This is the end, both of this project and of all creation, if memory serves.
17:1 I wonder if the word "whore" represents the same tonal shift in the original language as it seems to in English.
17:3 These "blasphemous names", are they so in the sense that we would expect? Namely, appropriating the divine for themselves? Or are they merely profane?
17:6 I too am "greatly amazed", and I'm merely reading it. Is there any more vivid image in the Bible?
17:8 If only we had some time markers here, this would be a lot easier to identify. Without them, it's entirely possible that this apparition is not a symbol or a metaphor at all, but an actual spirit that holds influence over the rulers of the world. Perhaps it's best to read it as though the angel is speaking with reference to his own time, not to the time in which the vision is to be fulfilled.
17:11 This verse is pretty challenging to parse. The sentence is structured such that the beast itself is the eighth king in a line of seven, of which each is both a precursor and a part of the whole.
17:13 Which makes an interpretation of the ten kings who didn't exist at the time of John's writing as the security council of the United Nations pretty tempting. Kings that had their own time, but are now all part of a larger body to which they yield their power.
17:16 Which makes a religious interpretation of the whore rather tidy. Unless . . . she is repeatedly referred to as a city. Only two cities could possibly fit the bill: the Vatican and Jerusalem. Wouldn't it be a twist if the beast (the UN) turned on secular Israel, and dissolved it? The recent censure of the general assembly would be a first step.
18:1 Since this is a vision, I wonder what sort of visual cues led John to believe that this angel had "great authority".
18:2 And I continue to be obsessed with the question of why certain verses are set as poetry. Is it some artifact of the original text? In other cases, I have assumed it is because they are quotes from a passage that was also set in verse, but this book is entirely original, so that seems unlikely.
18:2,3 More arguments for seeing the whore as having an actual temporal city.
18:6 I find this passage very poetic. Something about the rhythm of it is more poetic than John usually displays.
18:9 These very kings seem to be the ones who in chapter 17 gave her up to the beast, that which is made up of they themselves.
18:24 Certainly sounds like a religion to me. But the Vatican, or Jerusalem? Or perhaps Mecca?
19:4 This tableau is evidently still visible from wherever John is watching.
19:5 Is God referring to himself in the third person here? Or is the figure seated upon the throne some other individual?
19:6 Is this the same great multitude mentioned in chapter 7, those who passed through the great ordeal, or just a generic crowd? If the former, then we begin to see something resembling an actual timeline. And the description here gives nothing to contradict such a reading.
19:11 Difficult not to see this figure as the same who led the four horsemen earlier.
19:17 This is certainly a unique wedding feast.
20:2 Been a while since we heard from this fellow. Not much information on the relationship between him, the beast, and the whore though.
20:4 This gives the lie to the old "only God can judge me" chestnut.
20:5 But if the rest of the dead are not resurrected, those who worshiped the beast were slaughtered, and those who did not were reigning, then over whom did they reign, and whom did they judge?
20:7 The religion in which I was raised interpreted these events as happening well after the great tribulation and the battle of Harmageddon. And John certainly seems to be following a linear timeline in these final chapters, so if we are to take the beast as the UN, and the whore as some religious entity, then such a timeline doesn't have any inherent inconsistencies. But suppose that the beast and the whore and the day of judgement were actually symbols of something else, something that has already passed. The fall of Rome? The fall of Jerusalem? I suppose the symbology could be made to fit either event. Is it possible then, that this 1000 year period of imprisonment has also come and gone? This would be a more tempting line of inquiry if there were anything that would have resembled the end of the world 1000 years thereafter.
20:8 And are we to suppose that Gog and Magog, whatever they might be, are still around after the day of judgement? Human nature being what it is, such a thing would not be at all surprising.
20:14 Pretty impossible to take this lake of fire as anything other than allegorical, when Death and Hades are themselves cast into it.
21:3,4 And here's the coda. The happy ending that let John wake up from his vision without gouging his eyes out. I find myself supposing that without these verses, religion as we know it today would look very different.
21:24 Pretty absurd to suppose that there would still be nations after all of this. No doubt used metaphorically to represent all mankind.
21:26 This seems redundant. Weren't all those who aren't written in the book of life cast into the lake of fire last chapter?
22:5 Wait, no more night? This would require some serious rewiring of the universe.
22:10 "Near" is always relative.
22:12 As is "soon".
22:15 No, the sorcerors and fornicators et al were destroyed. They cannot be outside to gnash their teeth.
22:16 PLOT TWIST The angel showing these things to John was Jesus all along! And furthermore, he says not to worship him, that he is just a fellow servant. Either John forgot some of the theology from his epistle, or there is some change in speaker that he forgot to record.
Well, there you have it folks. The end of many years of pondering, overanalysis, suspension of disbelief, and skeptical query. I find that this book, obscure and inconsistent as it was, was a rather good microcosm of the rest of the Bible. Taken too seriously, it becomes dangerous, confusing, and maddening. But taken on its own merits, a profoundly deep and poetic book with reams of insight about humans, as seen across a slice of thousand of years.
Showing posts with label liveblogging the Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liveblogging the Bible. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 04, 2017
Sunday, August 21, 2016
The Revelation of John: III
11:2,3 The precision of numbers here certainly tempts one to figure out exactly what it means. I recall the religion of my upbringing managing to make it all about them and how awesome they were to have the only possible interpretation of anything ever.
11:4-6 Again, far too specific to resist prying just a little. The whole vision has the flavour of a dream that one remembers in vivid detail. Just two nights ago I awoke with the lyrics and melody of an entirely original song still lingering in my mind. What did it mean? And what did it mean that a man named Iain rode toward me on a blue ATV, and wanted to take pictures of me on the beach while I did a headstand? The vibrancy, clarity, and specificity of this dream beg for interpretation . . . as do John's.
11:7-9 And as tempting as it is to leave it there, to assume that John's vision meant no more or less than my own, I can't resist sampling some modern interpretations of it--much as I would if I were reading Blake or Coleridge. No doubt the things these men saw were only preternaturally vivid altered states, and not divinely inspired visions of the future. Still, what if?
A trip down the rabbit hole reveals a lack of scholarly agreement on the topic of the 1260 days, as well as the identities of the two witnesses. Many seem to feel that the latter represents a time of papal rule, starting in the time of Justinian. But though the beginning of such a period can be supported, it seems a stretch to say that the time of papal authority ended, well, ever. Likewise, there is a general consensus that the most likely identities of these witnesses are Moses and Elijah, but such an interpretation seems meaningless. Are those two meant to return in some way, or is this a reflection of past events after all? I even went so far as to choke down the bile and review the propaganda with which I was raised. It remains as I remembered: "We are the two witnesses, cause we are awesome and right about everything."
I am reminded again about my particularly vivid dream from the other night. Taken as a whole, it is all fairly inscrutable. But the individual elements, the source of each of those is readily identified. I did indeed know a fellow named Iain. And the scene of the dream too, although unconnected with that fellow in reality, was also a real place that I remember. In fact, everything in the dream came from my real experience, or something close to it. It is merely the juxtaposition that muddles them. Is it such a stretch to suppose that John, in a dreaming or otherwise altered state, mashed the time period that he likely knew well from Daniel up with other, unrelated but similarly flavoured elements? This is very much how dreams work.
11:13 And John would have also had memories of Earthquakes in Jerusalem during his lifetime (33 AD).
11:15-18 This verse presents problems for all of the literal interpretations of the 1260 days (years, according to Daniel's rules). After the time period in question, the two witnesses are called to heaven and the Messiah takes possession of the "Kingdom of the world". At which point, the wrath of God comes, the time for judging begins, and rewards are doled out to all who fear His name. If this happened at the end of the 1260 days, either in 1798 or at some other time supposed by scholars, it is remarkable that the subsequent events went without notice.
12:5 This is perhaps the most significant event that John has recorded yet. The woman giving birth! Clearly of divine origin, she is an underscrutinized figure. I am reminded of interpretations that this woman (conflated with similar figures elsewhere in the Bible) is actually The Holy Spirit, or the Wisdom of God. The child she bears is irresistibly Christ-like. The problem with all of the interpretations that spring from that is one of timing. Is this divine birth after the second woe or Ch. 11? If so, whom could it possibly be? And what is meant by the period of exile for this woman and her child, also conveniently 1260 days?
A lot of these problems stem from the assumption that John is seeing these events unfold in linear time. Such a viewpoint is not only difficult here, but also in 8:4 and 9:11, to name just a few that have jumped out on this reading. But it is not by any means the only interpretation of time. Boethius, and all who drew from him, work from the assumption that time, when seen from divine eyes, is not linear, but simultaneous. If one adopts such a perspective, a Tralfamadorian reading of The Revelation so to speak, a lot of these difficulties fall away, and it's rather more easy to believe that John was not just dreaming.
12:13-18 Which reinvests the reader in the fate and identity of this woman. Her battles seem to be every bit as relevant as those of her son, even though they be unseen or metaphorical.
13:2 Approaching these visions from a Boethian perspective ertainly opens up some possibilities. The assumption in most exegesis that I have found is that this beast is a different one than Daniel saw in his Ch 7. Surely, since John's vision is taking place centuries after Daniel's, and presumably after the fulfillment of the latter, we are seeing a separate, still future event. But time in visions and in spirit does not necessarily work that way. There is nothing to prevent us from wondering if this beast is the same as Daniel's fourth beast, and whether John's attention wasn't simply grabbed by different details than Daniel was. it's the same instinct that prompts us to wonder whether John's vision in Rev. 4 isn't simply Ezekiel 1 seen from above. The blind men all touch the elephant in differen tplaces. To one, it is much like a wall. To another, like a sword. And to a third, it is a beast with seven heads and ten horns.
13:5-9 And if we take the assumption that this beast is indeed the same as Daniel's, this is a pretty accurate description of what awaited the "saints" after John's death.
13:11-14 But here John is seeing something that Daniel did not seem to. What arose after, propped up, and gave breath to the Roman empire after its nearly mortal blow? Surely the papacy is a strong contender. Strictly speaking from chronology, the Byzantine empire is also a strong candidate.
13:17 Which interpretation would mean that the symbol in question is actually the cross . . . I can't imagine that interpretation getting much traction though.
13:18 The most interesting and underanalyzed aspect of this verse is the fact that the number of the beast is "the number of a person". What could this mean? Is it an ordinal number? The 666th of something? Or some play on words, a person named Sextus or some such? Among Eastern Emperors, there was a VI of Constantine, John, Leo, and Michael. None of them seem to have been particularly significant though. When I get to those rulers in Gibbon's Decline and Fall, maybe more will be clear. At any rate, the mark of the beast is not its number, as is commonly thought. The number is in some way tied to the name.
A lot of people, and most scholars, seem to get tied up in conflating the identity of this beast with the Antichrist, assigning the latter a prominence in the scriptures that is unearned. There is nothing to tie the two entities together, and nothing particularly identifies the Antichrist as a literal figure. Conversely, the Bible has a well-established pattern of using beasts to represent, not individuals, but entire empires. John's two-headed beast, if one is consistent, and the name/number/mark that goes with it, seem unlikely to be that of a single person.
14:1 A prime example of how John's visions operate very much like dreams.
14:4 If these 144,000 are to be taken as a literal group of people, with a literal number, then it seems inconsistent to suppose that they are anything other than literal virgins.
14:6 I had never before stopped to suppose exactly what "midheaven" means, assuming that it just meant "in midair". But the Greek here is literally in the middle of heaven, not air or sky, and occurs only in Revelation. Having no concept of atmosphere, outer space, or anything beyond the literal sky, one must wonder exactly what John saw here. An actual celestial realm, separate from full heaven? What did it look like? How did he know what he was seeing?
14:8 Here is our clearest argument yet for a Boethian approach to this vision (and others?). Babylon the Great has not even been introduced yet, let alone the scene of her demise described.
14:10 This torture by fire and sulphur is used, I would imagine, to support an idea of hellfire. But it is worth noting here that it is "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb" that it seems to take place--in the same heaven as the rest of the chapter.
14:13 It's been a while since we heard from the Spirit in this book: not since chapter 3, and even then the words of the Spirit were second hand, conveyed by "one like the Son of Man". In that former passage, it would have been easy to interpret it as a metaphorical or impersonal force, perhaps one of the seven that he held in his hand. Here it is definitely given a persona, though, and agency.
14:14 Speaking of whom, here again is "one like a Son of Man". Is it his voice that we heard in the previous verse, and by extension, was he referring to his own words in 2-3?
14:18 It's tempting to take the definite article here as a doorway into some metaphysical explication of the duties of various angels. The idea that there is one angel in charge of fire certainly predicates some very polytheistic questions. But the Greek here has no definite article, even though such is common in Greek--merely a relative pronoun.
15:1 I've lost track. Which scroll, trumpet, and woe are we on? Is this the third woe? All of these marker seem a lot fuzzier than one could be led to believe by reading exegesis of them.
15:5 This is the only mention that I can remember of "The temple of the tent of witness". Traditional interpretation has heaven itself as being the prototypical temple of God, not merely its location. Is this a separate temple? One devoted to a special purpose? If so, for what is it the archetype?
16:1 An argument could be made based on this verse that it is the Most Holy of the tabernacle and subsequently of Solomon's Temple, the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant, and by extension of the Divine presence.
16:4 Is "The angel of the waters" merely the angel who poured the bowl into them, or is it a more managerial position? It would not be the first time that such positions have been hinted at in this book, on both sides of the divine rivalry.
16:7 Which altar? From back in 6:9? Or is this the actual voice of the altar, not merely of those sacrificed on it? What would that even mean?
16:8 All of these plagues so far seem terribly modern. The pollution, disease, rising temperatures, vanishing marine life . . . one prone to apocalyptic thinking might have a lot of fun with these verses.
16:10 But this verse is a little more specific and a lot more obscure. If one sees a nation suddenly plunged into darkness, not only will we have identified the "beast", but also the end chronology.
16:12 After which one would expect China to invade Iraq, I suppose.
16:16 One of my favorite misinterpretations of scripture. Armageddon is not an event; it is a place.
16:19 Referent failure! The last great city mentioned was heavenly Jerusalem. Surely it is not being referred to here. If one acts under the assumption that John meant for his vision to be understood, then his omission of identifying details means he expected his readers to be able to know what he meant by "the great city", arguing for either literal Jerusalem or Rome. But John clearly does not give a withered fig if his audience is as confused as he must be.
16:20 Another very modern, or near future, sign.
11:4-6 Again, far too specific to resist prying just a little. The whole vision has the flavour of a dream that one remembers in vivid detail. Just two nights ago I awoke with the lyrics and melody of an entirely original song still lingering in my mind. What did it mean? And what did it mean that a man named Iain rode toward me on a blue ATV, and wanted to take pictures of me on the beach while I did a headstand? The vibrancy, clarity, and specificity of this dream beg for interpretation . . . as do John's.
11:7-9 And as tempting as it is to leave it there, to assume that John's vision meant no more or less than my own, I can't resist sampling some modern interpretations of it--much as I would if I were reading Blake or Coleridge. No doubt the things these men saw were only preternaturally vivid altered states, and not divinely inspired visions of the future. Still, what if?
A trip down the rabbit hole reveals a lack of scholarly agreement on the topic of the 1260 days, as well as the identities of the two witnesses. Many seem to feel that the latter represents a time of papal rule, starting in the time of Justinian. But though the beginning of such a period can be supported, it seems a stretch to say that the time of papal authority ended, well, ever. Likewise, there is a general consensus that the most likely identities of these witnesses are Moses and Elijah, but such an interpretation seems meaningless. Are those two meant to return in some way, or is this a reflection of past events after all? I even went so far as to choke down the bile and review the propaganda with which I was raised. It remains as I remembered: "We are the two witnesses, cause we are awesome and right about everything."
I am reminded again about my particularly vivid dream from the other night. Taken as a whole, it is all fairly inscrutable. But the individual elements, the source of each of those is readily identified. I did indeed know a fellow named Iain. And the scene of the dream too, although unconnected with that fellow in reality, was also a real place that I remember. In fact, everything in the dream came from my real experience, or something close to it. It is merely the juxtaposition that muddles them. Is it such a stretch to suppose that John, in a dreaming or otherwise altered state, mashed the time period that he likely knew well from Daniel up with other, unrelated but similarly flavoured elements? This is very much how dreams work.
11:13 And John would have also had memories of Earthquakes in Jerusalem during his lifetime (33 AD).
11:15-18 This verse presents problems for all of the literal interpretations of the 1260 days (years, according to Daniel's rules). After the time period in question, the two witnesses are called to heaven and the Messiah takes possession of the "Kingdom of the world". At which point, the wrath of God comes, the time for judging begins, and rewards are doled out to all who fear His name. If this happened at the end of the 1260 days, either in 1798 or at some other time supposed by scholars, it is remarkable that the subsequent events went without notice.
12:5 This is perhaps the most significant event that John has recorded yet. The woman giving birth! Clearly of divine origin, she is an underscrutinized figure. I am reminded of interpretations that this woman (conflated with similar figures elsewhere in the Bible) is actually The Holy Spirit, or the Wisdom of God. The child she bears is irresistibly Christ-like. The problem with all of the interpretations that spring from that is one of timing. Is this divine birth after the second woe or Ch. 11? If so, whom could it possibly be? And what is meant by the period of exile for this woman and her child, also conveniently 1260 days?
A lot of these problems stem from the assumption that John is seeing these events unfold in linear time. Such a viewpoint is not only difficult here, but also in 8:4 and 9:11, to name just a few that have jumped out on this reading. But it is not by any means the only interpretation of time. Boethius, and all who drew from him, work from the assumption that time, when seen from divine eyes, is not linear, but simultaneous. If one adopts such a perspective, a Tralfamadorian reading of The Revelation so to speak, a lot of these difficulties fall away, and it's rather more easy to believe that John was not just dreaming.
12:13-18 Which reinvests the reader in the fate and identity of this woman. Her battles seem to be every bit as relevant as those of her son, even though they be unseen or metaphorical.
13:2 Approaching these visions from a Boethian perspective ertainly opens up some possibilities. The assumption in most exegesis that I have found is that this beast is a different one than Daniel saw in his Ch 7. Surely, since John's vision is taking place centuries after Daniel's, and presumably after the fulfillment of the latter, we are seeing a separate, still future event. But time in visions and in spirit does not necessarily work that way. There is nothing to prevent us from wondering if this beast is the same as Daniel's fourth beast, and whether John's attention wasn't simply grabbed by different details than Daniel was. it's the same instinct that prompts us to wonder whether John's vision in Rev. 4 isn't simply Ezekiel 1 seen from above. The blind men all touch the elephant in differen tplaces. To one, it is much like a wall. To another, like a sword. And to a third, it is a beast with seven heads and ten horns.
13:5-9 And if we take the assumption that this beast is indeed the same as Daniel's, this is a pretty accurate description of what awaited the "saints" after John's death.
13:11-14 But here John is seeing something that Daniel did not seem to. What arose after, propped up, and gave breath to the Roman empire after its nearly mortal blow? Surely the papacy is a strong contender. Strictly speaking from chronology, the Byzantine empire is also a strong candidate.
13:17 Which interpretation would mean that the symbol in question is actually the cross . . . I can't imagine that interpretation getting much traction though.
13:18 The most interesting and underanalyzed aspect of this verse is the fact that the number of the beast is "the number of a person". What could this mean? Is it an ordinal number? The 666th of something? Or some play on words, a person named Sextus or some such? Among Eastern Emperors, there was a VI of Constantine, John, Leo, and Michael. None of them seem to have been particularly significant though. When I get to those rulers in Gibbon's Decline and Fall, maybe more will be clear. At any rate, the mark of the beast is not its number, as is commonly thought. The number is in some way tied to the name.
A lot of people, and most scholars, seem to get tied up in conflating the identity of this beast with the Antichrist, assigning the latter a prominence in the scriptures that is unearned. There is nothing to tie the two entities together, and nothing particularly identifies the Antichrist as a literal figure. Conversely, the Bible has a well-established pattern of using beasts to represent, not individuals, but entire empires. John's two-headed beast, if one is consistent, and the name/number/mark that goes with it, seem unlikely to be that of a single person.
14:1 A prime example of how John's visions operate very much like dreams.
14:4 If these 144,000 are to be taken as a literal group of people, with a literal number, then it seems inconsistent to suppose that they are anything other than literal virgins.
14:6 I had never before stopped to suppose exactly what "midheaven" means, assuming that it just meant "in midair". But the Greek here is literally in the middle of heaven, not air or sky, and occurs only in Revelation. Having no concept of atmosphere, outer space, or anything beyond the literal sky, one must wonder exactly what John saw here. An actual celestial realm, separate from full heaven? What did it look like? How did he know what he was seeing?
14:8 Here is our clearest argument yet for a Boethian approach to this vision (and others?). Babylon the Great has not even been introduced yet, let alone the scene of her demise described.
14:10 This torture by fire and sulphur is used, I would imagine, to support an idea of hellfire. But it is worth noting here that it is "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb" that it seems to take place--in the same heaven as the rest of the chapter.
14:13 It's been a while since we heard from the Spirit in this book: not since chapter 3, and even then the words of the Spirit were second hand, conveyed by "one like the Son of Man". In that former passage, it would have been easy to interpret it as a metaphorical or impersonal force, perhaps one of the seven that he held in his hand. Here it is definitely given a persona, though, and agency.
14:14 Speaking of whom, here again is "one like a Son of Man". Is it his voice that we heard in the previous verse, and by extension, was he referring to his own words in 2-3?
14:18 It's tempting to take the definite article here as a doorway into some metaphysical explication of the duties of various angels. The idea that there is one angel in charge of fire certainly predicates some very polytheistic questions. But the Greek here has no definite article, even though such is common in Greek--merely a relative pronoun.
15:1 I've lost track. Which scroll, trumpet, and woe are we on? Is this the third woe? All of these marker seem a lot fuzzier than one could be led to believe by reading exegesis of them.
15:5 This is the only mention that I can remember of "The temple of the tent of witness". Traditional interpretation has heaven itself as being the prototypical temple of God, not merely its location. Is this a separate temple? One devoted to a special purpose? If so, for what is it the archetype?
16:1 An argument could be made based on this verse that it is the Most Holy of the tabernacle and subsequently of Solomon's Temple, the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant, and by extension of the Divine presence.
16:4 Is "The angel of the waters" merely the angel who poured the bowl into them, or is it a more managerial position? It would not be the first time that such positions have been hinted at in this book, on both sides of the divine rivalry.
16:7 Which altar? From back in 6:9? Or is this the actual voice of the altar, not merely of those sacrificed on it? What would that even mean?
16:8 All of these plagues so far seem terribly modern. The pollution, disease, rising temperatures, vanishing marine life . . . one prone to apocalyptic thinking might have a lot of fun with these verses.
16:10 But this verse is a little more specific and a lot more obscure. If one sees a nation suddenly plunged into darkness, not only will we have identified the "beast", but also the end chronology.
16:12 After which one would expect China to invade Iraq, I suppose.
16:16 One of my favorite misinterpretations of scripture. Armageddon is not an event; it is a place.
16:19 Referent failure! The last great city mentioned was heavenly Jerusalem. Surely it is not being referred to here. If one acts under the assumption that John meant for his vision to be understood, then his omission of identifying details means he expected his readers to be able to know what he meant by "the great city", arguing for either literal Jerusalem or Rome. But John clearly does not give a withered fig if his audience is as confused as he must be.
16:20 Another very modern, or near future, sign.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
The Revelation of John II
6:1 Here we come to one of the most memorable sections of the book, and the one I least hope to be able to interpret.
6:2 It is worth mentioning how little the reality of John's vision overlaps with the popular memory of it. The four horsemen are commonly thought of as Death, War, Plague, and Famine, but this first rider is none of those.
6:7 This verse doesn't even match up with my memory of it. I had mistakenly remembered Death as the one who follows and swallows up the victims of the preceding four, but it is rather Hades; the grave.
6:8 That these four horsemen are summoned by the living creatures (seraphs?) themselves seems important. They are not destructive forces against which the angels fight, but rather agents of the angels themselves. And that first horse. Freed from the interpretation of my youth, namely that this horseman was the enthroned Christ, I find myself gravitating tot he interpretation that it is rather government itself, the misbegotten instinct of mankind to rule and to conquer, in the wake of which comes war, famine, death, and the grave by turns.
6:9 This fifth seal does not summon anything at all. It is not causative, if indeed the first four were. Rather it is a revealing of knowledge to John. The symbolism of a scroll being opened lends itself to an interpretation that these are not events being announced, but knowledge.
6:12 Although the events of the sixth seal seem to be more causative, there is nothing in the language to suggest that the opening of the seal is the catalyst for the celestial events that follow it.
7:1 Is this more information held beneath the sixth seal, or have we moved on?
7:2 A little research seems to be in order. Is the word translated "seal" here the same as in ch. 6? It is indeed.
7:6 Not sure what to make of the fact that Manasseh has replaced Dan in the twelve tribes.
7:9 The relationship between these two groups, the 144,000 and the great multitude, is unclear here. The interpretation of my youth is hard to overlook here.
8:1 How is John able to judge time in the midst of this vision?
8:2 If the vision is to be taken as a prophecy, rather than an explanation, then both of the above groups are "before the throne" among the angels before the opening of the seventh seal.
8:13 This eagle is another character that I don't recall. Of what nation or ruler could it be a symbol? Or is it a seraph, turned so that John can only see one of its faces?
8:4 Insofar as those with the seal in 7:2 are still on the Earth, we may assume that either their presence before the throne earlier is metaphorical, or the events related here are non-linear. But the fact that the great multitude of 7:9 are either conflated with that group, or subject to the effects of the fifth trumpet is troubling.
9:11 Abaddon, one of the only angels named in the Bible, is described in 9:1 as a "star that had fallen from heaven to earth". Does this mark him as a fallen angel? Even though the description of that fall will take place later in the vision?
9:19 The escalation is clear. The locusts are tortuous, but not fatal. The lion headed cavalry, triply fatal.
10:4 But what is the third woe/seventh trumpet? Is this interlude for dramatic effect? What did the seven thunders say?
10:7 "The mystery of God will be fulfilled" is a fascinating turn of phrase. This seventh trumpet that we are anticipating is the culmination of every last thing the prophets have written, and the culmination of the divinity itself.
6:2 It is worth mentioning how little the reality of John's vision overlaps with the popular memory of it. The four horsemen are commonly thought of as Death, War, Plague, and Famine, but this first rider is none of those.
6:7 This verse doesn't even match up with my memory of it. I had mistakenly remembered Death as the one who follows and swallows up the victims of the preceding four, but it is rather Hades; the grave.
6:8 That these four horsemen are summoned by the living creatures (seraphs?) themselves seems important. They are not destructive forces against which the angels fight, but rather agents of the angels themselves. And that first horse. Freed from the interpretation of my youth, namely that this horseman was the enthroned Christ, I find myself gravitating tot he interpretation that it is rather government itself, the misbegotten instinct of mankind to rule and to conquer, in the wake of which comes war, famine, death, and the grave by turns.
6:9 This fifth seal does not summon anything at all. It is not causative, if indeed the first four were. Rather it is a revealing of knowledge to John. The symbolism of a scroll being opened lends itself to an interpretation that these are not events being announced, but knowledge.
6:12 Although the events of the sixth seal seem to be more causative, there is nothing in the language to suggest that the opening of the seal is the catalyst for the celestial events that follow it.
7:1 Is this more information held beneath the sixth seal, or have we moved on?
7:2 A little research seems to be in order. Is the word translated "seal" here the same as in ch. 6? It is indeed.
7:6 Not sure what to make of the fact that Manasseh has replaced Dan in the twelve tribes.
7:9 The relationship between these two groups, the 144,000 and the great multitude, is unclear here. The interpretation of my youth is hard to overlook here.
8:1 How is John able to judge time in the midst of this vision?
8:2 If the vision is to be taken as a prophecy, rather than an explanation, then both of the above groups are "before the throne" among the angels before the opening of the seventh seal.
8:13 This eagle is another character that I don't recall. Of what nation or ruler could it be a symbol? Or is it a seraph, turned so that John can only see one of its faces?
8:4 Insofar as those with the seal in 7:2 are still on the Earth, we may assume that either their presence before the throne earlier is metaphorical, or the events related here are non-linear. But the fact that the great multitude of 7:9 are either conflated with that group, or subject to the effects of the fifth trumpet is troubling.
9:11 Abaddon, one of the only angels named in the Bible, is described in 9:1 as a "star that had fallen from heaven to earth". Does this mark him as a fallen angel? Even though the description of that fall will take place later in the vision?
9:19 The escalation is clear. The locusts are tortuous, but not fatal. The lion headed cavalry, triply fatal.
10:4 But what is the third woe/seventh trumpet? Is this interlude for dramatic effect? What did the seven thunders say?
10:7 "The mystery of God will be fulfilled" is a fascinating turn of phrase. This seventh trumpet that we are anticipating is the culmination of every last thing the prophets have written, and the culmination of the divinity itself.
Monday, May 16, 2016
The Revelation to John
It's hard to believe that I'm actually finishing this project. For all of the other inconsistencies in my life, and all of the other projects I've thrown into the metaphorical firepit over the last ten years, this blog is one thing about which I have been conscientious. Every book I've read during that time. Hundreds of them. It may be the only consistent thing in my life. I'm pretty proud of it, whether or not anybody ever reads it.
1:1 I guess this is technically a fourth hand account, transmitted by an as yet unnamed angel. John's use of "soon" here likely does not mean what he thought it did at the time.
1:3 This is interesting. What effect does reading these words aloud have? This is the only mention of such a phenomenon of which I am aware. Should I be reading this aloud as I go? I'm tempted to. But what are the terms and conditions of this blessing? And what makes this prophecy different from others?
1:4 A nice parallel to the beginning of his own gospel. John may have aged, but his voice and perspective are still recognizable here. Who are these seven spirits though?
1:5 The ruler of the kings of the Earth? In what way? I am inclined to view Christ's Kingdom as entirely unaffiliated with Earthly governments.
1:7 I wonder what aspects of this in the Greek make it verse, and not prose. What sets this passage apart linguistically?
1:8 A definite conflation of God and Christ here, consistent with John's theology elsewhere.
1:9 He "was" on Patmos? Where is he now?
1:11 The literality of the seven churches here argues toward a literal interpretation of the seven spirits in 1:4.
1:12-16 More symbolism of 7s, but the figure here can be none other than Christ. Didn't John say that the message was delivered to him through an intermediary in 1:1?
1:19 The Son of Man does not say "soon", but "after this". John must have interpolated the time frame.
1:20 And, as I recalled, the seven spirits are indeed literal. One for each church. What church are those spirits supervising today, if any?
2:1 Ah, John is writing to the angels now? Then perhaps not so literal after all. Either "angel" here is a metaphor for a human overseer, or it refers to the spirit of the church in a metaphorical sense.
2:3,6 Peter and Paul also pounded this point pretty hard.
2:10 Curious to know if this came true in a literal sense.
2:11 The theme of conquest seemed unworthy of mention in 2:7, but the repetition here alerts one to a pattern.
2:12 And the way he identifies himself to each congregation is a nice little mini-theme within each message. I don't recall John being this literary.
2:17 A fascinating and layered image. I don't recall if it gets develop later or not, but I have my eye out for it.
2:20 Again, John almost sound like Paul here, only more florid. Did they agree to this extent in life?
3:1 I would hate to be in the Sardis congregation when this letter was received . . .
3:11 Well, now he has said "soon". I guess John wasn't taking liberties.
3:12 To each congregation, he makes a different promise for their conquest. Of them all, the white stone with a new name on it is the one I would most like to receive.
4:1 This clears up the confusion about the messenger earlier.
4:2 The distinction is an important one. The Son of Man with his seven spirits etc. is a physical manifestation, and all of his accoutrements are symbols of earthly things. With this verse, though, everything we see until notified otherwise will be a symbol of something heavenly.
4:5 So much for that theory haha. We now have the seven flames and seven spirits again.
4:6-8 I've always tended toward an interpretation of this section as an alternate view of Isaiah's chariot. The see in from of the throne that John sees is the same expanse that Isaiah sees from below. The four living creatures, each with one face, are the same as the Cherubs Isaiah saw. Etc.
4:8 Definitely a theme with John, here and elsewhere.
4:9-12 I wonder how John resolved the clear separation between the one seated upon the throne and the Son of Man he met earlier. Or did the dichotomy register for him?
5:6 These seven spirits are becoming the most fascinating part of this book. Bound at the time of the writing to the seven congregations, but clearly not eternally so, they are here said to be sent into all the earth. This part of the symbolism was also seriously undertreated in my upbringing, to the extent that I hardly remember it being interpreted at all.
5:8 The one seated upon the throne is rather pointedly silent.
5:13 This dichotomy becomes even more pronounced here. There can be no doubt in John's mind that this Lamb is Christ. Who then is seated upon the throne? It cannot be this same Lamb. And the argument cannot hold that one is simply an earthly manifestation of the other, since we are solidly in the spirit realm here.
1:1 I guess this is technically a fourth hand account, transmitted by an as yet unnamed angel. John's use of "soon" here likely does not mean what he thought it did at the time.
1:3 This is interesting. What effect does reading these words aloud have? This is the only mention of such a phenomenon of which I am aware. Should I be reading this aloud as I go? I'm tempted to. But what are the terms and conditions of this blessing? And what makes this prophecy different from others?
1:4 A nice parallel to the beginning of his own gospel. John may have aged, but his voice and perspective are still recognizable here. Who are these seven spirits though?
1:5 The ruler of the kings of the Earth? In what way? I am inclined to view Christ's Kingdom as entirely unaffiliated with Earthly governments.
1:7 I wonder what aspects of this in the Greek make it verse, and not prose. What sets this passage apart linguistically?
1:8 A definite conflation of God and Christ here, consistent with John's theology elsewhere.
1:9 He "was" on Patmos? Where is he now?
1:11 The literality of the seven churches here argues toward a literal interpretation of the seven spirits in 1:4.
1:12-16 More symbolism of 7s, but the figure here can be none other than Christ. Didn't John say that the message was delivered to him through an intermediary in 1:1?
1:19 The Son of Man does not say "soon", but "after this". John must have interpolated the time frame.
1:20 And, as I recalled, the seven spirits are indeed literal. One for each church. What church are those spirits supervising today, if any?
2:1 Ah, John is writing to the angels now? Then perhaps not so literal after all. Either "angel" here is a metaphor for a human overseer, or it refers to the spirit of the church in a metaphorical sense.
2:3,6 Peter and Paul also pounded this point pretty hard.
2:10 Curious to know if this came true in a literal sense.
2:11 The theme of conquest seemed unworthy of mention in 2:7, but the repetition here alerts one to a pattern.
2:12 And the way he identifies himself to each congregation is a nice little mini-theme within each message. I don't recall John being this literary.
2:17 A fascinating and layered image. I don't recall if it gets develop later or not, but I have my eye out for it.
2:20 Again, John almost sound like Paul here, only more florid. Did they agree to this extent in life?
3:1 I would hate to be in the Sardis congregation when this letter was received . . .
3:11 Well, now he has said "soon". I guess John wasn't taking liberties.
3:12 To each congregation, he makes a different promise for their conquest. Of them all, the white stone with a new name on it is the one I would most like to receive.
4:1 This clears up the confusion about the messenger earlier.
4:2 The distinction is an important one. The Son of Man with his seven spirits etc. is a physical manifestation, and all of his accoutrements are symbols of earthly things. With this verse, though, everything we see until notified otherwise will be a symbol of something heavenly.
4:5 So much for that theory haha. We now have the seven flames and seven spirits again.
4:6-8 I've always tended toward an interpretation of this section as an alternate view of Isaiah's chariot. The see in from of the throne that John sees is the same expanse that Isaiah sees from below. The four living creatures, each with one face, are the same as the Cherubs Isaiah saw. Etc.
4:8 Definitely a theme with John, here and elsewhere.
4:9-12 I wonder how John resolved the clear separation between the one seated upon the throne and the Son of Man he met earlier. Or did the dichotomy register for him?
5:6 These seven spirits are becoming the most fascinating part of this book. Bound at the time of the writing to the seven congregations, but clearly not eternally so, they are here said to be sent into all the earth. This part of the symbolism was also seriously undertreated in my upbringing, to the extent that I hardly remember it being interpreted at all.
5:8 The one seated upon the throne is rather pointedly silent.
5:13 This dichotomy becomes even more pronounced here. There can be no doubt in John's mind that this Lamb is Christ. Who then is seated upon the throne? It cannot be this same Lamb. And the argument cannot hold that one is simply an earthly manifestation of the other, since we are solidly in the spirit realm here.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
The Letter of Jude
This book strikes me as the outlyingest of the Greek scriptures. Even by virtue of authorship it is singular among those books adopted as canonical by the early church. There seems to be some confusion about the identity of this Jude. Was he a brother of Jesus? Or one of the original 12 apostles? It would seem to depend on whom you ask. My religious upbringing asserted the former. In either case, nearly nothing is known about him, as compared with Peter, John, Paul et al. As with the book attributed to James, it appears I will need to take it largely on its content.
1:2 Contrasting this salutation with those of Paul and Peter, one would expect the book to be less concerned with "grace" and more with love".
1:4 A recurring theme. Jude adds his voice to those other writers in defending the church against apostasy.
1:6 Whence does this bit of theology come? A reference from some apocryphal book? Not found in any of the canonical books, to my knowledge. And yet it is treated as established fact here.
1:9 Yet another unfamiliar reference--apocryphal even by Catholic standards.
1:14 And a reference to the book of Enoch--not exactly mainstream.
1:23 Well, at least we can see why "grace" was left out of his salutation.
Of all the many epistles that have been lost to history, and still more that have been preserved but refused canonicity, how did this one manage to be included? I can find no other answer than that the Jonathon Edwardsian fire and brimstone appealed to the sensibilities of those in charge of such decisions. y my original count, I have one more book to go in this little project. But the more I read, the more I want to add to the list books that have been inexplicably excluded.
1:2 Contrasting this salutation with those of Paul and Peter, one would expect the book to be less concerned with "grace" and more with love".
1:4 A recurring theme. Jude adds his voice to those other writers in defending the church against apostasy.
1:6 Whence does this bit of theology come? A reference from some apocryphal book? Not found in any of the canonical books, to my knowledge. And yet it is treated as established fact here.
1:9 Yet another unfamiliar reference--apocryphal even by Catholic standards.
1:14 And a reference to the book of Enoch--not exactly mainstream.
1:23 Well, at least we can see why "grace" was left out of his salutation.
Of all the many epistles that have been lost to history, and still more that have been preserved but refused canonicity, how did this one manage to be included? I can find no other answer than that the Jonathon Edwardsian fire and brimstone appealed to the sensibilities of those in charge of such decisions. y my original count, I have one more book to go in this little project. But the more I read, the more I want to add to the list books that have been inexplicably excluded.
Friday, August 21, 2015
The 3rd Letter of John
I took the liberty of reading this brief item through once before beginning on a verse by verse inspection. I find that it has very little in the way of theology to recommend it, and has very much the flavor of a brief email "keeping in touch", as one says. One must wonder what John said to this fellow when and if they met in person.
1:1 In keeping with his opening in the previous epistle, the writer refers to himself merely as "the elder". This sobriquet opens itself to multiple possibilities.
1:5 In contrast to Paul's proscriptions, which are often doctrinal, this seems rather personal. Diotrephes' offense lay in his lack of charity--both toward John and to others in the early church.
1:11 It is easy to see why John was seen as closer to Christ than the other disciples. This admonition mirrors the work of his mentor both in its simplicity and its spirit. Additionally, like much of what Christ is reported to have said, it is incompatible with much of modern Christian doctrine.
In short, not much here to comment upon, but nothing to give offense either.
1:1 In keeping with his opening in the previous epistle, the writer refers to himself merely as "the elder". This sobriquet opens itself to multiple possibilities.
- This is an official title. If so, it's noteworthy that he is "the" elder, not "an" elder. Would Peter object to this seeming demotion?
- This is merely a nickname. The affectionate tone of the note is compatible with opening the book "from your old friend."
- This is a way of distinguishing himself from some other John, of which there are many. Insofar as his name is nowhere mentioned, this seems unlikely.
- This is something of a code word, and truthfully, this is not the only place where the writer seems to be judicious in disclosing identities.
- I'm seriously overthinking it.
1:5 In contrast to Paul's proscriptions, which are often doctrinal, this seems rather personal. Diotrephes' offense lay in his lack of charity--both toward John and to others in the early church.
1:11 It is easy to see why John was seen as closer to Christ than the other disciples. This admonition mirrors the work of his mentor both in its simplicity and its spirit. Additionally, like much of what Christ is reported to have said, it is incompatible with much of modern Christian doctrine.
In short, not much here to comment upon, but nothing to give offense either.
Sunday, March 01, 2015
Second John
1:1 Well this is obfuscatory. Who is this lady? I'm sure that most will take it as a metaphor for the church as a whole, but a reading that assumes an individual audience might be revelatory.
1:3 More anti-trinitarian theology from John.
1:4 This leads one away from a metaphorical interpretation of the "lady". If she is the church as a whole, then surely it would be less than an overjoy that only some of her children were walking in the truth.
1:5-6 This is beginning to read almost like an Abelard and Heloise situation.
1:12 And there is no way that John was going to meet the entire congregation face to face. This simply must be an individual.
1:13 Especially considering that the church proper has no metaphorical sister . . . this verse especially makes me sympathetic to the reading that John was writing to Mary herself.
1:3 More anti-trinitarian theology from John.
1:4 This leads one away from a metaphorical interpretation of the "lady". If she is the church as a whole, then surely it would be less than an overjoy that only some of her children were walking in the truth.
1:5-6 This is beginning to read almost like an Abelard and Heloise situation.
1:12 And there is no way that John was going to meet the entire congregation face to face. This simply must be an individual.
1:13 Especially considering that the church proper has no metaphorical sister . . . this verse especially makes me sympathetic to the reading that John was writing to Mary herself.
Friday, January 30, 2015
First John
Well, here goes. I'm definitely near the end of this little project, and have been putting it off, as I tend to do with all things resembling completion. The rest of this Bible belongs to John, a figure who could be described as either fascinating or enigmatic. In some ways he feels to me like the narrator of the Hebrew scriptures. A fellow whose voice is felt on every page, but who we never really get to know directly. Kinda the Nick Carraway of the Bible. Peter and Paul both come through loud and clear in their books, but John seemed to take great care to remove himself, even referring to himself in the third person, and never by name in his gospel account. I look forward to seeing what pokes through in these last four books, or whether he maintains that mysterious objectivity.
1:1 The unnamed plural here is an interesting choice. Different from Peter, James or Paul. If any of them had written it, no doubt this would have begun with their names. John already seems set to let this letter stand on its own merit.
1:3 Really, this trinity thing is out of hand. I've discussed John's treatment extensively in my discussion of his gospel account, and here is further indication that he had no concept of Jesus and God as being the same person.
1:4 I really like this approach. This is how prayer should work. Not asking for anything, just saying it because to not say it is to be incomplete.
1:5 Again, exactly like a prayer--my version at least, which is heavily influenced by Ernest Holmes.
1:8-10 A concise and accessible treatment of a weighty theological topic.
2:1 Now this is interesting. A sudden shift to the first person singular. Fitting, in that his topic now seems to be taking a turn away from the rhetoric of theology and toward the personal appeal.
2:2 And back to "we" here, but now it feels less like the royal we, and more like the addressee-inclusive we. I wonder if Greek makes that distinction like Mandarin and Hawaiian, or leaves it unmarked like English. Update: unmarked.
2:4 The second use of this expression already. It is as if for John "the truth is not in you" is the ultimate proscription. I will be on the lookout for future treatment of "truth", but it feels important to him in a way that it did not to Paul et al.
2:9-11 And the same can be said for "light". In fact, truth and light already seem to be synonymous for John.
2:12-14 A beautiful little stanza, with a good measure of poetic quality. I am intrigued especially by "him who is from the beginning" in 14. As he is addressing the "fathers' in the congregation, no doubt he means those who saw Christ with their own eyes. This dovetails nicely with the theology in his gospel account.
2:15-17 Verses that still ring in my head from the memorization of my youth. Interestingly, little deviated from the New World Translation that I remember.
2:18 and here is a nice pin in the balloon of those amateur theologians who predict/await/identify the antichrist. There was never such a figure in the Bible. It's an adjective, not a title.
2:21 More emphasis on truth, and in a way that is indistinguishable from the treatment of light. A nice set of dichotomies he is setting up here: truth and lies, light and darkness, the world and the will of God.
2:24 Using syntax to make his reference clear here. John loves this word "abide". Wonder if the same Greek word is being translated each time here. Update: indeed it is. Menein in 2:6, menetw and meinh in 2:24. This is a great little point. In 6, the reader abides in God. In 24, truth abides in the reader, even as the reader abides in the son and the father. A potentially revealing nesting doll arrangement.
2:27 And the same verb here, time used for anointing. That indirectly conflates "truth" with spirit, which makes sense given his next words. If we are to extend John's pattern here, that would mean spirit has to have an equivalent darkness. Let us see if there is mention of such a contrast.
2:29 Now this is a potentially incendiary verse. John has put the cart in its rightful pre-equine position here. It is not that those who have been born of God must do right. It is that those who do right are by definition born of God. Those who do not do right are simply not of God, and are liars if they say otherwise, as in 1:8 and 2:4. The most telling point, however, is that it is the doing of right that is the deciding factor. Although such distinctions would have been meaningless in John's context, one can extrapolate that creed, faction, and silly recited declaration of belief are irrelevant.
3:2-3 I'm going out on a limb here. Brace yourself. Taken in a certain way, this is a rather revealing metaphysical statement. Those who are properly constituted have the ability to see based on their similarity to that seen. This could be taken sociologically, to mean that we only understand what we are conditioned to experience; or literally, to mean that one must be . . . vibrating? at the right frequency? Ok, I'm gonna stop now. That sounds too woogity woogity to be supportable.
3:4-10 Waaaaaaaitaminnit, here's where it gets a bit fuzzy. This seems to directly contradict what is goin on back in 1:8-10.
3:14 And here's the other half of the dichotomy that we were looking for in 2:27. The opposite of light is darkness, and the other side of spirit is death. Same verb and everything.
3:15 Oh, but now he's set up another one. Gotta backtrack on that last statement.
3:23 This is the only thing that saves the earlier contradiction. John's definition of sin in 1:8-10 and his definition here do not seem to be the same thing. It's entirely possible that he was speaking Mosaically earlier. Linguistic clues from the Greek: sin in Greek is not a separate concept like it is in English. It just means to miss something, although even this translation is fuzzy because of the multiple meanings of "miss" in English. In any case, John is probably just using it as a general lexical item, not a concrete theological construct, which makes some contradiction more understandable.
4:1 Okay, hold on. I have to take issue with this translation decision to capitalize Spirit in 3:24 and not here. This is a clear editorializing that is in no way indicated in the Greek. It's the same word.
4:2-3 Now we are pretty clearly speaking of actual spirit beings here, not some metaphorical spirit of brotherhood or Saint Louis. This always intrigues me when the Bible hits these areas, because it seems like there's something almost scientific about it. Like the discovery of a new species. What are the characteristics of these creatures? They can clearly communicate. There's even a taxonomy given here. This remains a huge blind spot in my own personal experience though. I always look at this sort of thing with a pretty heavy dose of side-eye, as though Teresa of Avila were in front of me spouting her silliness.
4:10-12 You can almost feel John's passion here, like the rising cadence of a really good sermon. I could wish that he gave us a little more to go on here, but it's compelling nonetheless.
4:14-15 Sadly, these verses that are so central to modern Evangelicalism also hold some pretty strong rationale for not believing in a trinity. It's a shame what is picked and chosen.
4:16 Here's the best part of the whole abiding thing: it's reflexive. The reader abides in God, and vice versa. One is simultaneously the vessel and the contents.
4:17 We get a whiff here of John's earlier visions. He has likely already written the Revelation by the time this epistle is composed, and his warning to be ready bears a very specific urgency. Those things that he saw cannot be unseen.
5:3 Indeed. They're contained in one verse.
5:5 John has taken a turn away from "truth" to the less attractive "belief" here.
5:6 And we're back. Phew.
5:11 I'm quite interested in knowing exactly what John's concept of eternal life was. Is he intimating something he observed as one of the few who actually might have seen into the beyond and lived to write about it? Sadly, he does not elaborate here.
5:16-17 Wow, these verses are pretty fresh to me. Lots of interesting implications here:
5:19 And here's another tantalizing bit of metaphysics. For lack of any other candidate, I'm going to go ahead and say that this evil one is the corollary to spirit in John's lengthy dialectic.
5:20 The perfect ending,
5:21 but this is just weird.
1:1 The unnamed plural here is an interesting choice. Different from Peter, James or Paul. If any of them had written it, no doubt this would have begun with their names. John already seems set to let this letter stand on its own merit.
1:3 Really, this trinity thing is out of hand. I've discussed John's treatment extensively in my discussion of his gospel account, and here is further indication that he had no concept of Jesus and God as being the same person.
1:4 I really like this approach. This is how prayer should work. Not asking for anything, just saying it because to not say it is to be incomplete.
1:5 Again, exactly like a prayer--my version at least, which is heavily influenced by Ernest Holmes.
1:8-10 A concise and accessible treatment of a weighty theological topic.
2:1 Now this is interesting. A sudden shift to the first person singular. Fitting, in that his topic now seems to be taking a turn away from the rhetoric of theology and toward the personal appeal.
2:2 And back to "we" here, but now it feels less like the royal we, and more like the addressee-inclusive we. I wonder if Greek makes that distinction like Mandarin and Hawaiian, or leaves it unmarked like English. Update: unmarked.
2:4 The second use of this expression already. It is as if for John "the truth is not in you" is the ultimate proscription. I will be on the lookout for future treatment of "truth", but it feels important to him in a way that it did not to Paul et al.
2:9-11 And the same can be said for "light". In fact, truth and light already seem to be synonymous for John.
2:12-14 A beautiful little stanza, with a good measure of poetic quality. I am intrigued especially by "him who is from the beginning" in 14. As he is addressing the "fathers' in the congregation, no doubt he means those who saw Christ with their own eyes. This dovetails nicely with the theology in his gospel account.
2:15-17 Verses that still ring in my head from the memorization of my youth. Interestingly, little deviated from the New World Translation that I remember.
2:18 and here is a nice pin in the balloon of those amateur theologians who predict/await/identify the antichrist. There was never such a figure in the Bible. It's an adjective, not a title.
2:21 More emphasis on truth, and in a way that is indistinguishable from the treatment of light. A nice set of dichotomies he is setting up here: truth and lies, light and darkness, the world and the will of God.
2:24 Using syntax to make his reference clear here. John loves this word "abide". Wonder if the same Greek word is being translated each time here. Update: indeed it is. Menein in 2:6, menetw and meinh in 2:24. This is a great little point. In 6, the reader abides in God. In 24, truth abides in the reader, even as the reader abides in the son and the father. A potentially revealing nesting doll arrangement.
2:27 And the same verb here, time used for anointing. That indirectly conflates "truth" with spirit, which makes sense given his next words. If we are to extend John's pattern here, that would mean spirit has to have an equivalent darkness. Let us see if there is mention of such a contrast.
2:29 Now this is a potentially incendiary verse. John has put the cart in its rightful pre-equine position here. It is not that those who have been born of God must do right. It is that those who do right are by definition born of God. Those who do not do right are simply not of God, and are liars if they say otherwise, as in 1:8 and 2:4. The most telling point, however, is that it is the doing of right that is the deciding factor. Although such distinctions would have been meaningless in John's context, one can extrapolate that creed, faction, and silly recited declaration of belief are irrelevant.
3:2-3 I'm going out on a limb here. Brace yourself. Taken in a certain way, this is a rather revealing metaphysical statement. Those who are properly constituted have the ability to see based on their similarity to that seen. This could be taken sociologically, to mean that we only understand what we are conditioned to experience; or literally, to mean that one must be . . . vibrating? at the right frequency? Ok, I'm gonna stop now. That sounds too woogity woogity to be supportable.
3:4-10 Waaaaaaaitaminnit, here's where it gets a bit fuzzy. This seems to directly contradict what is goin on back in 1:8-10.
3:14 And here's the other half of the dichotomy that we were looking for in 2:27. The opposite of light is darkness, and the other side of spirit is death. Same verb and everything.
3:15 Oh, but now he's set up another one. Gotta backtrack on that last statement.
3:23 This is the only thing that saves the earlier contradiction. John's definition of sin in 1:8-10 and his definition here do not seem to be the same thing. It's entirely possible that he was speaking Mosaically earlier. Linguistic clues from the Greek: sin in Greek is not a separate concept like it is in English. It just means to miss something, although even this translation is fuzzy because of the multiple meanings of "miss" in English. In any case, John is probably just using it as a general lexical item, not a concrete theological construct, which makes some contradiction more understandable.
4:1 Okay, hold on. I have to take issue with this translation decision to capitalize Spirit in 3:24 and not here. This is a clear editorializing that is in no way indicated in the Greek. It's the same word.
4:2-3 Now we are pretty clearly speaking of actual spirit beings here, not some metaphorical spirit of brotherhood or Saint Louis. This always intrigues me when the Bible hits these areas, because it seems like there's something almost scientific about it. Like the discovery of a new species. What are the characteristics of these creatures? They can clearly communicate. There's even a taxonomy given here. This remains a huge blind spot in my own personal experience though. I always look at this sort of thing with a pretty heavy dose of side-eye, as though Teresa of Avila were in front of me spouting her silliness.
4:10-12 You can almost feel John's passion here, like the rising cadence of a really good sermon. I could wish that he gave us a little more to go on here, but it's compelling nonetheless.
4:14-15 Sadly, these verses that are so central to modern Evangelicalism also hold some pretty strong rationale for not believing in a trinity. It's a shame what is picked and chosen.
4:16 Here's the best part of the whole abiding thing: it's reflexive. The reader abides in God, and vice versa. One is simultaneously the vessel and the contents.
4:17 We get a whiff here of John's earlier visions. He has likely already written the Revelation by the time this epistle is composed, and his warning to be ready bears a very specific urgency. Those things that he saw cannot be unseen.
5:3 Indeed. They're contained in one verse.
5:5 John has taken a turn away from "truth" to the less attractive "belief" here.
5:6 And we're back. Phew.
5:11 I'm quite interested in knowing exactly what John's concept of eternal life was. Is he intimating something he observed as one of the few who actually might have seen into the beyond and lived to write about it? Sadly, he does not elaborate here.
5:16-17 Wow, these verses are pretty fresh to me. Lots of interesting implications here:
- the reader has the power to forgive sin
- but only of a certain type, for there are evidently magnitudes
- mortal sin is super super bad, and it exists, and John is not going to tell us what it is
5:19 And here's another tantalizing bit of metaphysics. For lack of any other candidate, I'm going to go ahead and say that this evil one is the corollary to spirit in John's lengthy dialectic.
5:20 The perfect ending,
5:21 but this is just weird.
Monday, June 02, 2014
2 Peter
1:1 already we find a divergence from the first book claiming to be written by Peter, namely his self-appellation.
1:4 Although the subject of the exhortation is similar to that in 1 Peter, I find the tone markedly different. Less oratical.
1:7 What is meant by "godliness" here. I'd be interested to know the original Greek. One normally would say it refers to goodness, self-control, etc., but as it is here distinguished from those other characteristics, it must be referring to some other, more specific attribute.
1:!4 If this letter was indeed written after Peter's death (as most scholars believe, based on its seeming reference to later letters of Paul), then this verse is not a gentle fiction, but a rather shameless falsehood.
1:20 I find this argument hard to support. If no prophecy is subject to interpretation, then why are some of them so darned opaque?
2:4 The Greek here is Tartaros, not Hades, and the translation as "hell" seems rather misleading.
2:6 Here is a hint about what "Peter" exactly means by godliness. He doesn't say what it is, but that it is whatever Sodom and Gomorrah were not: hospitable, chaste, mild.
2:10 aaaaaaand there it is. Depraved lust and contempt for authority, these were the ungodly acts of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although I for one and hard pressed to think of a way that submissiveness is in any way displayed by the divine figure.
2:12 Whoa whoa whoa, the implication here is that not only will the ungodly be destroyed, but also the irrational animals. That's the first I've heard of such a thing.
2:17 what exactly is a "waterless spring"? A hole?
2:18 And here's the bombast that I remember from 1 Peter. Markedly different from the letters attributed to Paul, and thoroughly demagogic.
3:8 a rather convenient algebra. By this reasoning, people can always be saying that the end is coming "any day now," and still be correct whilst saying nothing of value.
In general, while I find even Paul's most inflammatory doctrines to be based on logic and reason, in both of the books attributed to Peter I find the aroma of a modern day televangelist, one who relies on oratorical tricks to reach his audience.
1:4 Although the subject of the exhortation is similar to that in 1 Peter, I find the tone markedly different. Less oratical.
1:7 What is meant by "godliness" here. I'd be interested to know the original Greek. One normally would say it refers to goodness, self-control, etc., but as it is here distinguished from those other characteristics, it must be referring to some other, more specific attribute.
1:!4 If this letter was indeed written after Peter's death (as most scholars believe, based on its seeming reference to later letters of Paul), then this verse is not a gentle fiction, but a rather shameless falsehood.
1:20 I find this argument hard to support. If no prophecy is subject to interpretation, then why are some of them so darned opaque?
2:4 The Greek here is Tartaros, not Hades, and the translation as "hell" seems rather misleading.
2:6 Here is a hint about what "Peter" exactly means by godliness. He doesn't say what it is, but that it is whatever Sodom and Gomorrah were not: hospitable, chaste, mild.
2:10 aaaaaaand there it is. Depraved lust and contempt for authority, these were the ungodly acts of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although I for one and hard pressed to think of a way that submissiveness is in any way displayed by the divine figure.
2:12 Whoa whoa whoa, the implication here is that not only will the ungodly be destroyed, but also the irrational animals. That's the first I've heard of such a thing.
2:17 what exactly is a "waterless spring"? A hole?
2:18 And here's the bombast that I remember from 1 Peter. Markedly different from the letters attributed to Paul, and thoroughly demagogic.
3:8 a rather convenient algebra. By this reasoning, people can always be saying that the end is coming "any day now," and still be correct whilst saying nothing of value.
In general, while I find even Paul's most inflammatory doctrines to be based on logic and reason, in both of the books attributed to Peter I find the aroma of a modern day televangelist, one who relies on oratorical tricks to reach his audience.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
1 Peter
1:1 already a solemn, ominous note that I don't find in Paul's writings--even when he was writing about his own iminent death.
1:2 By now a familiar greeting. Was Paul copying Peter when he adopted this greeting, or was it just colloquial?
1:5-6 We can look back on this argument and judge it to be specious, I suppose. The last time is near! This suffering is temporary! For how long have religious orators been offering some version of those lines? Theologically speaking, of course, both statements can be seen as true, but it seems a little disingenuous.
1:8 This book is clearly meant for a later audience than previous books, addressed as it is to a second generation of believers, who have only second hand knowledge of Christ. This persents some chronological and/or authorial difficulties however. Isn't Peter supposed to have died before Paul?
1:10-12 "Peter" is laying it on pretty thickly here, I must say. Surely it's an overstatement to say that the first century audience is the fulfillment of all sort of divine plans, and that the angels themselves are jealous of their knowledge.
1:18 Peter's rather dismissive references to Jewish tradition also argue in favor of a second generation audience, as contrasted with the reverent tone earlier authors took.
1:20 By no measire can the first century be labelled "the end of the ages" in retrospect.
1:24 Ok, I'm really intrigued by this. Of course this is not the first time that the version I'm reading (NRSV) sets a section of in stanzas, but it's not clear exactly what this signifies. It's either indicitave of the quotative or the poetic properties of the original text. If this is a quote, from where? If this is poetic in a way that can be perceived through the veil of ancient Greek, could it really be the voice of a fisherman?
21-3 The three statements here are each interesting in their own right, but do not quite seem to relate to each other. For one thing, why is "Peter" putting such stron emphasis on things that should be self evident? Malice is a pretty strong word. Are the the Christians of Asia Minor really in need of a reminder not to be malicious? Are they really so juvenile? I especially like that he includes an admonition not to be insincere. I'm not sure I have seen a similiar directive elsewhere in the Bible. Now that I look at it more closely, it does tie in rather nicely to the next verse after all. After reminding them of what should be bare minimums, he them tells to to long for spiritual milk like newborns. It's as if he's saying, "Quit acting like such infants. If you are going to be infants, at least drink your milk."
2:6 Here it's clearer exactly why the verse is set poetically: it's a quotation from Isaiah. Why was 1:24 set in the same way then?
2:10 and here a more telling quote from Paul, which makes the dating/timing of this book even more suspect in my mind.
2:16 In what sense does he urge them to live as a free people? As one free from the Mosaic Law? From obligation to secular law? And in what sense it that meant to contrast with the fact that they are servants of God?
2:18 oooohhhhh he's talking in part to slaves, who are in spirit free, but in law not so much.
2:23 I found this reasoning a bit suspect at first reading. Is he really suggesting that the unjust beating slaves endure are analogous to the beating Christ underwent? But yeah, I guess he is. And I guess it holds up logically, but it still rubs me strangely for some reason.
3:1 By the same logic: if a man beats his wife, she should just put up with it. Wow has this verse ever been taken out of its rhetorical context . . .
3:16 This is the second mention of reverence, a trait that I never had much use for. It's a running theme of this section, and although I can see the connection to a Christlike mind (as in 3:8), I question whether it's not being overgeneralized here. What "Peter" is suggesting is not reverence for God, or Christ, or even each other. But reverence to everyone who might pass on the street. Surely there is some language barrier that is obscuring the original meaning of what is here translated "reverence".
4:1 "Peter" tries to give Paul a rune for his rhetorical money here, emplying a rather bald appeal to his audeince's ego, but unlike Paul's similar rhetorical turns, this has no logical underpinning. The argument that suffering is the absolution of sin is really unsuuportable, logically or theologically.
4:7 It is impossible to count how often this tactic has been employed by unscrupulous preachers throughout history. "The end is near" persists as a theological fraud because of its undeniable effectiveness.
5:13 Now this is an interesting turn. Babylon? This statement of "Peter" has been the subject of much discussion among schoalrs, whether it is code for Rome (which seems a bit unnecessary) or Babylon in Egypt (possible) or even, I suppose, actual Babylon (unlikely). At any rate, the entire book smells of demagoguery, of the flavor that I hesistate to ascribe to the Biblical figure of Simon Peter, whom I perefer to think of as a man whose chief virute was his simplicity, not his ability to work up a crowd.
1:2 By now a familiar greeting. Was Paul copying Peter when he adopted this greeting, or was it just colloquial?
1:5-6 We can look back on this argument and judge it to be specious, I suppose. The last time is near! This suffering is temporary! For how long have religious orators been offering some version of those lines? Theologically speaking, of course, both statements can be seen as true, but it seems a little disingenuous.
1:8 This book is clearly meant for a later audience than previous books, addressed as it is to a second generation of believers, who have only second hand knowledge of Christ. This persents some chronological and/or authorial difficulties however. Isn't Peter supposed to have died before Paul?
1:10-12 "Peter" is laying it on pretty thickly here, I must say. Surely it's an overstatement to say that the first century audience is the fulfillment of all sort of divine plans, and that the angels themselves are jealous of their knowledge.
1:18 Peter's rather dismissive references to Jewish tradition also argue in favor of a second generation audience, as contrasted with the reverent tone earlier authors took.
1:20 By no measire can the first century be labelled "the end of the ages" in retrospect.
1:24 Ok, I'm really intrigued by this. Of course this is not the first time that the version I'm reading (NRSV) sets a section of in stanzas, but it's not clear exactly what this signifies. It's either indicitave of the quotative or the poetic properties of the original text. If this is a quote, from where? If this is poetic in a way that can be perceived through the veil of ancient Greek, could it really be the voice of a fisherman?
21-3 The three statements here are each interesting in their own right, but do not quite seem to relate to each other. For one thing, why is "Peter" putting such stron emphasis on things that should be self evident? Malice is a pretty strong word. Are the the Christians of Asia Minor really in need of a reminder not to be malicious? Are they really so juvenile? I especially like that he includes an admonition not to be insincere. I'm not sure I have seen a similiar directive elsewhere in the Bible. Now that I look at it more closely, it does tie in rather nicely to the next verse after all. After reminding them of what should be bare minimums, he them tells to to long for spiritual milk like newborns. It's as if he's saying, "Quit acting like such infants. If you are going to be infants, at least drink your milk."
2:6 Here it's clearer exactly why the verse is set poetically: it's a quotation from Isaiah. Why was 1:24 set in the same way then?
2:10 and here a more telling quote from Paul, which makes the dating/timing of this book even more suspect in my mind.
2:16 In what sense does he urge them to live as a free people? As one free from the Mosaic Law? From obligation to secular law? And in what sense it that meant to contrast with the fact that they are servants of God?
2:18 oooohhhhh he's talking in part to slaves, who are in spirit free, but in law not so much.
2:23 I found this reasoning a bit suspect at first reading. Is he really suggesting that the unjust beating slaves endure are analogous to the beating Christ underwent? But yeah, I guess he is. And I guess it holds up logically, but it still rubs me strangely for some reason.
3:1 By the same logic: if a man beats his wife, she should just put up with it. Wow has this verse ever been taken out of its rhetorical context . . .
3:16 This is the second mention of reverence, a trait that I never had much use for. It's a running theme of this section, and although I can see the connection to a Christlike mind (as in 3:8), I question whether it's not being overgeneralized here. What "Peter" is suggesting is not reverence for God, or Christ, or even each other. But reverence to everyone who might pass on the street. Surely there is some language barrier that is obscuring the original meaning of what is here translated "reverence".
4:1 "Peter" tries to give Paul a rune for his rhetorical money here, emplying a rather bald appeal to his audeince's ego, but unlike Paul's similar rhetorical turns, this has no logical underpinning. The argument that suffering is the absolution of sin is really unsuuportable, logically or theologically.
4:7 It is impossible to count how often this tactic has been employed by unscrupulous preachers throughout history. "The end is near" persists as a theological fraud because of its undeniable effectiveness.
5:13 Now this is an interesting turn. Babylon? This statement of "Peter" has been the subject of much discussion among schoalrs, whether it is code for Rome (which seems a bit unnecessary) or Babylon in Egypt (possible) or even, I suppose, actual Babylon (unlikely). At any rate, the entire book smells of demagoguery, of the flavor that I hesistate to ascribe to the Biblical figure of Simon Peter, whom I perefer to think of as a man whose chief virute was his simplicity, not his ability to work up a crowd.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
James
I find myself trapped in a reader's dilemma. Usually I fancy myself a nontraditionalist when it comes to literary criticism, to wit: My experience reading something is my experience, and the author's intent can go fuck itself. But reading something of which the authorship is uncertain has made me rethink that approach. This was especially true reading the book of Hebrews, where the mystery of the authorship dogged me at every page. I expect that to be even more true of this book. Not because the authorship is a complete unknown--it's pretty clearly somebody named James--but because the possible authors are each of them distinct historical personages with fascinating stories and perspectives. It feels as though I have to decide which glasses to wear before reading: James the Less? James the Just? James the Great? James the Son of Alphaeus? James the son of Zebedee? James Marsden? I especially find myself fogged up by the fact that several of these people are referred to differently by various religious traditions, but are in fact the same person.
Anyway . . .
1:1 Is this meant to indicate that the intended audience is Christians of Hebrew origin, or is it used in a more metaphorical sense?
1:5-8 This raises something of a sticky issue for me, namely that of prayer. For some time, my approach has been that if something is needed, God needn't be asked, and if something is not needed, God oughtn't be bothered. A god who needs convinced, or even nagged, seems to be no God at all. My approach to prayer is rather more like that of Ernest Holmes, in that the saying of something makes it true--at least a little. If you declare with the whole force of your conviction behind it, it become 10% more true every time you say it. Something that was 0% true to begin with with see no measurable change, but something that was 90% true to begin with becomes 99% true with the force of your declaration. Anyway, What James proposes here fits nicely with that approach.
1:9-11 This presupposes the audeince's familiarty with Jesus' parables of the seeds sown on different soil.
1:13 So far James' theology is perfectly compatible with mine. I had forgotten about this verse, and wholeheartedly endorse it.
1:19 Advice I could do well to apply more often. Especially the part about being slow to speak.
1:27 I especially like this summary. Much more meaningful than Paul's simple exhortations to abstain from this or that. James' instructions are simply to shine, to let the pure, clear light of the divine be reflected by and through you with as little diffraction as possible.
2:1-7 I was thinking of this tendency, especially among so-called progressive Christians, earlier today. I think of Amos' reference to the "Cows of Bashan" who pontificate while reclining on their divans, and contrast that with true religion, the obliteration of material distinctions.
2:11 Again, a beautiful contrast with Paul's approach. Following any set of "don'ts" becomes quickly burdensome, because failing in one is a failure in the whole set. Following a list of "dos" is different. Failing to do one good does no undo another.
2:16 I can't agree with this more. How could I live with myself knowing that I had failed to help a fellow human? Indeed, what justification do I have for living if I don't help others?
2:18 Haha indeed. Well-played.
3:5-12 I might argue this point a little. I can cetainly see James' point, but what is true for him is not true for all. I know plenty of people whose tongue is perfectly under control, and yet they are useless individuals.
3:17 I have on occassion been accused of being wise. This is no surprise, I suppose. I am smart and knowledgable, and these things put together often give the appearance of wisdom. But in any conversation where I'm called upon for advice, If I go on for too long I find myself reaching a point where the advice gets away from me and starts to develop a life of its own. All of a sudden, I've created a monster, a speech act that has has become self-aware, and conscious of its own preservation. Wisdom must remain tied to its practice, it cannot be allowed to run amok and feed itself--to become ambitious, as James puts it.
4:5 Now wait a minute, what on Earth does this mean? And what is being referenced here? It's not any specific scripture that I've ever read. That in itself carries a pretty weighty implication, maely that there are inspired books that have not been preserved for prostperity. The content of the verse is of note too: that the divine spirit is a limited commodity, not to be wasted. This echoes Jesus' experience when the woman with an unclean flow of blood touched him, and he perceived a power reduction. That carries aaaaawl sorts of bizarre metaphysical implications.
5:1-3 I especially love that he uses the past perfect here. It's not a warning, it's an announcement.
5:12 Again, James has hit upon one of my pet peeves: "Do you promise?" what the fuck does that mean? I said I would do it. I either will, or I won't, and, my promising will not change that fact.
5:16 I've often wondered what the value of confession was. In James' theology, it's pretty clear: to keep us humble.
Anyway . . .
1:1 Is this meant to indicate that the intended audience is Christians of Hebrew origin, or is it used in a more metaphorical sense?
1:5-8 This raises something of a sticky issue for me, namely that of prayer. For some time, my approach has been that if something is needed, God needn't be asked, and if something is not needed, God oughtn't be bothered. A god who needs convinced, or even nagged, seems to be no God at all. My approach to prayer is rather more like that of Ernest Holmes, in that the saying of something makes it true--at least a little. If you declare with the whole force of your conviction behind it, it become 10% more true every time you say it. Something that was 0% true to begin with with see no measurable change, but something that was 90% true to begin with becomes 99% true with the force of your declaration. Anyway, What James proposes here fits nicely with that approach.
1:9-11 This presupposes the audeince's familiarty with Jesus' parables of the seeds sown on different soil.
1:13 So far James' theology is perfectly compatible with mine. I had forgotten about this verse, and wholeheartedly endorse it.
1:19 Advice I could do well to apply more often. Especially the part about being slow to speak.
1:27 I especially like this summary. Much more meaningful than Paul's simple exhortations to abstain from this or that. James' instructions are simply to shine, to let the pure, clear light of the divine be reflected by and through you with as little diffraction as possible.
2:1-7 I was thinking of this tendency, especially among so-called progressive Christians, earlier today. I think of Amos' reference to the "Cows of Bashan" who pontificate while reclining on their divans, and contrast that with true religion, the obliteration of material distinctions.
2:11 Again, a beautiful contrast with Paul's approach. Following any set of "don'ts" becomes quickly burdensome, because failing in one is a failure in the whole set. Following a list of "dos" is different. Failing to do one good does no undo another.
2:16 I can't agree with this more. How could I live with myself knowing that I had failed to help a fellow human? Indeed, what justification do I have for living if I don't help others?
2:18 Haha indeed. Well-played.
3:5-12 I might argue this point a little. I can cetainly see James' point, but what is true for him is not true for all. I know plenty of people whose tongue is perfectly under control, and yet they are useless individuals.
3:17 I have on occassion been accused of being wise. This is no surprise, I suppose. I am smart and knowledgable, and these things put together often give the appearance of wisdom. But in any conversation where I'm called upon for advice, If I go on for too long I find myself reaching a point where the advice gets away from me and starts to develop a life of its own. All of a sudden, I've created a monster, a speech act that has has become self-aware, and conscious of its own preservation. Wisdom must remain tied to its practice, it cannot be allowed to run amok and feed itself--to become ambitious, as James puts it.
4:5 Now wait a minute, what on Earth does this mean? And what is being referenced here? It's not any specific scripture that I've ever read. That in itself carries a pretty weighty implication, maely that there are inspired books that have not been preserved for prostperity. The content of the verse is of note too: that the divine spirit is a limited commodity, not to be wasted. This echoes Jesus' experience when the woman with an unclean flow of blood touched him, and he perceived a power reduction. That carries aaaaawl sorts of bizarre metaphysical implications.
5:1-3 I especially love that he uses the past perfect here. It's not a warning, it's an announcement.
5:12 Again, James has hit upon one of my pet peeves: "Do you promise?" what the fuck does that mean? I said I would do it. I either will, or I won't, and, my promising will not change that fact.
5:16 I've often wondered what the value of confession was. In James' theology, it's pretty clear: to keep us humble.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Hebrews
Possibly the most interesting thing about this book, before even getting into its famously elegant theology, is its authorship. For some reason I have a hard time accepting its anonymity, even though there is no way of knowing exactly who wrote this masterpiece. In fact it really bothers me, more than it should. I find that I've gotten into the habit of reading these books through the eyes of their authors, and the inability to do that here leaves me feeling a bit adrift. How often are we able--even forced--to take a text purely on its content?
1:1-4 The tone of this section is one of review, the statement of generally accepted facts. If, as by most accounts, it was written around 63 C.E., that speaks to the pretty rapid establishment of such doctrines as the ransom and Christ's relative divinity. It is worth noting here that that divinity is still only relative, Christ being the exact imprint of God's very being, but not God himself.
1:10 And here it is also seen that the idea of Christ's prehuman existence is generally accepted by the church even at this early date.
2:1 At first I had trouble following this logic, but the author seems to be saying that if people suffered for disregarding the messages of angels, how much more so if they disregard the message of one whom God has placed above angels.
2:6 "someone has testified somewhere" is a rather unconvincing form of citation, but no doubt the audience would have been intimate with the source material in Psalms.
2:9 A parallel between the sufferings of Christ and those of the readers. Just as Christ had to be lower than angels before his ascension, so to are the readers merely preparing for their ultimate glory.
2:14 This is an interesting bit of theology. The devil here seems to receive a promotion, from a mere tempter to one with actual power over death.
2:18 In what sense was Christ's suffering necessary to his position as high priest for the descendants of Abraham? Was it a matter of credibility? Or training? Or something more metaphysical? The implication here is that he needed to understand the human experience fully in order to minister to humans, which is consistent with the theology in this book so far, but not with absolute divinity. And no mention is made of a ransom in this passage.
3:2 The transition between Christ and Moses is a little shaky here, and feels like a rhetorical necessity to introduce the ideas in v.7. In general the transitions seem more thematic that logical, not building a logical structure, but telling a fluid story. This in and of itself is enough to suggest that Paul was not the author.
4:1 Again a thematic, rather than a logical, transition to the new idea.
4:4-9 But a very solid bit of reasoning here, that results in some intriguing theology. By this logic, we are still in the sevnth day of Genesis, and the days mentioned therein could not possibly be literal 24 hour periods.
4:12 I'm always intrigued by mention of "the word" in the Bible. Most take it, and especially so here, to mean the Bible itself. But in this context, an interpretation of the word to mean Christ himself is rather easy to support. It is even possible, given the context, that the word mentioned here is the same word spoken in Genesis 2:3, the blessing of the seventh day, or the word of power that swept over the waters of the Earth before giving them shape. All interpretations are tempting, and a theology that combines the three seems best suited to answer the question.
4:14 The lack of a transition here would imply that it is Christ who has been referred to in the previous verses.
4:16 This is the second mention of boldness and confidence as being virtues for the reader, an idea that doesn't really crop up in other letters. In fact, in the vast majority of the Greek scriptures, humility is to be preferred.
5:2 Could it really be said that Christ was subject to weakness? If so, that draws a nice distinction between weakness and sin.
5:11 I laughed inwardly at this. I wonder aobut the "solid food", the more complex truths that are being withheld here from the dullards in the audience.
6:2 I want to know about their basic teachings! Don't skip over them! I am especially interested to know what their version of eternal judgement was, since it was evidently so basic.
6:18 What are the two unchangeable things? I only count one here: God himself.
7:3 In this way, the author of this book is a bit like Melchizedek as well: "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life . . ." Yes, I'm still obsessed with the authroship of this book.
7:4 This begins a very different line of reasoning here, altogether more well constructed and persuasive than the first half. Even the vocabulary is different.
8:9 There's the slightest of chinks in the logic of Hebrews here (it seems appropriate to refer to the book as its own author). It goes to some lengths (the entirety of chapter 7) to set Melchizedek up as evidence of the flaws in the Levitic code. In this verse, however, it acknowledges that the fault was not with the code itself, but with the Israelites failure to follow it.
8:11 Now this is a fascinating verse. "They will not teach one another, or say to each other 'Know the Lord'." At any rate, this would prevent what went wrong with the first covenant from repeating itself. But what would that look like? Watever it is, as Hebrews observes in 5:11 it is still a ways off from the early Christians.
9:14 The logic is pretty compelling here. If I accepted all of the premises upon which it was based, I might even be convinced of ransom theology, which I am generally inclined to view as silly.
9:17 Stretching the metaphor just a wee bit here
10:1 I can't help but be reminded of the Perfection of Wisdom here. I wonder if Hebrews is conscious of the fact that even these doctrines are shadows of a celestial reality.
10:26 These verses are a bit troubling taken out of context, but they make perfect sense here. The problem with the first covenant was that the sins were not erased from the hearts of the Israelites, they were merely covered over. And like any paint job, it needed regular touch ups. The sacrifice of the second covenant doesn't cover over those sins, it erases them. And it replaces them in the hearts of believers with the law itself. If even after that, they willfully persist in sin, there truly does remain no sacrifice.
10:37 The very little while here certainly has taken rather a long time, however. And here is the weakness of the exhortations here. Hebrews' call to confidence, endurance and faith is very effective . . . in the short term.
11:1 People often take this verse as a distinction between faith and hope. "Faith," such an one might say, "is based on fact--even though the facts have not been witnessed." But I, for one, fail to see the distinction. That sounds an awful lot like hope, or worse yet credulity.
11:7 See, what Noah did was not faith. He had assurances, a concrete warning. The faith mentioned in 11:1 doesn't fit this definition.
11:8 Which makes it no wonder that Kierkegaard chose Abraham as his model for the real mystery of faith, not Noah. He acted in faith, and somehow, a terrible bloody intention was purified. That scene, unsurprisingly, is not mentioned here.
11:13 And just as Abel, Noah and Abraham all died without receiving their promises, so did all those who first read this letter, and all who have since.
11:19 Ahhh, here it is. The kicker.
11:23 Here's an interesting riddle. Hebrews here speaks of Moses; parents displaying faith. Plural. What mention is there ever of Moses' father in Genesis though? An interesting line of inquiry.
11:26 Now surely Hebrews is taking a liberty here. Moses could not by any stretch of the imagination be said to have had an idea of the Christ.
11:30 And it also seems like a stretch to say that the wals of Jericho were felled by faith. It was pretty clearly God who did that, not man.
11:35 Those who were tortured here had no idea of a resurrection, though. They suffered not for hope of something better, for the fulfillment of a promise, but for virtue. Because it was impossible for them to do otherwise and live.
11:40 I find this verse entirely opaque. Are they to be joined with the readers then? Syntactically very unclear.
12:1 The train begun in ch.7 continues to pick of speed here. Notwithstanding the petty chinks noted above, this is a pretty forceful piece of writing. I'm almost convinced. Poetic. Soaring, even.
12:14 and Hebrews takes a breath here. Havnig made its point rather unassailably, it relies on that strength to make its final plea.
12:18 Here's an interesting moment. Hebrews reminds the reader that the reality of God is something at once rather terrifying and wonderful. Best for the reader to focus on the wonderful, it seems to say.
12:25 And I can't help but feel here that Hebrews finally gets to the things that it referred to in 5:11, the solid food, so to speak. The Buddha would no doubt approve of this passage, insofar as all creation is shakable and, therefore, not exactly real.
13:1 The denouement. Be loving. Be true. Live simply. Be steadfast. Be humble.
13:18 Who is "I"?!?!?!? Somebody who was on trial, and who knew Timothy, and was in Rome. Certainly sounds like Paul to me, but the tone and focus are so different. Nonetheless, the book also closes in the manner Paul was accustomed to. If not Paul, certainly someone who knew him. For my part, I choose to believe that Hebrews was written by Melchizidek, who is somewhere still alive, and still writing such beautiful things.
1:1-4 The tone of this section is one of review, the statement of generally accepted facts. If, as by most accounts, it was written around 63 C.E., that speaks to the pretty rapid establishment of such doctrines as the ransom and Christ's relative divinity. It is worth noting here that that divinity is still only relative, Christ being the exact imprint of God's very being, but not God himself.
1:10 And here it is also seen that the idea of Christ's prehuman existence is generally accepted by the church even at this early date.
2:1 At first I had trouble following this logic, but the author seems to be saying that if people suffered for disregarding the messages of angels, how much more so if they disregard the message of one whom God has placed above angels.
2:6 "someone has testified somewhere" is a rather unconvincing form of citation, but no doubt the audience would have been intimate with the source material in Psalms.
2:9 A parallel between the sufferings of Christ and those of the readers. Just as Christ had to be lower than angels before his ascension, so to are the readers merely preparing for their ultimate glory.
2:14 This is an interesting bit of theology. The devil here seems to receive a promotion, from a mere tempter to one with actual power over death.
2:18 In what sense was Christ's suffering necessary to his position as high priest for the descendants of Abraham? Was it a matter of credibility? Or training? Or something more metaphysical? The implication here is that he needed to understand the human experience fully in order to minister to humans, which is consistent with the theology in this book so far, but not with absolute divinity. And no mention is made of a ransom in this passage.
3:2 The transition between Christ and Moses is a little shaky here, and feels like a rhetorical necessity to introduce the ideas in v.7. In general the transitions seem more thematic that logical, not building a logical structure, but telling a fluid story. This in and of itself is enough to suggest that Paul was not the author.
4:1 Again a thematic, rather than a logical, transition to the new idea.
4:4-9 But a very solid bit of reasoning here, that results in some intriguing theology. By this logic, we are still in the sevnth day of Genesis, and the days mentioned therein could not possibly be literal 24 hour periods.
4:12 I'm always intrigued by mention of "the word" in the Bible. Most take it, and especially so here, to mean the Bible itself. But in this context, an interpretation of the word to mean Christ himself is rather easy to support. It is even possible, given the context, that the word mentioned here is the same word spoken in Genesis 2:3, the blessing of the seventh day, or the word of power that swept over the waters of the Earth before giving them shape. All interpretations are tempting, and a theology that combines the three seems best suited to answer the question.
4:14 The lack of a transition here would imply that it is Christ who has been referred to in the previous verses.
4:16 This is the second mention of boldness and confidence as being virtues for the reader, an idea that doesn't really crop up in other letters. In fact, in the vast majority of the Greek scriptures, humility is to be preferred.
5:2 Could it really be said that Christ was subject to weakness? If so, that draws a nice distinction between weakness and sin.
5:11 I laughed inwardly at this. I wonder aobut the "solid food", the more complex truths that are being withheld here from the dullards in the audience.
6:2 I want to know about their basic teachings! Don't skip over them! I am especially interested to know what their version of eternal judgement was, since it was evidently so basic.
6:18 What are the two unchangeable things? I only count one here: God himself.
7:3 In this way, the author of this book is a bit like Melchizedek as well: "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life . . ." Yes, I'm still obsessed with the authroship of this book.
7:4 This begins a very different line of reasoning here, altogether more well constructed and persuasive than the first half. Even the vocabulary is different.
8:9 There's the slightest of chinks in the logic of Hebrews here (it seems appropriate to refer to the book as its own author). It goes to some lengths (the entirety of chapter 7) to set Melchizedek up as evidence of the flaws in the Levitic code. In this verse, however, it acknowledges that the fault was not with the code itself, but with the Israelites failure to follow it.
8:11 Now this is a fascinating verse. "They will not teach one another, or say to each other 'Know the Lord'." At any rate, this would prevent what went wrong with the first covenant from repeating itself. But what would that look like? Watever it is, as Hebrews observes in 5:11 it is still a ways off from the early Christians.
9:14 The logic is pretty compelling here. If I accepted all of the premises upon which it was based, I might even be convinced of ransom theology, which I am generally inclined to view as silly.
9:17 Stretching the metaphor just a wee bit here
10:1 I can't help but be reminded of the Perfection of Wisdom here. I wonder if Hebrews is conscious of the fact that even these doctrines are shadows of a celestial reality.
10:26 These verses are a bit troubling taken out of context, but they make perfect sense here. The problem with the first covenant was that the sins were not erased from the hearts of the Israelites, they were merely covered over. And like any paint job, it needed regular touch ups. The sacrifice of the second covenant doesn't cover over those sins, it erases them. And it replaces them in the hearts of believers with the law itself. If even after that, they willfully persist in sin, there truly does remain no sacrifice.
10:37 The very little while here certainly has taken rather a long time, however. And here is the weakness of the exhortations here. Hebrews' call to confidence, endurance and faith is very effective . . . in the short term.
11:1 People often take this verse as a distinction between faith and hope. "Faith," such an one might say, "is based on fact--even though the facts have not been witnessed." But I, for one, fail to see the distinction. That sounds an awful lot like hope, or worse yet credulity.
11:7 See, what Noah did was not faith. He had assurances, a concrete warning. The faith mentioned in 11:1 doesn't fit this definition.
11:8 Which makes it no wonder that Kierkegaard chose Abraham as his model for the real mystery of faith, not Noah. He acted in faith, and somehow, a terrible bloody intention was purified. That scene, unsurprisingly, is not mentioned here.
11:13 And just as Abel, Noah and Abraham all died without receiving their promises, so did all those who first read this letter, and all who have since.
11:19 Ahhh, here it is. The kicker.
11:23 Here's an interesting riddle. Hebrews here speaks of Moses; parents displaying faith. Plural. What mention is there ever of Moses' father in Genesis though? An interesting line of inquiry.
11:26 Now surely Hebrews is taking a liberty here. Moses could not by any stretch of the imagination be said to have had an idea of the Christ.
11:30 And it also seems like a stretch to say that the wals of Jericho were felled by faith. It was pretty clearly God who did that, not man.
11:35 Those who were tortured here had no idea of a resurrection, though. They suffered not for hope of something better, for the fulfillment of a promise, but for virtue. Because it was impossible for them to do otherwise and live.
11:40 I find this verse entirely opaque. Are they to be joined with the readers then? Syntactically very unclear.
12:1 The train begun in ch.7 continues to pick of speed here. Notwithstanding the petty chinks noted above, this is a pretty forceful piece of writing. I'm almost convinced. Poetic. Soaring, even.
12:14 and Hebrews takes a breath here. Havnig made its point rather unassailably, it relies on that strength to make its final plea.
12:18 Here's an interesting moment. Hebrews reminds the reader that the reality of God is something at once rather terrifying and wonderful. Best for the reader to focus on the wonderful, it seems to say.
12:25 And I can't help but feel here that Hebrews finally gets to the things that it referred to in 5:11, the solid food, so to speak. The Buddha would no doubt approve of this passage, insofar as all creation is shakable and, therefore, not exactly real.
13:1 The denouement. Be loving. Be true. Live simply. Be steadfast. Be humble.
13:18 Who is "I"?!?!?!? Somebody who was on trial, and who knew Timothy, and was in Rome. Certainly sounds like Paul to me, but the tone and focus are so different. Nonetheless, the book also closes in the manner Paul was accustomed to. If not Paul, certainly someone who knew him. For my part, I choose to believe that Hebrews was written by Melchizidek, who is somewhere still alive, and still writing such beautiful things.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Philemon
I confess to a bit of prejudice before starting this book, because I kinda know how the story ends. It's like someone spoiled the ending of The Sixth Sense for me . . .
1:4 Knowing what Paul is about to ask of Philemon, this certainly smells like buttering up.
1:8,9 A nice touch, and seemingly sincere
1:10 Wow, I didn't expect to find this so touching.
1:20 Hmm I wonder what other requests could reasonably be made under this logic.
So here's the mystery of this disappointingly brief book: who was Onesimus? What connection did Paul feel with him, or was this a matter of principle, Paul making a point about the relationship between slaves and their masters? Paul's sincerity pours off the page here, in a way that one seldom sees elsewhere in his writings, so I choose to believe the former: that Onesimus was indeed a remarkable fellow, and special to Paul in some way. Is he the same Onesimus that later became bishop of Ephesus? That seems highly dubious, but a fascinating line of inquiry. In the dogma of the early church, would the power of love and equality as expressed by Christ and, to a lesser extent, by Paul, be strong enough to overcome social prejudices and human pride?
1:4 Knowing what Paul is about to ask of Philemon, this certainly smells like buttering up.
1:8,9 A nice touch, and seemingly sincere
1:10 Wow, I didn't expect to find this so touching.
1:20 Hmm I wonder what other requests could reasonably be made under this logic.
So here's the mystery of this disappointingly brief book: who was Onesimus? What connection did Paul feel with him, or was this a matter of principle, Paul making a point about the relationship between slaves and their masters? Paul's sincerity pours off the page here, in a way that one seldom sees elsewhere in his writings, so I choose to believe the former: that Onesimus was indeed a remarkable fellow, and special to Paul in some way. Is he the same Onesimus that later became bishop of Ephesus? That seems highly dubious, but a fascinating line of inquiry. In the dogma of the early church, would the power of love and equality as expressed by Christ and, to a lesser extent, by Paul, be strong enough to overcome social prejudices and human pride?
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Titus
After several years of this project, I feel like the end is really in sight. Only ten books to go after this, most of them pretty brief, but at least one of which promises to be impossible to parse.
1:1 Paul's greeting here is markedly less warm and familiar than certain others, especially those to Timothy.
1:2 And where exactly did God make this promise of eternal life? I suppose it could be inferred out of certain passages in the Hebrew texts, but it is certainly not self-evident.
1:7 Bishop and Elder seem to be used interchangeably here. I am curious about first century ecclesiastical hierarchy. When did such distinctions develop, and whose idea were they?
1:10,11 In this, widely regarded as Paul's last letter, we still find the specter of circumcision. What possible "sordid gain" could advocates of such a practice hope for? Are they like modern moyls in New York who form an influential guild? Such a thing seems unlikely.
1:15 Now here is a fascinating verse, one that is open to a whole range of theological interpretation. If "to the pure, all things are pure", as indeed Paul has indicated in other books with regard to consumption of things sacrificed to idols, how far does this principle extend? Exactly how far can someone get in the name of good intentions? For that matter, if to the corrupt all things are corrupt, then the idea of conversion, salvation, and generally trying to better one's self takes on a gloomily futile note.
1:16 Rather than taking such a thing too far, however, it seems Paul simply means that we shouldn't trust the godly words/deeds of ill-indended people.
2:1-9 It is interesting to notice the different lights in which Paul views the members of the congregation. Theoretically, what is good is good, whether one is a master or slave, male or female. However the only things that Paul seems to see as univserally desirable are chastity and self-control, having administered this directive to all four groups. Slaves and women are, of course, both advised to be reverent/obedient to those in authority, but it is perhaps advisable to file this with the other many examples of conextual and social influences on Paul's writing, and not to give it any particular theological weight. It is perhaps more revealing that Paul gives older women the additional directive to be kind, something that is evidently not required of men. Such a belief can not so easily be filtered out; the idea that kindness is a virtue is not a modern invention, and indeed permeates Jesus' theology. Lastly, I notice that younger women are not even mentioned, and can eveidently do whatever they like.
2:11-14 Paul is always concerned with purity and uprightness, but I don't recall it being quite so pervasive in his other writings. Such a focus is, of course, a marked reversal in tone from the Gospels, which focused on such external, positive things as charity, love, and forgiveness.
3:9-11 As strident as the above admonitions could seem, it is good that Paul dials it back a notch here. He is seemingly telling Titus no to take silly things too seriously, including the deluded words of others, and I find this approach much more in line with the Gospel than the combative direction in which he seemed to be heading.
3:13 As this seems to be Paul's last book before his death in Rome, it is a bit ominous that he is requesting Zenas the lawyer to be sent to him.
1:1 Paul's greeting here is markedly less warm and familiar than certain others, especially those to Timothy.
1:2 And where exactly did God make this promise of eternal life? I suppose it could be inferred out of certain passages in the Hebrew texts, but it is certainly not self-evident.
1:7 Bishop and Elder seem to be used interchangeably here. I am curious about first century ecclesiastical hierarchy. When did such distinctions develop, and whose idea were they?
1:10,11 In this, widely regarded as Paul's last letter, we still find the specter of circumcision. What possible "sordid gain" could advocates of such a practice hope for? Are they like modern moyls in New York who form an influential guild? Such a thing seems unlikely.
1:15 Now here is a fascinating verse, one that is open to a whole range of theological interpretation. If "to the pure, all things are pure", as indeed Paul has indicated in other books with regard to consumption of things sacrificed to idols, how far does this principle extend? Exactly how far can someone get in the name of good intentions? For that matter, if to the corrupt all things are corrupt, then the idea of conversion, salvation, and generally trying to better one's self takes on a gloomily futile note.
1:16 Rather than taking such a thing too far, however, it seems Paul simply means that we shouldn't trust the godly words/deeds of ill-indended people.
2:1-9 It is interesting to notice the different lights in which Paul views the members of the congregation. Theoretically, what is good is good, whether one is a master or slave, male or female. However the only things that Paul seems to see as univserally desirable are chastity and self-control, having administered this directive to all four groups. Slaves and women are, of course, both advised to be reverent/obedient to those in authority, but it is perhaps advisable to file this with the other many examples of conextual and social influences on Paul's writing, and not to give it any particular theological weight. It is perhaps more revealing that Paul gives older women the additional directive to be kind, something that is evidently not required of men. Such a belief can not so easily be filtered out; the idea that kindness is a virtue is not a modern invention, and indeed permeates Jesus' theology. Lastly, I notice that younger women are not even mentioned, and can eveidently do whatever they like.
2:11-14 Paul is always concerned with purity and uprightness, but I don't recall it being quite so pervasive in his other writings. Such a focus is, of course, a marked reversal in tone from the Gospels, which focused on such external, positive things as charity, love, and forgiveness.
3:9-11 As strident as the above admonitions could seem, it is good that Paul dials it back a notch here. He is seemingly telling Titus no to take silly things too seriously, including the deluded words of others, and I find this approach much more in line with the Gospel than the combative direction in which he seemed to be heading.
3:13 As this seems to be Paul's last book before his death in Rome, it is a bit ominous that he is requesting Zenas the lawyer to be sent to him.
Monday, March 18, 2013
2nd Timothy
1:1 Not sure what to make, if anything, of the shift from "loyal child" in 1st Timothy to "beloved child" here.
1:3 And even more so now that I perceive real emotion coming through here. I am especially touched by the relation of Timothy's matriarchal lineage, and find myself constructing a narrative of his life based on this one simple sentence. I recall that in reading 1st Timothy I was confused by Paul's instructions that Timothy remain chaste, even in the same breath as he said that such a thing was not generally necessary for those serving in positions of responsibility in the congregation. What was it about Timothy's case that called for heigthened restrictions? Specifically, of all the sins that Timothy might have been in danger of, why did Paul single this one out for him, seemingly in front of the entire congregation?
The easy answer is, of course, that Timothy's responsibilities were of such monumental import that he could afford the distraction of an Earthly family even less than the bishops or elders of the congregation could. That argument would indeed close the book on the question, but I am not in the habit of settling for the easy answer. I am reminded of the persistent hints, both textual and historical, that Paul may have been fighting against his own homosexuality. The evidence for such a supposition is embarassingly circumstantial, but let us wonder what it would mean were it true. It certainly does not seem much of a stretch to suppose that Timothy was in a similar struggle, and the their mutual war against the flesh is responsible, not only for their close bond, but also for Paul's rather pointed and public admonition.
1:7 And this reading would dovetail nicely with Paul's emphasis on self-discipline here.
1:12 Referent malfunction. What is "that day"? there is no day mentioned here. I am going to make an educated guess and suppose that Paul is referring to the imminent day of his own death.
1:18 Well, so much for that interpretation. this usage of "that day" is clearly not with any reference to Paul's death. I guess we will have to assume that Paul is referring to the so-called Judgement day in a way for which Timothy would need no explanation.
2:4-7 Paul seems to be talking in code here. What would be the "first share" to which he refers here, seemingly indicating that Timothy's reward will be greater than that given to others. And why does Paul then cryptically tell Timothy to let the Lord tell him what this means?
2:11-13 I am always interested to know from where Paul is quoting whenever he says something like this. It's not from the gospels anywhere that I recognize. I am especially curious in this case, because of the interesting turn at the end. Following the parallel structure that Paul so often enjoys, we might expect the last stanza to read "If we are faithless, he will be faithless toward us", but it does not. In which case, Paul seems to be using "faith" in the rather narrow sense of "belief in a god". If that interpretation holds, then this verse is merely a cute aphorism. But if faithfulness is being used in the more broad sense of "acting with good intent", then this becomes a piece of interesting theology--although it would then contradict the preceding verse, so I don't know that I can really support such a view. Never mind. This is a liveblog, so my ramblings don't always lead anywhere . . .
2:14 Paul, you seem to be reading my mind! I was just now "wrangling over words" as you say.
2:17 Okay, so here is a quandary. This resurrection has not been a central part of Paul's teaching, at least in the portions of it that have been preserved by history. So the fact that Hymenaeus and Philetus are censured for contradicting what is treated as an established doctrine makes one wonder what exactly the doctrine was. Even today, most religions have very different ideas about what resurrection means. What was Paul's exact take? Whatever it was, it was evidently established enough that he could disown specific individuals for contradicting it.
2:25 I don't know that Paul has followed his own admonition to correct opponents with gentleness here . . .
3:5 This has always been an interesting verse to me. What exactly does it mean to deny the power of godliness, or, in the translation I grew up with, to have a form of godly devotion, but to prove false to its power. I suppose one interpretation could be offered to the effect that such people don't allow the power of the gospel to transform them from the inside out, and I suppose that's as good as any.
3:6 "captivating silly women" is certainly a nice turn of phrase here, if emblematic of Paul's underlying misogyny
3:16 One of my favorite circular arguments. All scripture is inspired of God, and benefical for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight," in the translation I grew up with, not much different from the NISV here. But is this book included in the appelation "scripture"? If so, it's hardly a credible witness. . .
4:6 again, I find this verse unaccountably touching and poetic.
4:13 What could possibly be important about this cloak such that it needs to be brought to Rome from Ephesus. Even with the conveniences of modern travel, such a trip wouldn't be worth it . . .
In all, I enjoyed this book far more than its prequel. Thematically consistent, by turns poetic and strident, and genuinely touching. Timothy and Paul were lucky to have each other, whatever their relationship.
1:3 And even more so now that I perceive real emotion coming through here. I am especially touched by the relation of Timothy's matriarchal lineage, and find myself constructing a narrative of his life based on this one simple sentence. I recall that in reading 1st Timothy I was confused by Paul's instructions that Timothy remain chaste, even in the same breath as he said that such a thing was not generally necessary for those serving in positions of responsibility in the congregation. What was it about Timothy's case that called for heigthened restrictions? Specifically, of all the sins that Timothy might have been in danger of, why did Paul single this one out for him, seemingly in front of the entire congregation?
The easy answer is, of course, that Timothy's responsibilities were of such monumental import that he could afford the distraction of an Earthly family even less than the bishops or elders of the congregation could. That argument would indeed close the book on the question, but I am not in the habit of settling for the easy answer. I am reminded of the persistent hints, both textual and historical, that Paul may have been fighting against his own homosexuality. The evidence for such a supposition is embarassingly circumstantial, but let us wonder what it would mean were it true. It certainly does not seem much of a stretch to suppose that Timothy was in a similar struggle, and the their mutual war against the flesh is responsible, not only for their close bond, but also for Paul's rather pointed and public admonition.
1:7 And this reading would dovetail nicely with Paul's emphasis on self-discipline here.
1:12 Referent malfunction. What is "that day"? there is no day mentioned here. I am going to make an educated guess and suppose that Paul is referring to the imminent day of his own death.
1:18 Well, so much for that interpretation. this usage of "that day" is clearly not with any reference to Paul's death. I guess we will have to assume that Paul is referring to the so-called Judgement day in a way for which Timothy would need no explanation.
2:4-7 Paul seems to be talking in code here. What would be the "first share" to which he refers here, seemingly indicating that Timothy's reward will be greater than that given to others. And why does Paul then cryptically tell Timothy to let the Lord tell him what this means?
2:11-13 I am always interested to know from where Paul is quoting whenever he says something like this. It's not from the gospels anywhere that I recognize. I am especially curious in this case, because of the interesting turn at the end. Following the parallel structure that Paul so often enjoys, we might expect the last stanza to read "If we are faithless, he will be faithless toward us", but it does not. In which case, Paul seems to be using "faith" in the rather narrow sense of "belief in a god". If that interpretation holds, then this verse is merely a cute aphorism. But if faithfulness is being used in the more broad sense of "acting with good intent", then this becomes a piece of interesting theology--although it would then contradict the preceding verse, so I don't know that I can really support such a view. Never mind. This is a liveblog, so my ramblings don't always lead anywhere . . .
2:14 Paul, you seem to be reading my mind! I was just now "wrangling over words" as you say.
2:17 Okay, so here is a quandary. This resurrection has not been a central part of Paul's teaching, at least in the portions of it that have been preserved by history. So the fact that Hymenaeus and Philetus are censured for contradicting what is treated as an established doctrine makes one wonder what exactly the doctrine was. Even today, most religions have very different ideas about what resurrection means. What was Paul's exact take? Whatever it was, it was evidently established enough that he could disown specific individuals for contradicting it.
2:25 I don't know that Paul has followed his own admonition to correct opponents with gentleness here . . .
3:5 This has always been an interesting verse to me. What exactly does it mean to deny the power of godliness, or, in the translation I grew up with, to have a form of godly devotion, but to prove false to its power. I suppose one interpretation could be offered to the effect that such people don't allow the power of the gospel to transform them from the inside out, and I suppose that's as good as any.
3:6 "captivating silly women" is certainly a nice turn of phrase here, if emblematic of Paul's underlying misogyny
3:16 One of my favorite circular arguments. All scripture is inspired of God, and benefical for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight," in the translation I grew up with, not much different from the NISV here. But is this book included in the appelation "scripture"? If so, it's hardly a credible witness. . .
4:6 again, I find this verse unaccountably touching and poetic.
4:13 What could possibly be important about this cloak such that it needs to be brought to Rome from Ephesus. Even with the conveniences of modern travel, such a trip wouldn't be worth it . . .
In all, I enjoyed this book far more than its prequel. Thematically consistent, by turns poetic and strident, and genuinely touching. Timothy and Paul were lucky to have each other, whatever their relationship.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
1 Timothy
1:2 In addition to Paul's usual wishes of grace and mercy, he adds a blessing of mercy here. An interesting choice. What could have transpired in Timothy's life to make Paul perceive a need for mercy?
1:3 and also what were they teaching in Ephesus, such that Paul felt Timothy's presence there was needed? His letter to them didn't have the same warnings as certain other letters, and I found it mostly warm and uplifting, rather than admonitory.
1:4,7 His reference to genealogies and law makes me wonder if there wasn't a problem with Judaizers, such as he observed in other congregations.
1:16 Oh, this is elegant. Paul tiintroduced the idea of mercy ever so gently in his introduction, no doubt with the intention to develop it more fully here--but not as expected!
1:18 Here's another interesting bit of trivia. Evidently Paul received prophecies specifically with regard to Timothy's role. Could they be the very visions that he hinted at in his letter to the Ephesians, thus prompting him to station Timothy there?
1:20 And what does Paul mean by turning these two "over to Satan"? Simply that he has given up on them, in which case how could he possibly hope that they would "learn not to blaspheme", or is there some more complex metaphysical dynamic at work here?
2:2 Paul's first direction to Timothy is pretty bland. He asks for prayers that the authorities will leave them alone.
2:5 From where is Paul quoting here?
2:12 Paul's doctrine here not only grates, but it does not hold water. He speaks from his own authority, saying "I permit no woman to teach" instead of indicating that the directive comes from any higher source, but the usual source of Paul's authority--his sound logic and theology--does not hold up here. He cites as his reason that the woman was deceived and not Adam, but does that no make Adam more culpable than Eve?
3:1-13 Paul's qualifications for Bishop and Deacon are interesting, insofar as there is so little space between them. The main difference is that Bishops musn't be new converts for fear of being "puffed up with conceit". Is that really the only difference? Seniority?
3:16 I'm really curious whether Paul is quoting something here, or lapsing into verse. If the former, from where is he quoting? If the latter, is it any good?
4:1 And here's the meat of his theology for this book. The preceding directives are merely organizational in nature, but here he hits on the real point of his writing: that some are adding unnecessary proscriptions to the message. He calls it hypocrisy, though I don't know if that's accurate unless they themselves are taking wives and forbidding other to. At any rate, it makes the point of his outlining the qualifications for leadership clear. In Ch. 3 he makes a point of saying that deacons and bishops are not forbidden to marry, but they should in fact be married--only once.
5:2 This is not the first time Paul has reminded Timothy to remain chaste. I'm not clear on his standards here. If Timothy decided to get married, would it not fall in line with the qualifications set out in Ch. 3?
5:9 What list? The list of "actual widows"?
5:12 So a widow remarrying is proscripted?
5:19 this is an interesting translation of a familiar verse. In my upbringing, testimony from two or more witnesses was required in all cases. In this translation, it is only against elders that such heightened burden of proof is warranted.
5:24 I really like this verse. Indeed, some people sins (and good works, for that matter) follow them to the grave, others precede them there.
6:16 Wait a minute, hasn't Paul himself claimed to have seen Christ?
Man, this whole thing just doesn't feel like Paul to me. The faulty logic, the poetic interludes, the seeming inconsistencies. I just don't feel the same voice here.
1:3 and also what were they teaching in Ephesus, such that Paul felt Timothy's presence there was needed? His letter to them didn't have the same warnings as certain other letters, and I found it mostly warm and uplifting, rather than admonitory.
1:4,7 His reference to genealogies and law makes me wonder if there wasn't a problem with Judaizers, such as he observed in other congregations.
1:16 Oh, this is elegant. Paul tiintroduced the idea of mercy ever so gently in his introduction, no doubt with the intention to develop it more fully here--but not as expected!
1:18 Here's another interesting bit of trivia. Evidently Paul received prophecies specifically with regard to Timothy's role. Could they be the very visions that he hinted at in his letter to the Ephesians, thus prompting him to station Timothy there?
1:20 And what does Paul mean by turning these two "over to Satan"? Simply that he has given up on them, in which case how could he possibly hope that they would "learn not to blaspheme", or is there some more complex metaphysical dynamic at work here?
2:2 Paul's first direction to Timothy is pretty bland. He asks for prayers that the authorities will leave them alone.
2:5 From where is Paul quoting here?
2:12 Paul's doctrine here not only grates, but it does not hold water. He speaks from his own authority, saying "I permit no woman to teach" instead of indicating that the directive comes from any higher source, but the usual source of Paul's authority--his sound logic and theology--does not hold up here. He cites as his reason that the woman was deceived and not Adam, but does that no make Adam more culpable than Eve?
3:1-13 Paul's qualifications for Bishop and Deacon are interesting, insofar as there is so little space between them. The main difference is that Bishops musn't be new converts for fear of being "puffed up with conceit". Is that really the only difference? Seniority?
3:16 I'm really curious whether Paul is quoting something here, or lapsing into verse. If the former, from where is he quoting? If the latter, is it any good?
4:1 And here's the meat of his theology for this book. The preceding directives are merely organizational in nature, but here he hits on the real point of his writing: that some are adding unnecessary proscriptions to the message. He calls it hypocrisy, though I don't know if that's accurate unless they themselves are taking wives and forbidding other to. At any rate, it makes the point of his outlining the qualifications for leadership clear. In Ch. 3 he makes a point of saying that deacons and bishops are not forbidden to marry, but they should in fact be married--only once.
5:2 This is not the first time Paul has reminded Timothy to remain chaste. I'm not clear on his standards here. If Timothy decided to get married, would it not fall in line with the qualifications set out in Ch. 3?
5:9 What list? The list of "actual widows"?
5:12 So a widow remarrying is proscripted?
5:19 this is an interesting translation of a familiar verse. In my upbringing, testimony from two or more witnesses was required in all cases. In this translation, it is only against elders that such heightened burden of proof is warranted.
5:24 I really like this verse. Indeed, some people sins (and good works, for that matter) follow them to the grave, others precede them there.
6:16 Wait a minute, hasn't Paul himself claimed to have seen Christ?
Man, this whole thing just doesn't feel like Paul to me. The faulty logic, the poetic interludes, the seeming inconsistencies. I just don't feel the same voice here.
Monday, September 17, 2012
2nd Thessalonians
1:1 As this letter is supposed to have been written not long after Paul's previous epistle, it's not surprising that the introduction is the same, again focusing on grace and peace. It will be interesting to detect and extrapolate from any other perceived shifts in Paul's approach . . .
1:5 One wonders, then, about those who do not suffer quite so much. Are they unworthy of the kingdom?
1:6 I get the impression that Paul is mentioning something to which I don't have access. Otherwise, this is a bit of a leap in logic. Never mind the question of how just it is to repay suffering for suffering, something against which the congregation has no doubt been cautioned. I just mean wher is the rhetorical link with what he's discussing?
1:7,8 Whoa, there, nelly. This is a departure from his earlier message in the extreme. I don't recall Paul getting this worked up and brimstoney very often. No doubt a rhetorical appeal to the Thessalonians' baser human urge for vengeance.
2:3 It would be easy to take this as a prophecy, but it is not altogether clear that Paul means "the lawless one" to be The Lawless One, some sort of archetypal embodiment of rebellion. He could just as easily have been referring to lawless people in general.
2:4 Okay, now it's clear. So when does this happen, exactly? Was Paul ever dissapointed that he didn't see anything resembling the fulfillment of his urgent message?
2:6 They may know, but we certainly have no clue.
2:11,12 I have serious problems both with Paul's logic and with his theology. By Paul's reasoning, God has purposefully deluded some so that whose who are deluded can be comdemned. This makes no kind of sense. It's the "so" that really throws a spanner in it. Why is this divinely induced delusion a precondition?
3:6 No doubt a targeted messsage. I wonder how the intended target felt? Whether they were ashamed of their laziness, or angered at being singled out.
3:17 Now this is the thing that I find most troubling about this letter. Why on Earth would Paul see fit to draw attention to his handwriting here, and not in 1 Thessalonians? His opening is standard, and changes little across the course of all his letters. Why should this closing be so different? Unless somebody had something to prove.
Which brings us to the authenticity of this book. While widely regarded as authentically authored by Paul, there are some who notice the dramatic differences between it and his earlier letter. I tend to agree with this; 1st Thess. was solicitous, warm and upbuilding in the extreme. This letter seems violently angry by comparison. Paul was human, and subject to flights of emotion, no doubt, but these letters just do not feel like they were writeen by the same person. And would Paul ever be guilty of such sloppy logic as found in 2:12? Lastly, what about that closing?
For that matter, do we really care whether the Paul or some associate wrote this letter (possibly going so far as to forge his handwriting)? For those who take this to be the literal inspired word of God, such a question would be of monumental importance and, of course, would never even be supposed.
1:5 One wonders, then, about those who do not suffer quite so much. Are they unworthy of the kingdom?
1:6 I get the impression that Paul is mentioning something to which I don't have access. Otherwise, this is a bit of a leap in logic. Never mind the question of how just it is to repay suffering for suffering, something against which the congregation has no doubt been cautioned. I just mean wher is the rhetorical link with what he's discussing?
1:7,8 Whoa, there, nelly. This is a departure from his earlier message in the extreme. I don't recall Paul getting this worked up and brimstoney very often. No doubt a rhetorical appeal to the Thessalonians' baser human urge for vengeance.
2:3 It would be easy to take this as a prophecy, but it is not altogether clear that Paul means "the lawless one" to be The Lawless One, some sort of archetypal embodiment of rebellion. He could just as easily have been referring to lawless people in general.
2:4 Okay, now it's clear. So when does this happen, exactly? Was Paul ever dissapointed that he didn't see anything resembling the fulfillment of his urgent message?
2:6 They may know, but we certainly have no clue.
2:11,12 I have serious problems both with Paul's logic and with his theology. By Paul's reasoning, God has purposefully deluded some so that whose who are deluded can be comdemned. This makes no kind of sense. It's the "so" that really throws a spanner in it. Why is this divinely induced delusion a precondition?
3:6 No doubt a targeted messsage. I wonder how the intended target felt? Whether they were ashamed of their laziness, or angered at being singled out.
3:17 Now this is the thing that I find most troubling about this letter. Why on Earth would Paul see fit to draw attention to his handwriting here, and not in 1 Thessalonians? His opening is standard, and changes little across the course of all his letters. Why should this closing be so different? Unless somebody had something to prove.
Which brings us to the authenticity of this book. While widely regarded as authentically authored by Paul, there are some who notice the dramatic differences between it and his earlier letter. I tend to agree with this; 1st Thess. was solicitous, warm and upbuilding in the extreme. This letter seems violently angry by comparison. Paul was human, and subject to flights of emotion, no doubt, but these letters just do not feel like they were writeen by the same person. And would Paul ever be guilty of such sloppy logic as found in 2:12? Lastly, what about that closing?
For that matter, do we really care whether the Paul or some associate wrote this letter (possibly going so far as to forge his handwriting)? For those who take this to be the literal inspired word of God, such a question would be of monumental importance and, of course, would never even be supposed.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
1st Thessalonians
I have a lot of expectation for this book, as it is widely regarded as the first composed of Paul's epistles, and plan to approach it with an eye out for ideas that seem not yet fully-formed. Perhaps it will yield some insight into Paul's thought process, as well as his theology.
1:1 Working from that assumption, it is worth noting that Paul's salutation does not differ significantly from that of Colossians, written perhaps 30 years later. His messages of grace of peace thus appear as constants, and one could look to them as a framework for his theology. Maybe.
1:2-5 likewise, the main difference in his introductory comments is that he has met the Thessalonians in person, and does not seem to have met the Colossians at the time of the writing.
1:6-10 Paul seems less confident than in later writings, and seems to spend a lot of time flattering his audience, and . . .
2:1-12 trying to establish his own credibility. Either he is gearing up for some serious reprimanding, or he is less secure in his relationship with the Thessalonians than with the Colossians--all the more remarkable considering his personal establishment of the congregation there.
2:16 One wonders what wrath Paul could be referring to. If the dating were different, I would assume he meant the fall of Jerusalem to Roman armies in 70 C.E., but 1st Thess. seems to predate that.
3:1-4 Another possibility occurs to me, that Paul is really worried about the congregation, due to some intense persecution, and the primary purpose of this letter is just to encourage them. In which case, I would expect little in the way of theological explication.
3:10 This is the closest he has come to anything resembling admonishment: that he wants to strengthen whatever may be lacking in their faith.
4:4 Now we get to the dirt: he urges them to be in control of their bodies, and free from lust. Much different than the lofty, mental focus of Colossians--at least the first 3 chapters.
4:15 Now this is interesting. It is certainly revealing that this early work contains such a strong emphasis on physical resurrection. I would be curious to look back and see how much weight this arguably less noble idea gets in his more mature works.
5:6 And this cry for watchfulness, this warning of "sudden destruction", could also be expected to get less page time thirty years later.
5:8 Perhaps a seminal form of the more developed thought found in Ephesians at least 20 years later.
5:23 Paul speaks of spirit and soul as though they are different things . . . or is it just poetic stylizing?
The part of this that I find most compelling is the mention of resurrection in the last half of the 4th chapter, not only because it's the only real theology going on here, but also because it is so blatantly pandering, and so conspicuously absent in some later letters. It seems altogether likely that messages of impending and sudden destruction would lose their weight after thirty years, and also that as Paul aged he shifted his focus to more noble/lofty things.
1:1 Working from that assumption, it is worth noting that Paul's salutation does not differ significantly from that of Colossians, written perhaps 30 years later. His messages of grace of peace thus appear as constants, and one could look to them as a framework for his theology. Maybe.
1:2-5 likewise, the main difference in his introductory comments is that he has met the Thessalonians in person, and does not seem to have met the Colossians at the time of the writing.
1:6-10 Paul seems less confident than in later writings, and seems to spend a lot of time flattering his audience, and . . .
2:1-12 trying to establish his own credibility. Either he is gearing up for some serious reprimanding, or he is less secure in his relationship with the Thessalonians than with the Colossians--all the more remarkable considering his personal establishment of the congregation there.
2:16 One wonders what wrath Paul could be referring to. If the dating were different, I would assume he meant the fall of Jerusalem to Roman armies in 70 C.E., but 1st Thess. seems to predate that.
3:1-4 Another possibility occurs to me, that Paul is really worried about the congregation, due to some intense persecution, and the primary purpose of this letter is just to encourage them. In which case, I would expect little in the way of theological explication.
3:10 This is the closest he has come to anything resembling admonishment: that he wants to strengthen whatever may be lacking in their faith.
4:4 Now we get to the dirt: he urges them to be in control of their bodies, and free from lust. Much different than the lofty, mental focus of Colossians--at least the first 3 chapters.
4:15 Now this is interesting. It is certainly revealing that this early work contains such a strong emphasis on physical resurrection. I would be curious to look back and see how much weight this arguably less noble idea gets in his more mature works.
5:6 And this cry for watchfulness, this warning of "sudden destruction", could also be expected to get less page time thirty years later.
5:8 Perhaps a seminal form of the more developed thought found in Ephesians at least 20 years later.
5:23 Paul speaks of spirit and soul as though they are different things . . . or is it just poetic stylizing?
The part of this that I find most compelling is the mention of resurrection in the last half of the 4th chapter, not only because it's the only real theology going on here, but also because it is so blatantly pandering, and so conspicuously absent in some later letters. It seems altogether likely that messages of impending and sudden destruction would lose their weight after thirty years, and also that as Paul aged he shifted his focus to more noble/lofty things.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Liveblogging the Bible: Colossians
1:1 One can't help but wonder what exactly Timothy's role was in the composition of this letter. Was he simply an amanuensis? An editor? A co-contributor? Or simply a comrade who wished to add his greetings to Paul's?
1:3 The use of the plural here seems to suggest that Timothy's role was more substantial than one might think, which raises theological questions. Paul has yet to indicate that this letter is directly inspired (as he does elsewhere), an omission which does not stop some from taking this as the literal, word-for-word transmission of a divine message. If one chooses to take it thus, is Timothy also inspired of God?
1:7 Was Epaphras, therefore, the originator of the congregation in Colossae, if it was from him that they first heard the message?
1:9-14 Paul's wishes here are interesting, more for what is not included than for what is. He wishes them to have gifts of wisdom/knowledge/understanding, and strength/endurance patience. His mention of forgiveness and good works are results of these other two elements, not independent of them.
1:15 Appositive referent problem. Is "the firstborn of all creation" meant to refer to Christ, or God?
1:20 In what way are those things in heaven in need of Christ's redemption?
1:23 This is a quid pro quo that is incompatible with common understandings of salvation. The audience here is saved "provided that [they] continue securely established and steadfast . . ." And if they don't, what becomes of that salvation? Some would argue that those who do not continue were never saved, but that would render Paul's argument invalid.
1:24 And what could possibly have been lacking in Christ's afflictions, such that Paul has to suffer them for him. Seems like a bit of poetic license, rather than a point of doctrine.
2:1 This confirms the suspicion in 1:7
2:3,4 Again this focus on knowledge. Paul is far to canny and conscious of his audience to have done this offhandedly. He is clearly writing for the purpose of purifying their doctrine, and specifically to root out some unknown "plausible arguments" that are not in sync with the party line.
2:6 One could try to infer then, what exactly he is trying to correct about their doctrine, by seeing what gets the bulk of his time. In this case, it seems to be the idea of the ransom, and of Christ's headship of the congregation.
2:11-15 This is Pauline rhetoric at its very best. He appeals to the Colossians on multiple emotional fronts, all while giving his case a sound logical underpinning.
2:18 and this confirms that Paul's goal is primarily to focus their attention on Christ, and deter them from developing a sort of pantheon, or an independent order that subscribes to harsher standards as an expression of piety. Both of these are things that Catholics are guilty of in abundance, naturally.
3:5 This is a lovely job of wrapping worship of lesser deities and self-abasement in the same cloth as fornication and wrath, in that all of them are of earthly concern. A nice taxonomy, that brooks no argument, especially as nice as Paul has set it up in the preceding chapters.
3:17 And if he stopped right here, I would have no argument with him . . .
3:18-25 But he didn't. After all of the beautiful and sound rhetoric of the preceding chapters, he loses his way here. He has just convinced his audience to focus only on spiritual things, that everything physical has no real meaning. Yet here he brings it back to the physical realm again, and loses some of his credibility.
4:1 And of course, I see no way to justify this by Paul's own logic. It has no place in a treatise on distancing oneself from the physical realm. Not to mention the fact that it is morally repulsive.
4:12 Evidently their own founder, Epaphras, was with him at the time of the writing, no doubt mentioned tactically.
4:16 And is this letter to the Laodiceans less inspired, such that it has been lost?
4:18 Well, that lets Timothy off the hook as an amanuensis. And he could scarcely have been mentioned just as a way to tender his regards, insofar as somehow Timothy's contribution to this letter deserved greater mention than these others named here. Which leaves the other two possibilities . . . I can't help but wonder if that section that seems so out of place with the rest bears his mark somehow.
1:3 The use of the plural here seems to suggest that Timothy's role was more substantial than one might think, which raises theological questions. Paul has yet to indicate that this letter is directly inspired (as he does elsewhere), an omission which does not stop some from taking this as the literal, word-for-word transmission of a divine message. If one chooses to take it thus, is Timothy also inspired of God?
1:7 Was Epaphras, therefore, the originator of the congregation in Colossae, if it was from him that they first heard the message?
1:9-14 Paul's wishes here are interesting, more for what is not included than for what is. He wishes them to have gifts of wisdom/knowledge/understanding, and strength/endurance patience. His mention of forgiveness and good works are results of these other two elements, not independent of them.
1:15 Appositive referent problem. Is "the firstborn of all creation" meant to refer to Christ, or God?
1:20 In what way are those things in heaven in need of Christ's redemption?
1:23 This is a quid pro quo that is incompatible with common understandings of salvation. The audience here is saved "provided that [they] continue securely established and steadfast . . ." And if they don't, what becomes of that salvation? Some would argue that those who do not continue were never saved, but that would render Paul's argument invalid.
1:24 And what could possibly have been lacking in Christ's afflictions, such that Paul has to suffer them for him. Seems like a bit of poetic license, rather than a point of doctrine.
2:1 This confirms the suspicion in 1:7
2:3,4 Again this focus on knowledge. Paul is far to canny and conscious of his audience to have done this offhandedly. He is clearly writing for the purpose of purifying their doctrine, and specifically to root out some unknown "plausible arguments" that are not in sync with the party line.
2:6 One could try to infer then, what exactly he is trying to correct about their doctrine, by seeing what gets the bulk of his time. In this case, it seems to be the idea of the ransom, and of Christ's headship of the congregation.
2:11-15 This is Pauline rhetoric at its very best. He appeals to the Colossians on multiple emotional fronts, all while giving his case a sound logical underpinning.
2:18 and this confirms that Paul's goal is primarily to focus their attention on Christ, and deter them from developing a sort of pantheon, or an independent order that subscribes to harsher standards as an expression of piety. Both of these are things that Catholics are guilty of in abundance, naturally.
3:5 This is a lovely job of wrapping worship of lesser deities and self-abasement in the same cloth as fornication and wrath, in that all of them are of earthly concern. A nice taxonomy, that brooks no argument, especially as nice as Paul has set it up in the preceding chapters.
3:17 And if he stopped right here, I would have no argument with him . . .
3:18-25 But he didn't. After all of the beautiful and sound rhetoric of the preceding chapters, he loses his way here. He has just convinced his audience to focus only on spiritual things, that everything physical has no real meaning. Yet here he brings it back to the physical realm again, and loses some of his credibility.
4:1 And of course, I see no way to justify this by Paul's own logic. It has no place in a treatise on distancing oneself from the physical realm. Not to mention the fact that it is morally repulsive.
4:12 Evidently their own founder, Epaphras, was with him at the time of the writing, no doubt mentioned tactically.
4:16 And is this letter to the Laodiceans less inspired, such that it has been lost?
4:18 Well, that lets Timothy off the hook as an amanuensis. And he could scarcely have been mentioned just as a way to tender his regards, insofar as somehow Timothy's contribution to this letter deserved greater mention than these others named here. Which leaves the other two possibilities . . . I can't help but wonder if that section that seems so out of place with the rest bears his mark somehow.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Liveblogging the Bible: Ephesians
The end of this undertaking is in sight, which means, if I approach it the way I usually do things, I will probably begin taking it seriously again.
1:3 I already like this book; Paul alerts us early that it's not about Christ at all, except tangentially.
1:4 Of course, if it treats this topic, namely predestination, it's bound for a sticky theological undertaking . . .
1:9 I can't help but think that Paul is using the royal "we" here, that when he says ". . . has made known to us" he is referring to his own personal revelations.
1:18 again, seemingly referring to a vision that he alone has witnessed, and hoping it for those he considers his brothers and sisters.
2:1 I'm feeling unaccountably moved by Paul's words here, by the tone of hope and charity that he is adopting. Really a contrast to some of his other letters.
2:5 a nice echo of 1:20, and a continuation of that as a metaphor
2:15 there is a definite pronoun blurring here, and I am a little reminiscent for the capitalization of "he" when it refers to God. That would clear up when Paul is talking about God, as opposed to Christ, although Paul himself seems to pass liquidly from one referent to the next. Does Paul really mean to say that Christ himself has broken down the walls, or that God has done it through Christ? If the former, it brings in an interesting question of agency.
3:3 Of course, there is little hope of the exact nature of this vision being made known. If it is at all as revelatory as Paul indicates, it is likely to be impossible to put into words. It occurs to me that John and Paul saw the same thing, but either John foolishly put it into words where Paul knew it could not be done, or John was able to put something into words that Paul couldn't quite grasp.
3:6 Or is it really just a simple truth that was revealed, as it was to Peter: that Gentiles and Jews are now one body in the eyes of God?
3:9 He certainly seems to indicate that there is more to it: a future plan, a mystery . . .
4:1 This is a much better framework for the works/faith question than we have seen elsewhere. The salvation of the Spirit is a done deal. Just try to be worthy of it.
4:16 If only Paul knew how disappointingly unable humans are of fulfilling his wish here, at least for any length of time.
4:25 Paul is hitting on what may the only universal truth here: that what is good for you is good for me, not because you are my brother, but because you are me.
4:30 and this ties nicely with what is said in 4:1. Rather than "do not sin", he tells them not to make the Holy Spirit sorry for its gift. . .
5:10 I love that he urges them to "try to find out what is pleasing in the Lord," rather than commanding them. He knows that sin is unavoidable.
5:21 before any mention of subjection to husbands, he instructs the Ephesians to be subject to one another. How is it possible for both people in a relationship to be the slave, and for both to be the master? That is the very definition of love.
5:22 which makes it difficult to reconcile this verse.
5:32 " great mystery" indeed, one that many spend a lifetime puzzling out.
5:33 He does seem to present a subtle double standard here. What is the difference between loving one as one's own body, as husbands are instructed to do, and respecting that person, as wives are directed?
6:2 not sure that what he says here holds water: Surely there are other commandments with promises, and compared to the weight Christ gave "love one another" et al.
6:4 although, reading further, this whole chapter just seems to one long "for example;"
6:13 What evil day? This is his first mention of it here, but he acts as if they will know what he is talking about.
6:13-17 I love this translation of a passage that was familiar to me in my youth. He makes it more clear here that he is speaking, not of a laundry list of qualities, but of focusing one's energy on what will make the Spirit proud.
6:22 Who are "we"? Paul in the royal here again, or is somebody with him?
1:3 I already like this book; Paul alerts us early that it's not about Christ at all, except tangentially.
1:4 Of course, if it treats this topic, namely predestination, it's bound for a sticky theological undertaking . . .
1:9 I can't help but think that Paul is using the royal "we" here, that when he says ". . . has made known to us" he is referring to his own personal revelations.
1:18 again, seemingly referring to a vision that he alone has witnessed, and hoping it for those he considers his brothers and sisters.
2:1 I'm feeling unaccountably moved by Paul's words here, by the tone of hope and charity that he is adopting. Really a contrast to some of his other letters.
2:5 a nice echo of 1:20, and a continuation of that as a metaphor
2:15 there is a definite pronoun blurring here, and I am a little reminiscent for the capitalization of "he" when it refers to God. That would clear up when Paul is talking about God, as opposed to Christ, although Paul himself seems to pass liquidly from one referent to the next. Does Paul really mean to say that Christ himself has broken down the walls, or that God has done it through Christ? If the former, it brings in an interesting question of agency.
3:3 Of course, there is little hope of the exact nature of this vision being made known. If it is at all as revelatory as Paul indicates, it is likely to be impossible to put into words. It occurs to me that John and Paul saw the same thing, but either John foolishly put it into words where Paul knew it could not be done, or John was able to put something into words that Paul couldn't quite grasp.
3:6 Or is it really just a simple truth that was revealed, as it was to Peter: that Gentiles and Jews are now one body in the eyes of God?
3:9 He certainly seems to indicate that there is more to it: a future plan, a mystery . . .
4:1 This is a much better framework for the works/faith question than we have seen elsewhere. The salvation of the Spirit is a done deal. Just try to be worthy of it.
4:16 If only Paul knew how disappointingly unable humans are of fulfilling his wish here, at least for any length of time.
4:25 Paul is hitting on what may the only universal truth here: that what is good for you is good for me, not because you are my brother, but because you are me.
4:30 and this ties nicely with what is said in 4:1. Rather than "do not sin", he tells them not to make the Holy Spirit sorry for its gift. . .
5:10 I love that he urges them to "try to find out what is pleasing in the Lord," rather than commanding them. He knows that sin is unavoidable.
5:21 before any mention of subjection to husbands, he instructs the Ephesians to be subject to one another. How is it possible for both people in a relationship to be the slave, and for both to be the master? That is the very definition of love.
5:22 which makes it difficult to reconcile this verse.
5:32 " great mystery" indeed, one that many spend a lifetime puzzling out.
5:33 He does seem to present a subtle double standard here. What is the difference between loving one as one's own body, as husbands are instructed to do, and respecting that person, as wives are directed?
6:2 not sure that what he says here holds water: Surely there are other commandments with promises, and compared to the weight Christ gave "love one another" et al.
6:4 although, reading further, this whole chapter just seems to one long "for example;"
6:13 What evil day? This is his first mention of it here, but he acts as if they will know what he is talking about.
6:13-17 I love this translation of a passage that was familiar to me in my youth. He makes it more clear here that he is speaking, not of a laundry list of qualities, but of focusing one's energy on what will make the Spirit proud.
6:22 Who are "we"? Paul in the royal here again, or is somebody with him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)