This is a response to a blog I read at "The Bench Stone." Click this link to read it first, but if you do, then you're in for a lot of reading with his and mine combined (you are now warned). Of course, if you don't read his first, then mine won't make sense. Oh well, I guess you suck it up or x it out. Your choice.
Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.
The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.
Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.
I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Problem of Evil
Ever since I learned about the problem of evil as a theology student it has plagued me. They call it the “heart of atheism.” Specifically, the death camps of WW2 have been used to “prove” or illustrate that there can be no God. Quickly, let me go over the problem of evil for those who aren’t familiar with it (technically). I write technically because you are familiar with it whether you know the technical term or not.
P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”
P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).
The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.
One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.
Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.
So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.
I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.
P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”
P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).
The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.
One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.
Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.
So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.
I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.
Friday, March 28, 2008
God: Chapter 6 (Reality)
While I was trying to think of ideas for our new church website, I thought about godtube.com. I decided to check it out to see if maybe I should either embed a video on our site or provide a link over. I came across a video that looked like it might be a candidate. The production quality was pretty good. It was filmed in black and white, used an interesting but non-distracting song, and some video effects (e.g. slow motion). Anyway, the video shows a guy in front of a building realizing he is out of money. Simultaneously, this broke man sees a teen walk into the building with a backpack on. He follows him in and waits for him to go into the stairwell. When they meet, he pulls his gun and shoots the boy taking his pack. This is where the video turned to crap. The shooter runs out of the front of the building and sits on the bench that he was at before entering the building. So first of all, he feels no strong need to get out of the area apparently. That doesn’t even compare to what happens next. The guy digs into the bag to find what he has just stolen. He pulls out a Bible. He doesn’t just look past it; he opens it up and starts reading it. Apparently he knew to turn to the New Testament. Of course, he goes from shooter to convert in less than 20 seconds. At this point, he runs back into the building to help the person he just shot. And this is the state of Christian media. Disconnection from reality serves no one. Would this happen? Where is the honesty? In real life, the man would have not hung around. He would not have grabbed the Bible and turned to Matthew 5. I get the point. I get the message. I get the hope of the message. But its disconnect with reality leaves a void. I can’t listen to a Christian message that lives in an ivory tower. I can’t be moved by something that I can’t relate to. Why can’t Christian art, in terms of music, photography, and video, be real? I can only think of a few examples (e.g. Nooma, Switchfoot). Is that why Nooma is so popular? Are Christians starved for a message that lives in our actual context…that faces our real problems with real solutions? Do we want something other than a solution in a book which is covered in dust. Are unbelievers open to a message in a different format?
In the latest Nooma video, 019 Open, the message is real. It’s especially real for me. “God answered my prayer” shouldn’t be equated with “God said yes.” The reality is that people pray and people die. People pray and “God shows up.” Well, if God showed up for you, does that mean God abandoned me? The reality is that we don’t like to talk about those times. When the answer is no response, we don’t promote that in the church. When Lazarus dies in the Bible, Jesus is called upon (John 11). The distance from where he was and where Lazarus was located was no more than a two day trip. Jesus doesn’t show up until the 4th day. Why? The prayer came wholeheartedly. Why did he leave them in the dark for 2 extra days? In Matthew 9, Jesus goes the moment the father asks to save his daughter. As soon as Jesus saw the dead man and the wailing mother of Luke 7, he spoke life back into the son. In Lazarus’ case, there is silence for 2 days. The hint is found here: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." The point of the wait was to stretch the faith. It was to increase the miracle. In the Jewish culture, a person wasn’t technically considered dead until the 3rd day (practically, though, they were). This meant that the person still had a chance of coming back because the spirit hovered over the body until the 3rd day, in their minds. By waiting till this 4th day, Lazarus’ coming back was a miracle. He didn’t just come back into his body from hovering over top. He truly came back from the dead.
So this is why I don’t like the vast majority of Christian media. It lives in another world. It pretends as if we’re already in heaven. It always has a smile on its face. It has a hard time being honest. It tells us that if God "didn't," then you must have not had enough faith. It pretends as if conversion is just a matter of handing someone a Bible. It tells people to convert or burn as if this other world we’re speaking of is in any way relatable to people who don’t even believe it exists! Maybe another Christian T-shirt will do the trick. Christian media also tends to not be original. The first video I saw when I went to God-Tube was “Umbrella - Christ Mix.” This is a rip off of Rihanna’s “Umbrella.” Where is our originality? Don’t we have a relevant message that has the ability to think proactively rather than reactively to our culture? Can’t we shape culture rather than rip it off? I think the problem is that we’ve relegated God to the physical church building. Whatever happens inside a church “is” Christian. Whatever happens outside of it is secular. Real life, then, is secular. Real life isn’t Christian. Real life is getting together to play basketball. It’s getting together to go to a concert. It’s “family fun day.” It’s learning something on tv or from a book and sharing it. That is the Christian’s life. It’s real life experience taken in through the lens of the truth. God is the author of this world. He made it possible and we’ve been given the ability to create more. Our concept of what “Christian” is is too narrow. It’s just whatever can be said, listened to, and watched in a church. A while back, Amy Grant, put out a cd that didn’t say “God” in every song and suddenly she lost her salvation. Suddenly, she “sold out.” That was the reaction. When you understand what God as creator means and our connection with each other inside this creation, then there is no such thing as secular. Everything in creation is either used for God’s glory or not. After all, Everything is Spiritual.
In the latest Nooma video, 019 Open, the message is real. It’s especially real for me. “God answered my prayer” shouldn’t be equated with “God said yes.” The reality is that people pray and people die. People pray and “God shows up.” Well, if God showed up for you, does that mean God abandoned me? The reality is that we don’t like to talk about those times. When the answer is no response, we don’t promote that in the church. When Lazarus dies in the Bible, Jesus is called upon (John 11). The distance from where he was and where Lazarus was located was no more than a two day trip. Jesus doesn’t show up until the 4th day. Why? The prayer came wholeheartedly. Why did he leave them in the dark for 2 extra days? In Matthew 9, Jesus goes the moment the father asks to save his daughter. As soon as Jesus saw the dead man and the wailing mother of Luke 7, he spoke life back into the son. In Lazarus’ case, there is silence for 2 days. The hint is found here: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." The point of the wait was to stretch the faith. It was to increase the miracle. In the Jewish culture, a person wasn’t technically considered dead until the 3rd day (practically, though, they were). This meant that the person still had a chance of coming back because the spirit hovered over the body until the 3rd day, in their minds. By waiting till this 4th day, Lazarus’ coming back was a miracle. He didn’t just come back into his body from hovering over top. He truly came back from the dead.
So this is why I don’t like the vast majority of Christian media. It lives in another world. It pretends as if we’re already in heaven. It always has a smile on its face. It has a hard time being honest. It tells us that if God "didn't," then you must have not had enough faith. It pretends as if conversion is just a matter of handing someone a Bible. It tells people to convert or burn as if this other world we’re speaking of is in any way relatable to people who don’t even believe it exists! Maybe another Christian T-shirt will do the trick. Christian media also tends to not be original. The first video I saw when I went to God-Tube was “Umbrella - Christ Mix.” This is a rip off of Rihanna’s “Umbrella.” Where is our originality? Don’t we have a relevant message that has the ability to think proactively rather than reactively to our culture? Can’t we shape culture rather than rip it off? I think the problem is that we’ve relegated God to the physical church building. Whatever happens inside a church “is” Christian. Whatever happens outside of it is secular. Real life, then, is secular. Real life isn’t Christian. Real life is getting together to play basketball. It’s getting together to go to a concert. It’s “family fun day.” It’s learning something on tv or from a book and sharing it. That is the Christian’s life. It’s real life experience taken in through the lens of the truth. God is the author of this world. He made it possible and we’ve been given the ability to create more. Our concept of what “Christian” is is too narrow. It’s just whatever can be said, listened to, and watched in a church. A while back, Amy Grant, put out a cd that didn’t say “God” in every song and suddenly she lost her salvation. Suddenly, she “sold out.” That was the reaction. When you understand what God as creator means and our connection with each other inside this creation, then there is no such thing as secular. Everything in creation is either used for God’s glory or not. After all, Everything is Spiritual.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
God: Chapter 5: (God of Healing)
The following is an archeological possibility. That means that I don’t know if the interpretation I’m about to take is valid or not because the interpretation is based on this place actually being the place described in John. Obviously as you will see, I think it fits rather well.
In John 5, Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of “Bethesda.” Archaeologists have found a set of baths in the vicinity of where John describes this event. He says this pool is near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. 50 meters south of the Sheep Gate, one will find 2 Roman baths, some smaller and rougher pools, and a temple. The baths were designed like the typical Roman baths were. The “rougher” pools resemble caves. They’re sort of cut out of the rock but with no attempt to use right angles forming a square or rectangle like the other more “polished” baths. Now, I did mention a temple here. The temple was to Asclepius. Before I mention what kind of God he was, let me first mention his daughters: Hygieia, Meditrina (the serpent-bearer), Panacea, Aceso, Iaso, and Aglaea. Hygieia? Do I need to go into that one? Meditrina? That certainly sounds like “medicine.” Also, think about the imagery surrounding medicine that we see so often—the serpent curled around the staff. That also harkens back to Moses. Well, Asclepius was a Greek God. But, the Romans adopted the Greek gods. Asclepius was the God of healing or medicine. Is this a coincidence that Jesus heals a man here? Now, think of the story. It has this strange mythical view that if the waters stir, the first one in will be healed. I used to wonder about that. It seems to come from nowhere in Jewish history. It seemed to be pure mythology that was being propagated by the Jews there. Clearly though, it turns out that this was a myth of the Greeks and Romans, which they in turn had taught the people. Those who were sick with diseases or disabilities were disallowed the “nice” Roman baths. However, they were allowed in the “rougher” pool I described earlier. This was the “Jewish” twist to the pagan ritual. However, going in at night wasn’t out of the ordinary. And so as the myth went, if they could get in first, they would be healed. Asclepius would heal them. Jesus comes along and sees this. He heals a paralytic with Asclepius’ temple in the background. Who is the healer now? Who is the one who delivered the man? The Greco-Roman God failed him for 38 years. Jesus didn’t heal everyone there…just this man. Yet the point is still made. The Gods of this world promise yet can’t deliver. As powerful as the Roman Empire was, their gods were made up. They were powerless.
Back to our boy Asclepius. The myth surrounding him was that he could raise the dead using the blood of the Gorgons (Medusa was a Gorgon). So, Asclepius could use blood to raise the dead. Two things were said of Asclepius that made other “gods” angry. One said that he resurrected people in exchange for money. Another said that he healed people making them immortal. This made the god of the underworld angry because he had rightful possession of the dead. Think about these two scenarios in the light of Jesus. Jesus offers resurrection at a price but a price he paid. It is free to you and I. In Peter’s epistle, according to interpretation, Jesus may have “descended into hell.” He “took the keys of the grave” away from Satan. Satan no longer had power over death. The Resurrection is the great conquering of life over death. It is the “ultimate” healing.
As if this story couldn’t get more interesting, there are 12 signs of the zodiac according to popular tradition. In reality, there are 13 signs. One is missing from our modern tradition. This is the sign “Ophiuchus.” “Ophiuchus” is Asclepius after he was murdered by Zeus. (Anyone else enjoy the irony of the resurrecting God who can’t resurrect himself)? Zeus places him in the sky because he realized the importance Asclepius had to men. The name change was to Ophiuchus which meant “serpent-bearer.” This, obviously, fit in with his character, so therefore the name wasn’t random. Ophiuchus is the largest of all the zodiac constellations. I first heard about it a while ago when I was reading about the “New Age Movement.” A lost zodiac sign where a god is known as the “serpent-bearer” sounds pretty insignificant right? Hmm…the new agers wouldn’t lash onto the serpent god who heals mankind would they? The symbol of the serpent doesn’t just convey “healing” but also knowledge. Even in the Bible, the serpent tempts Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. To the Mormons, the serpent is good because he brings about knowledge. 
To many other religions, the serpent or dragon (flying serpent) symbolize truth. (2012 in the Chinese calendar is the year of the Dragon. This being mentioned here only makes sense if you’re familiar with the rumors surrounding 2012.)
So we’ve traveled a long distance from just “another of Jesus’ healings.” If the archeological site was the actual location John was referring to, then many of the early readers would have known the significance of the location. They would have realized the parallel of Jesus as healer vs. Asclepius. Jesus as leader of the Kingdom of God vs. Rome as the Kingdom of this world. Even today, some grab onto this “healing” figure to bring out the hidden knowledge that will save us. That is the Bible for you, a few seemingly insignificant words about a location carry a ton of importance which we miss.
In John 5, Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of “Bethesda.” Archaeologists have found a set of baths in the vicinity of where John describes this event. He says this pool is near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. 50 meters south of the Sheep Gate, one will find 2 Roman baths, some smaller and rougher pools, and a temple. The baths were designed like the typical Roman baths were. The “rougher” pools resemble caves. They’re sort of cut out of the rock but with no attempt to use right angles forming a square or rectangle like the other more “polished” baths. Now, I did mention a temple here. The temple was to Asclepius. Before I mention what kind of God he was, let me first mention his daughters: Hygieia, Meditrina (the serpent-bearer), Panacea, Aceso, Iaso, and Aglaea. Hygieia? Do I need to go into that one? Meditrina? That certainly sounds like “medicine.” Also, think about the imagery surrounding medicine that we see so often—the serpent curled around the staff. That also harkens back to Moses. Well, Asclepius was a Greek God. But, the Romans adopted the Greek gods. Asclepius was the God of healing or medicine. Is this a coincidence that Jesus heals a man here? Now, think of the story. It has this strange mythical view that if the waters stir, the first one in will be healed. I used to wonder about that. It seems to come from nowhere in Jewish history. It seemed to be pure mythology that was being propagated by the Jews there. Clearly though, it turns out that this was a myth of the Greeks and Romans, which they in turn had taught the people. Those who were sick with diseases or disabilities were disallowed the “nice” Roman baths. However, they were allowed in the “rougher” pool I described earlier. This was the “Jewish” twist to the pagan ritual. However, going in at night wasn’t out of the ordinary. And so as the myth went, if they could get in first, they would be healed. Asclepius would heal them. Jesus comes along and sees this. He heals a paralytic with Asclepius’ temple in the background. Who is the healer now? Who is the one who delivered the man? The Greco-Roman God failed him for 38 years. Jesus didn’t heal everyone there…just this man. Yet the point is still made. The Gods of this world promise yet can’t deliver. As powerful as the Roman Empire was, their gods were made up. They were powerless.
Back to our boy Asclepius. The myth surrounding him was that he could raise the dead using the blood of the Gorgons (Medusa was a Gorgon). So, Asclepius could use blood to raise the dead. Two things were said of Asclepius that made other “gods” angry. One said that he resurrected people in exchange for money. Another said that he healed people making them immortal. This made the god of the underworld angry because he had rightful possession of the dead. Think about these two scenarios in the light of Jesus. Jesus offers resurrection at a price but a price he paid. It is free to you and I. In Peter’s epistle, according to interpretation, Jesus may have “descended into hell.” He “took the keys of the grave” away from Satan. Satan no longer had power over death. The Resurrection is the great conquering of life over death. It is the “ultimate” healing.
As if this story couldn’t get more interesting, there are 12 signs of the zodiac according to popular tradition. In reality, there are 13 signs. One is missing from our modern tradition. This is the sign “Ophiuchus.” “Ophiuchus” is Asclepius after he was murdered by Zeus. (Anyone else enjoy the irony of the resurrecting God who can’t resurrect himself)? Zeus places him in the sky because he realized the importance Asclepius had to men. The name change was to Ophiuchus which meant “serpent-bearer.” This, obviously, fit in with his character, so therefore the name wasn’t random. Ophiuchus is the largest of all the zodiac constellations. I first heard about it a while ago when I was reading about the “New Age Movement.” A lost zodiac sign where a god is known as the “serpent-bearer” sounds pretty insignificant right? Hmm…the new agers wouldn’t lash onto the serpent god who heals mankind would they? The symbol of the serpent doesn’t just convey “healing” but also knowledge. Even in the Bible, the serpent tempts Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. To the Mormons, the serpent is good because he brings about knowledge. 
To many other religions, the serpent or dragon (flying serpent) symbolize truth. (2012 in the Chinese calendar is the year of the Dragon. This being mentioned here only makes sense if you’re familiar with the rumors surrounding 2012.)So we’ve traveled a long distance from just “another of Jesus’ healings.” If the archeological site was the actual location John was referring to, then many of the early readers would have known the significance of the location. They would have realized the parallel of Jesus as healer vs. Asclepius. Jesus as leader of the Kingdom of God vs. Rome as the Kingdom of this world. Even today, some grab onto this “healing” figure to bring out the hidden knowledge that will save us. That is the Bible for you, a few seemingly insignificant words about a location carry a ton of importance which we miss.
Monday, March 10, 2008
God: Chapter 4 (The Lost Letter)
“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.” (1st Corinthians 5:9, The Net Bible). The “first” letter to the Corinthians mentions a previous letter to the Corinthians. We don’t have it. Why? Was it not inspired? More importantly, what would we do if we found it and could authenticate it? Certainly the Church isn’t unified enough to agree, but some would add it to their Bible. I suppose most wouldn’t. But why? The argument would be that it wasn’t inspired because if it was, then we would have had it from the beginning. So that is an argument against it based on time. Well, suppose humanity goes on for another 20,000 years. What is 2,000 years in that time frame? So then does eschatology effect our view of Inspiration? 
Think about Corinth. Paul wrote them a letter that isn’t in the Bible. Paul wrote them a letter that we can’t read. Imagine Paul wrote your home church a letter and no one else has it. Is that a good thing or a bad thing. Paul doesn’t just shoot the breeze or puff the ego. His modus operandi is to tell you all the things you’re doing wrong. What would your “Lost Letter” look like? What would it say?
I can’t help but think about this in the context of “prophecy.” I am Pentecostal, so I still believe in the gifts of the Spirit. One of these is the gift of prophecy. Our local church has an Evangelist who comes to speak every few years. She gives “words” in three ways. 1. With the microphone for the whole church to hear and anyone who listens to the tape later on [local church + global church]. 2. With no microphone but all those close enough can hear [local church alone]. 3. With no microphone via whisper into your ear [only you]. The books of the New Testament fit into scenario one. This “lost letter” fits in with scenario 2 (and sort of 3 if you think of the “smallness” of a single church in the history of THE Church). It was the private letter. It was the personal letter. It was for their ears alone unless of course it is found and authenticated. So what do we do with it then? Does this change the way we look at it? A personal letter/personal word should only be made public by the volition of the original receiver. I don’t think Paul’s letter was “personal” in the sense that he was against their making it public. He not only mentions it, but he also says what it was about. It seems to only be personal by wirkungsgeschichte (sort of the history of effects/interpretation). That is, it seems to be anachronistic to say it was a personal letter. I still relate it to the prophecy/private word I wrote of above via the Evangelist because that is the way history has effected the letter. However, this “personal” nature would be no reason to disqualify the book from the canonical question since it is invalid to call it personal the moment it is discovered. So we’re left where we began. What would we do? Would we add it? What if it had no “controversial” doctrine? How much would that help for it to be added? Again, I think it wouldn’t be added, but it certainly would sell. I’d like the book rights to that deal. This should really challenge the way we look at Scripture unlike the bogus “Gospel of Judas.”
Think about Corinth. Paul wrote them a letter that isn’t in the Bible. Paul wrote them a letter that we can’t read. Imagine Paul wrote your home church a letter and no one else has it. Is that a good thing or a bad thing. Paul doesn’t just shoot the breeze or puff the ego. His modus operandi is to tell you all the things you’re doing wrong. What would your “Lost Letter” look like? What would it say?
I can’t help but think about this in the context of “prophecy.” I am Pentecostal, so I still believe in the gifts of the Spirit. One of these is the gift of prophecy. Our local church has an Evangelist who comes to speak every few years. She gives “words” in three ways. 1. With the microphone for the whole church to hear and anyone who listens to the tape later on [local church + global church]. 2. With no microphone but all those close enough can hear [local church alone]. 3. With no microphone via whisper into your ear [only you]. The books of the New Testament fit into scenario one. This “lost letter” fits in with scenario 2 (and sort of 3 if you think of the “smallness” of a single church in the history of THE Church). It was the private letter. It was the personal letter. It was for their ears alone unless of course it is found and authenticated. So what do we do with it then? Does this change the way we look at it? A personal letter/personal word should only be made public by the volition of the original receiver. I don’t think Paul’s letter was “personal” in the sense that he was against their making it public. He not only mentions it, but he also says what it was about. It seems to only be personal by wirkungsgeschichte (sort of the history of effects/interpretation). That is, it seems to be anachronistic to say it was a personal letter. I still relate it to the prophecy/private word I wrote of above via the Evangelist because that is the way history has effected the letter. However, this “personal” nature would be no reason to disqualify the book from the canonical question since it is invalid to call it personal the moment it is discovered. So we’re left where we began. What would we do? Would we add it? What if it had no “controversial” doctrine? How much would that help for it to be added? Again, I think it wouldn’t be added, but it certainly would sell. I’d like the book rights to that deal. This should really challenge the way we look at Scripture unlike the bogus “Gospel of Judas.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
