can help understand about the painting process he or she used, the palette and color mixes. Learning by copying was done throughout the history of art.

In this case, the “master’s work” we copy is the Bible, with its stories written by men and women in the long-ago past who managed to forge a relationship with the Living God. “Copying” their work “can have beneficial effects on our own work.” I.e., our own work learning to sing a NEW song to God…

Re: Problems interpreting the Bible. See also in On three suitors (a parable):

[Then] there’s the Hebrew style of writing; in Hebrew there are no vowels, and the letters of a sentence are strung together. An example: a sentence in English, “The man called for the waiter.” Written in Hebrew, the sentence would be “THMNCLLDFRTHWTR.” But among other possible translations, the sentence could read, in English, “The man called for the water.”

The full title of the last-noted blog-link is Develop your talents with Bible study. That post discussed Matthew 25:14-30, with the Parable of the talents. There, the “slothful” servant didn’t “develop his talents.” He just buried the money in a hole. So metaphorically, he – that slothful servant – “fit his talents into a pre-formed, pre-shaped cubby-hole.”

The lower image is courtesy of 6 Ways to Create Depth in Your Landscape Painting. The painting is by Edgar Alwin Payne (1883-1947), “an American Western landscape painter and muralist.” See Wikipedia: “Payne is most remembered for his work of American Indians of the Four Corners area, and, of course, the paintings of his beloved Sierras. In the Sierras, high up in Humphrey’s Basin, you will find the lake named for him, Payne Lake.”

Jesus to His followers: “Don’t get TOO conservative!”

Leave a reply

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus might have added, “Go beyond the “fundamentals…”

* * * *

Narrow Is the Gate The Daily Office Readings for Saturday, May 5, 2018, included Matthew 7:13-21. Specifically, they included Matthew 7:13-14:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

But what did Jesus mean when He said that? Just what is the “narrow gate?”

The traditional view is that getting through the narrow gate means you should spend your life “staying pure.” Or spend that life focusing on staying “sinless.” That view in turn implies that no matter how much suffering is going on in the world, no matter how many millions of people are starving, or are oppressed, or are otherwise being killed off or maimed, none of that matters to God as long as you – yourself – stay “sinless” and “pure.”

Which sounds to me – after 13 trips through the Bible – like a crock.

It seems to me – after a lifetime of experience, and going through the Bible 13 times now – that there’s a better, more accurate answer. That answer is: “Forget about staying pure: Do something with your life!” In other words, God probably couldn’t care less how “pure” you stay, if you do nothing to help make the world a better place. If further words: Don’t turn too “conservative!” See for example How narrow is the narrow gate? – GotQuestions.org.

The gist of that post is that “many will follow the broad road.” And that’s what we have in America today. The “many” are following the broad road of so-called “Conservative Christianity.” (Which to me is a classic oxymoron, or more precisely, a contradiction in terms.)

That is, there are a great many so-called Conservative Christians in America today, and they are the “many” who showed their power by helping elect Donald Trump. Then too, they are the “many” who are driving other Americans away from the Christian Faith, “in droves.” See No wonder there’s an exodus from religion, which began with this:

Do you wonder why the proportion of Americans declaring themselves unaffiliated with organized religion has skyrocketed in recent decades? This trend is especially pronounced among adults under 30, roughly 40 percent of whom claim no connection to a religious congregation or tradition and have joined the ranks of those the pollsters call the “nones.”

The article noted the “partisan irresponsibility” creating a powerful skepticism among young Americans “about what it means to be religious.” (Largely due to “Trump-humping evangelicals.”) In plain words, young Americans increasingly see a strong connection between organized religion and conservative politics. To them, conservative politics and organized religion stand together, and they are leading us “toward the right in the culture wars.”

Which is bad news for those of us striving to be “Real Christians.” (And for the Faith itself.) See No wonder:

If a chaplain could be rebuked for voicing [a] simple and undeniable truth, what’s the point of the “religious liberty” that Trump and his GOP allies celebrate? And when will those who advertise themselves as religion’s friends realize they can do far more damage to faith than all the atheists and agnostics put together?

The “chaplain” was Reverend Pat Conroy, Chaplain to the House of Representatives, just fired and “re-hired” by Paul Ryan. And the long and short of the story is that House Republicans were more inclined to fire their chaplain than “impose accountability on a president who is a proven liar and trashes the rule of law for his own selfish purposes day after day.” In other words, they were more inclined to “comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.”

But we digress. The point of this post is that becoming a “conservative Christian” is taking the easy way. And that’s because it’s so much easier to be a “literalist.” You don’t have to think, you don’t have to take chances, you never have to worry about falling on your face because you made a wrong decision. In other words, you never truly “live,” and you will certainly never, ever get to the point where you can perform greater miracles than Jesus, as He commanded.

You want proof? Check out the Wikipedia article on the Beatitudes:

Each Beatitude consists of two phrases: the condition and the result. In almost every case the condition is from familiar Old Testament context, but Jesus teaches a new interpretation…

In other words, if Jesus had been a conservative, we would never have the Beatitudes.

In further words, it’s the Christians who choose to remain conservative – who choose to never graduate from spiritual boot camp (at right) – who are the “many” taking the broad, easy road. It’s only we – striving to be “real Christians” by following Luke 24:45 – who will get through that narrow gate. And on that I am literally betting my life…

So what could happen if you do turn too conservative? You could end up a Pharisee:

Because of the New Testament‘s frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers … the word “pharisee”… has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit.

In other words, the Pharisees were a “plague unto Jesus” in His own time, and they remain so “even to this day.” (Indeed, perhaps more so.) And that is leading to what Paul noted in Romans 2:24: “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

In plain words, those “Trump-humping evangelicals” are failing in their duty to God…

* * * *

The ongoing “Dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees….”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Sermon on the Mount – Wikipedia. The caption: “‘Sermon on the Mount’ by Carl Bloch.” The article noted that this Sermon is best known for the “Beatitudes,” which “present a new set of ideals that focus on love and humility rather than force and exaction; they echo the highest ideals of Jesus’ teachings on spirituality and compassion.”

The complete Bible readings for Saturday, May 5, 2018 are: “AM Psalm 75, 76; PM Psalm 23, 27 Lev. 23:23-44; 2 Thess. 3:1-18; Matt. 7:13-21.” The full set of Bible readings for Monday, May 7: “AM Psalm 80; PM Psalm 77, [79] Lev. 25:35-55; Col. 1:9-14; Matt. 13:1-16.”

See also the Bible readings for Friday, May 4, which include Matthew 7:1-2: ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” That’s another Bible passage “more honored in the breach” by today’s “Trump-humping evangelicals.” See also On “holier than thou”,” about Jesus’ Parable of the Mote and the Beam, ) The full readings for Friday, May 4, 2018: “AM Psalm 106:1-18; PM Psalm 106:19-48[;] Lev. 23:1-22; 2 Thess. 2:1-17; Matt. 7:1-12.”

Re: Comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.” As noted in “Trump-humping,” the real job of both Christians and reporters is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” See also James 4:6: “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

The lower image is courtesy of Pharisees – Wikipedia. The caption: “Gustave Doré: Dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees.” As to placing the letter of the law above its spirit, see 2d Corinthians 3:6.

* * * *

Re: The number of times I’ve read through the Bible. See Reflections on a loss:

I started my spiritual journey that led to this blog back in the summer of 1992. That’s when I started reading the Bible on a daily basis – using the DORs – and also started fine-tuning my exercise “ritual sacrifice.”

Re: “Blasphemed among the Gentiles.” The quote is from the English Standard Version. See also the New Living Translation: “No wonder the Scriptures say, ‘The Gentiles blaspheme the name of God because of you.'” This follows Romans 2:23: You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law? See also Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

From the LXX. version of Isaiah 52:5… The Apostle [Paul] is not careful as to the particular context from which he draws. He knew that he was giving the substance of Scripture, and he takes the aptest words that occur to him at the moment. Translated into our modern modes [it] amounts to little more than “in the language of Scripture.” The intention, as so frequently with St. Paul, seems, as it were, to be divided between proof and illustration.

Then Jesus “opened their minds…”

Leave a reply

“Jesus’ ascension to heaven,” by John Singleton Copley – after He “opened their minds…”

* * * *

The Gospel lesson for Sunday, April 15, 2018, was Luke 24:36b-48. (According to the Revised Common Lectionary, for Sunday Bible readings.) That Sunday reading included Luke 24:45: “Then he” – that is, Jesus – “opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.”

Which is precisely the point of this blog… Opening your mind when reading the Bible.

I wrote about Luke 24:45 last May in Ascension Day 2017 – “Then He opened their minds.”

(A note: Last year Ascension Day was on May 25. This year it’s coming up on May 10. That’s because it’s always “celebrated on a Thursday … the 40th day of Eastertide, the 50-day church season running from Easter Day to Pentecost Sunday.) So anyway, here’s the point I was trying to make:

Luke 24 [included] the Road to Emmaus appearance. [Shown below.] That [was] followed in turn by the last of the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus. The two disciples at Emmaus had gotten up and “returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together.” Jesus then appeared in the midst of all of them, and taught them things; i.e., He “opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” (E.A.)

* * * *

Put another way, the key point was that some people may object to reading the Bible with an open mind. But if they do, we can always say we’re “just following the example of Jesus as told in Luke 24:45.” See also “There’s no such thing as a ‘conservative Christian.” That post noted the difference between real Christians and “Pharisees.” (Conservatives posing as Christians):

Christians aren’t negative, self-righteous, sanctimonious or hypocritical. Real Christians work every day to make the world a better place, plowing ahead, while the pharisees get all the negative press… Which of course leaves the rest of us with a heavy cross to bear.

And speaking of reading the Bible with an open mind, consider the “Daily” readings for Sunday, April 22, 2018. Those Daily Office Readings included Mark 6:30-44. That Gospel reading included the story of Jesus feeding the multitude. (In this case, about 5,000.)

I wrote about that episode in April 2014’s Another view of Jesus feeding the 5,000. That post explained the difference between the traditional – or narrow-minded – interpretation of the story, and one more in line with reason and experience. That is, in the narrow-minded view, Jesus performed a fairly-routine magic trick. (A “pure miracle, plain and simple.”) The miracle can’t be explained rationally and was never meant to be understood rationally.

But there is a non-traditional view, and it’s based on the idea that some people in Jesus’ time never left home without taking a spare loaf of bread – or some other food – stashed somewhere in the folds of their robes. Under that theory, Jesus started off with faith, and in turn got other people to act on that faith, and share what they had. I ended the post this way:

Suppose the lesson Jesus intended to teach us was that – by His example – He got a bunch of normally-greedy people to share what they had. That by His example, Jesus got those normally-greedy people to share so much of their own stuff that no one – in the crowd of “5,000 plus” – went hungry. And more than that, there was even a surplus. The question is:

Which would be the greater miracle?

* * * *

“Feeding the multitudes,” by Bernardo Strozzi….

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article, Ascension of Jesus, with the full caption: “Jesus’ ascension to heaven depicted by John Singleton Copley, 1775.”

The full set of readings for Sunday, April 15, 2018, were: Acts 3:12-19, Psalm 4, 1 John 3:1-7, and Luke 24:36b-48. The full set of “Daily” readings for Sunday, April 22, 2018, were “AM Psalm 63:1-8(9-11), 98; PM Psalm 103;” along with Exodus 28:1-4,30-38; 1st John 2:18-29; and Mark 6:30-44.

And incidentally, April 25, 2018 was the Feast Day for St. Mark, who wrote the first and shortest of the four Gospels. For more see On St. Mark’s “Cinderella story.” That is, at one point Mark’s was “the most ‘dissed‘” of the four Gospels: For example, St. Augustine called Mark “the drudge and condenser” of Matthew’s Gospel. The “Cinderella” angle started with serious Bible scholarship in the 19th Century, which noted that “the other three Gospels all cited material from Mark, but ‘he does not do the same for them.’” The conclusion? “Mark started the process and set the pattern of and for the other three Gospels. As a result of that, since the 19th century Marks’ “has become the most studied and influential Gospel.” See also More on “arguing with God” – and St. Mark as Cinderella. Or you can type in “St. Mark” in the search box above right for more on this saint.

The “shown below” image is courtesy of Supper at Emmaus (Caravaggio, London) – Wikipedia:

The painting depicts the moment when the resurrected but incognito Jesus, reveals himself to two of his disciples… Cleopas wears the scallop shell of a pilgrim [and] gesticulates in a perspectively-challenging extension of arms in and out of the frame of reference… The painting is unusual for the life-sized figures, the dark and blank background. The table lays out a still-life meal. Like the world these apostles knew, the basket of food teeters perilously over the edge. [E.A. Talk about Deja Vu All Over Again…]

Re: “Which would be the greater miracle?” That is, which would be the greater miracle, the Almighty Son of God performing a fairly routine magic trick, or a religious leader getting “normally greedy people” to share what they had? I’m guessing the latter would be the greater miracle…

The lower image is courtesy of Feeding the multitude – Wikipedia. The full caption: “Jesus feeding a crowd with 5 loaves of bread and two fish,” by Bernardo Strozzi, circa 1615.

Palm Sunday: To “not sin,” or to accomplish something?

Leave a reply

Is this the face of a prophet? He did say to mind your own business, just like Jesus did…

* * * *

Two mornings ago I was reading the DORs for Palm Sunday, March 25, 2018.

For some reason Psalm 103 struck a chord, but not in a good way. It seemed to focus on “sin,” in the manner of so many “busybodies” who masquerade as “good Christians.” (Illustrated at right.) See for example 2d Thessalonians 3:11 … Bible Hub, and the citations therein. And see also – from the Palm Sunday readings – Psalm 103, and especially Psalm 103:3 and Psalm 103:10.

All of which led to this question: What does God want us to actually do with our lives?

Should we focus on trying not to do anything wrong? Or should we focus more on actually doing something with our lives? Put another way: Should we focus on developing the talents and gifts that God gave us? Or – as some Christians seem to imply – “We have to focus on staying ‘sinless,’ and thus on staying Simon Pure?” (A term which can mean either “genuinely and thoroughly pure,” or “superficially or hypocritically virtuous.” The problem? Too many so-called “Conservative Christians” seem to fit the latter meaning…)

My theory is that God would prefer that we actually do something positive with our lives, and not worry so much about not making mistakes. See for example On sin and cybernetics, which noted “You can’t hit the target without ‘negative feedback,’” shown at left, and also that:

Maybe the concepts of sin, repentance and confession are simply tools to help us get closer to the target next time out, even if we never become “perfect.”

And which also leads to the Biblical concept about Minding Your Own Business. There was a variation on that theme by Hank Williams. (“Hank the Elder.”) It has the standard chorus, “If you mind your business then you won’t be minding mine.” And it closes by saying, “if you mind your own business you’ll stay busy all the time.” You’ll be so busy, in fact, that you won’t have time to be telling other people how to live their lives. (I.e., being a “busybody.”)

Which is actually Biblical. See Matthew 7, and especially 7:5, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye:”

Here the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount … gives a new motive to the work of self-scrutiny and self-reformation… When we have wrestled with and overcome our own besetting sins, then, and not till then, shall we be able, with the insight and tact which the work demands, to help others to overcome theirs.

See also On “holier than thou,” for more on the Parable of the Mote and the Beam. (In which Jesus warns His followers on “the dangers of judging others, stating that they too would be judged by the same standard.”) That post also presented an easy test: “Being aware that you may be self-righteous – or have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude – is a strong indication that you probably don’t have either problem.”

* * * *

And speaking of Palm Sunday, it’s that time of year again.

We are now in the midst of Holy Week. On that note, see the following posts: From 2015, On Holy Week – and hot buns; from 2016, On Holy Week – 2016; and from 2017, Psalm 22 and the “Passion of Jesus.” The latter post included the image below, with the note about Good Friday, to wit: “Here’s a spoiler alert:

There is a happy ending, and we get to find out all about it next Sunday…”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Hank Williams – Wikipedia: “Hank Williams in concert in 1951.”

The complete set of Daily Office readings for Palm Sunday: “AM Psalm 24, 29; Zech[ariah] 9:9-12; 1 Tim[othy] 6:12-16; PM: Psalm 103; Zech[ariah] 12:9-11,13:1,7-9;” and Luke 19:41-48.

The “masquerade” image is courtesy of Drama – Wikipedia: “Comedy and tragedy masks.” See also Definition of two-faced by The Free Dictionary.

The lower image is courtesy of Passion of the Christ – Wikipedia. It was also used in the 2017 post, Psalm 22 and the “Passion of Jesus.”

Was “Abraham” a pimp?

Leave a reply

“A painting of Abraham’s departure” – which happened before “Abram” became “Abraham…”

* * * *

I was reading the DORs for last Saturday morning – January 20, 2018 – starting with the Old Testament reading, Genesis 12:9-13:1.

It told about “Abram” – before he became Abraham – going down to Egypt “to reside there as an alien.” (Which raises whole ‘nother train of thought, vis-à-vis aliens in the Bible. And which explains why I put “Abraham” in quotation marks in the title. When he “pimped” he was still Abram.)

So anyway, “Abram” went down to Egypt to escape the famine – “severe in the land” – that was afflicting Shechem in Canaan. (“Shecem” was a village roughly 70 miles north of modern Jerusalem.) But Abram had a problem. His wife “Sarai” – before she became Sarah – was extremely beautiful. (As seen above left.) So here’s what he did:

As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. Say you are my sister [ – as illustrated below right – ] so that I will be treated well for your sake… And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels.

That’s according to Genesis 12:11-16. But then Pharaoh suffered a series of plagues or mishaps, and he finally figured out it was because Sarai was Abraham’s wife, not his sister. But somehow God turned that to Abram’s advantage, and so he left Egypt a much richer man than when he first arrived. (In much the same manner of the Children of Israel, as Moses led them out of Egypt after 400 years of slavery. See Exodus 3:22, “and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.”)

But Abram ended up a much richer man because he gave his wife to another man. So when I read that I thought, “Was Abram a pimp?” Then I wondered if I was the first person that thought had occurred to. (“To whom that thought had occurred,” to be grammatically correct.)

But no… I Googled “was abraham Bible a pimp,” and got 8,210,000 results. Most were from sites like Intelligent Blasphemy or The Heretic’s Bible. But aside from heretics and infidels, the same thought seems not to have occurred to many Christians. (Gee, I wonder why?)

But the question does bear consideration. And the answer I came up with is that many times you definitely don’t want to interpret the Bible too literally. And this is a prime example.

That is, if a “good Christian” takes the Bible too literally – and uses the plain meaning rule – the only logical conclusion is that Abram did indeed “pimp out his wife.” (Like the heretics and infidels say.) But that would miss the whole point of Abraham’s story. That story is not about Abraham pimping out his wife, any more than the Book of Jonah is about a stinkin’ whale!

See On Jonah and the bra-burners (with the image at left):

My point was that the “attention-getter” in Jonah – the whale – got in the way of the real message. So the Book of Jonah was just like the “bra-burners” at the 1968 Miss America pageant, where that real message got lost too. The real message of Jonah is: God’s love is universal… (It ain’t about no ^%$## whale!!!)

Thus the problem of using an attention-getter. (Like burning bras.) Sometimes it gets in the way of the real message. And so, “Ever since the Book of Jonah was written (it seems) Bible-readers have ‘picked up on the whale part.’ In doing so they’ve ignored the real message behind the book.” The same thing could happen here.

Maybe the real message of the Abraham saga is that he was a human ^%$# being, just like us today. He was not some “goody two-shoes” bent on preserving his “virtue.” And there’s another thing that Abraham was not. He was not a conservative. For example, notice that when God changed the names of both “Abram” and “Sarai” – to Abraham and Sarah – He expanded their horizons. (Just like it says at the top of this page.)

But imagine if Abram and Sarai had turned too conservative… For one thing, Abram would never have left Ur of the Chaldees. “I can’t do that! I’m too afraid of an unknown future!”

Also, note that the saga kind of concluded with this morning’s reading, Genesis 18:16-33. That’s where Abraham did another thing that “conservative Christians” would never think about doing. See On arguing with God. That post includes a section on Abraham “arguing:”

Take Sodom and Gomorrah… “Please!” That is, see: Genesis 18:16-33. That’s where Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy Sodom. (And quite frankly, he was kind of a pain about it, haggling with God not to destroy the city if there were 50 good people in it, down to as few as five good people…)

Anyway, the point of all this is that with a true Christian – a real Christian, not a too-conservative “Pharisee” – God changes people. And you won’t accept that change if you’re too conservative.

God changed Abram from an old man with no sons – from Sarai anyway – to Abraham, the “father of a multitude of nations.” God changed Sarai from a barren, childless old hag to Sarah, “the mother of the Church.” And God changed Jacob – who also wasn’t afraid to argue with God – to Israel, “Patriarchof the Israelites.” The lesson: Don’t be too conservative – too “literal” – in reading the Bible. Let God change you – for the better…

* * * *

File:Leloir - Jacob Wrestling with the Angel.jpg

“Jacob wrestling with the Angel” – as a result of which his name got changed to Israel…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Abraham – Wikipedia. The full caption: “A painting of Abraham’s departure by József Molnár.”

The “Sarai” image is courtesy of tâniarubiminenglish.blogspot.com. (“Women in the Bible in real times,” and/orhttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_W0RrCetBQQ0/TGoAWj…s1600/Bia49.jpg.” Or you can just Google “sarah Bible image.”

The image of Abraham counseling Sarai – “ Say you are my sister [ – as illustrated below right – ]” – is courtesy of Abraham – Wikipedia. The full caption: “‘Abram’s Counsel to Sarai’ (watercolor circa 1896–1902 by James Tissot).” Note that – according to the Bible (Genesis 17:17) – Abraham was ostensibly 10 years older than Sarah – but he looks much older in the picture.

Re: “Abram to Abraham.” See the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary to Genesis 17:5:

In Eastern countries a change of name is an advertisement of some new circumstance in the history, rank, or religion of the individual who bears it. The change is made variously, by the old name being entirely dropped for the new, or by conjoining the new with the old; or sometimes only a few letters are inserted, so that the altered form may express the difference in the owner’s state or prospects.,, In dealing with Abraham and Sarai, God was pleased to adapt His procedure to the ideas and customs of the country and age. Instead of Abram, “a high father,” he was to be called Abraham, “father of a multitude of nations.”

See also Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, which explained that at first “he was the father of Aram, and therefore his name was called Abram, but now he is the father of the whole world, and therefore called Abraham.” As for his wife’s change of name – from Sarai to Sarah – see Genesis 17:15: “God also said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.'” The notes indicate that the name “Sarai signifies my princess, as if her honor were confined to one family only,” while the name “Sarah” indicates a change of status, from a “princess,” to something more. That is, “whereas formerly she was Abram’s princess only, she was henceforth to be recognized as a princess generally, i.e. as the mother of the Church.” So God expanded her horizons.

The full Satucket readings for Saturday, January 20, were: “AM Psalm 30, 32; PM Psalm 42, 43,” along with Genesis 12:9-13:1, Hebrews 7:18-28, and John 4:27-42. The full readings for Sunday, January 27, 2018, were: “AM Psalm 55; PM Psalm 138, 139:1-17(18-23); Genesis 18:1-16; Hebrews 10:26-39; and John 6:16-27. The Gospel reading included John 4:32, where Jesus said to His disciples – who had urged Him to eat – “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” That’s another indication that God didn’t intend the Bible to be taken too literally.

On that note, see also John 2:13-22, one of the recent Daily Office Readings:

The Jews then said to him, ‘What sign can you show us for doing this?’Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?’But he was speaking of the temple of his body.After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

The point there is that in saying “destroy this temple,” Jesus didn’t mean to be taken literally, but figuratively. And that pretty much goes along with the major theme of this blog.

Re: Genesis 18:16-33. That’s where Abraham was a real pain to God:

Abraham came near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it?Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?’ And the Lord said, ‘If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.’Abraham answered, ‘Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?’ And he said, ‘I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.’ Again he spoke to him, ‘Suppose forty are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of forty I will not do it.’ Then he said, ‘Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.’ He answered, ‘I will not do it, if I find thirty there.’He said, ‘Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.’ Then he said, ‘Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.’

The line – “Take Sodom and Gomorrah… ‘Please!’” – harks back to a classic Henny Youngman one liner. See Comedy Classics: Henny Youngman – “Take My Wife. Please.”

The lower image is courtesy of Wikipedia, is Jacob Wrestling with the Angel, by Alexander Louis Leloir(1865). Leloir (1843-1884), was a a French painter specializing in genre and history paintings. His younger brother was painter and playwright Maurice Leloir.

“From Yahweh to Yahoo” – and the Great Dissenter

Leave a reply

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. – otherwise known as “The Great Dissenter…”

* * * *

It’s Wednesday, January 17, 2017, and snowing in God’s Country. (See “Twitter erupts in memes, jokes and snowy scenes.”)

Which means we’re not supposed to leave home – i.e., drive on the roads. Which also means I have no excuse for not doing a new post. (The last was Happy Epiphany – 2018, 11 days ago.)

And just to catch you up, last Saturday, January 13, was the Feast Day for St. Hilary. See last year’s On Hilary – 1″L,” and HE was a bishop. An aside: “Hilary’s parents were pagans – ‘of distinction.’ And he was said to have had a ‘good pagan education, which included a high level of Greek.'” He went on to convert to Christianity, and ultimately became the Bishop of Poitiers. (A city 210 miles southwest of Paris.)

But after that Hilary ran afoul of both church and secular authorities. He backed the wrong side in the Arian controversy, and for that the Emperor Constantius II sent him into exile for four years. But he put those years to good use. In fact, his “dissents” became so persuasive that they were ultimately adopted as the “majority opinion.” (So to speak.)

In that he was not unlike Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., at right. His “dissents were often prescient and acquired so much authority that he became known as ‘The Great Dissenter.’”

Anyway, Hilary – 1″L” concluded that sometimes God’s work means being “a disturber of the peace.” (See Pastor denounces Trump’s ‘s–thole’ comments with red-faced Vice President Mike Pence in the pews.) Which brings up a book from 15 or so years ago, getting my Master’s degree in Journalism: From Yahweh to Yahoo!: THE RELIGIOUS ROOTS OF THE SECULAR PRESS. The Amazon review said this:

{The book} provides a fresh and surprising view of the religious impulses at work in the typical newsroom… Doug Underwood argues that American journalists are rooted in the nation’s moral and religious heritage and operate, in important ways, as personifications of the old religious virtues.

As a quasi-journalist I tend to agree. And add that the same can apply to bloggers.

Definitions.net Or as has been said before, the job of both reporters and real Christians is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. The link gives a good history of the development of that concept, to wit: That the job of both reporters and true Christians is to be “watchdogs:”

The “comfortable” were the fat cats in business and politics who were dabbling in crime and corruption behind the scenes. The journalists saw their dual role in the media as both comforting the victims of corruption and also calling the sleazy fat cats to account for their crimes.

And while the phrase doesn’t appear in the Bible, “the concept of God comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comforted is thoroughly Biblical.” See for example, Psalm 18:27, which in the NLT says of God: “You rescue the humble, but you humiliate the proud.”

For another look at the link between reporters and real Christians, see the original “Mr. Dooley.” He was the “fictional 19th century Irish bartender” created by Finley Peter Dunne. See Poynter:

“Th’ newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward.”

(Emphasis added.) Dooley was clearly being hyperbolic, but there are similarities. Which is pretty much what Doug Underwood said in Yahweh to Yahoo!

Which brings us back to today’s Snow Day. I’d found my copy of Yahweh to Yahoo earlier, and when I picked it up this morning, I found the back flap inserted between pages 276-77. (A sign from God?) The first sentence atop page 276: “Journalists are highly attuned to hypocrisy, and their disgust at the discrepancy between what is preached and what is practiced among [some] religious folk can quite high.” And note that I inserted the word “some” before “religious folk.”

I did that for a reason, expressed more fully in June 2014’s On “holier than thou.” The gist of the post: There are a lot of “prevailing quacks” in the Christian church. The problem? Such Bible literalists – who never go “beyond the fundamentals” – are both giving the rest of us a bad name and driving possible converts away in droves. (Not to mention cheating themselves.)

And that post included a quote from H. L. Mencken, in his Minority Report:

The only way that democracy can be made bearable is by developing and cherishing a class of men [ – people – ] sufficiently honest and disinterested to challenge the prevailing quacks. No such class has ever appeared in strength in the United States. Thus, the business of harassing the quacks devolves upon the newspapers. When they fail in their duty, which is usually, we are at the quacks’ mercy.

The point of all this is that the right of dissent – considering different points of view – is crucial to both personal spiritual growth and a healthy democracy.

For example, it was once said to be “contrary to Scripture” that the earth revolved around the sun. But as I noted in Moses and Paul “dumbing it down,” the dissent finally prevaiied:

It was never ‘contrary to Scripture’ that the earth revolved around the sun. It was only contrary to a narrow-minded, pigheaded, too-literal reading of the Scripture…”

* * * *

Gene Kelly as the Mencken-like character in the 1960 film Inherit the Wind…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. – Wikipedia. The caption: “1978 postage stamp issued by the U.S. Post Office to commemorate Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.”

Re: Holmes as “the Great Dissenter.” See Amazon, The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind – and Changed the History of Free Speech in America. But there are other claimants to the title. See for example John Marshall Harlan – Wikipedia, Norman Thomas: The Great Dissenter – amazon.com, and International Civil Rights: Walk of Fame – Thurgood Marshall. Marshall – the first black Justice – “became known as ‘the great dissenter’ for his vigorous opposition to majority Supreme Court decisions he believed violated human and civil rights.” As for Harlan:

He was known as “the Great Dissenter” [as] the lone justice to dissent in one of the Supreme Court’s most notorious and damaging opinions, in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. In arguing against his colleagues’ approval of the doctrine of “separate but equal,” John Marshall Harlan delivered what would become one of the most cited dissents in the court’s history.

The point being that “dissent” is essential to spiritual growth, for both persons and communities. But see also Right to dissent legal definition: While some on the Supreme Court have said freedom of speech is absolute, most Americans agree with Justice Holmes: The Constitution allows some restrictions under some circumstances. See Shouting fire in a crowded theater.

* * * *

Returning to the notes: See the full Daily Office Readings for Saturday, January 13, 2018 on Satucket: “AM Psalm 20, 21:1-7(8-14); PM Psalm 110:1-5(6-7), 116, 117; Genesis 6:9-22; Hebrews 4:1-13; John 2:13-22,” which includes a blurb on Hilary (of Poitiers). They include Hebrews 4:1-13 and John 2:13-22. Hebrews 4:1-13 reads: “So then, a Sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his.” The point there is that after that initial Sabbath-day’s rest – see Genesis 2:2 – God went back to work. (See Is God at Work in History? – Everyday Theology.) The logical conclusion is that “in the hereafter,” those who “cease from their labors” for one “Sabbath” in heaven will also likely “get back to work.” As to John 2:13-22:

The Jews then said to him, ‘What sign can you show us for doing this?’Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?’But he was speaking of the temple of his body.After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

The point there is that in saying “destroy this temple,” Jesus didn’t mean to be taken literally, but figuratively> And that pretty much goes along with the major theme of this blog.

Re: “Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” See also Finley Peter Dunne – Wikipedia, To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, Sermon, Acts 19:1-10; 21-41, Comfort the Afflicted, and/or Who said comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?

The lower image is courtesy of Inherit the Wind (1960 film) – Wikipedia. The caption: “Gene Kelly as Hornbeck.” The cast list included this note: “Gene Kelly as E. K. Hornbeck of the Baltimore Herald (patterned after Henry L. Mencken).” In fairness I add this:

[T]he film engages in literary license with the facts… For example, Scopes (Bertram Cates) is shown being arrested in class, thrown in jail, burned in effigy, and taunted by a fire-snorting preacher. William Jennings Bryan (Matthew Harrison Brady) is portrayed as an almost comical fanatic who dramatically dies of a “busted belly” while attempting to deliver his summation in a chaotic courtroom. The townspeople are shown as frenzied, mean-spirited, and ignorant. None of that happened in Dayton, Tennessee during the actual trial.

DOR Scribe

Expand your horizons – Read the Bible with an open mind

Category Archives: Daily Office readings

On Luke and the “rich young man”

Did Jesus interpret Scripture “liberally?”

On Mary Magdalene, and “conserving talents…”

“Don’t get TOO conservative!“

“Hey Jeff, here’s your millstone!” (And Sarah too…)

Welcome to “read the Bible – expand your mind:”

Talk about moving mountains…

The “stick figure” parable…

You make the call!

Jesus to His followers: “Don’t get TOO conservative!”

Then Jesus “opened their minds…”

Which would be the greater miracle?

Palm Sunday: To “not sin,” or to accomplish something?

There is a happy ending, and we get to find out all about it next Sunday…”

Was “Abraham” a pimp?

“From Yahweh to Yahoo” – and the Great Dissenter